Rudd Assylum Seeker Policy

[simpak]

Bullshit. If I was treated like a second class citizen for so long, I'd riot too. Solidarity to my brothers on Nauru.

Okay, but do you not see how counterproductive the riot was?  It's not like they were going to riot and magically be let in to the country, now they have to put up with worse conditions and less hygiene/comfort than they had previously.  Even if you are unhappy with the way they were detained previously you can't think that removing the buildings that had once detained them so that they can now be detained in tents is a sufficient outcome.  And surely you can see that burning down/destroying property via violence is not really incentive for them to be processed and granted access to Australia any faster - it's incentive to prolong their detainment.

[Yeezus]

Okay, but do you not see how counterproductive the riot was?  It's not like they were going to riot and magically be let in to the country, now they have to put up with worse conditions and less hygiene/comfort than they had previously.  Even if you are unhappy with the way they were detained previously you can't think that removing the buildings that had once detained them so that they can now be detained in tents is a sufficient outcome.  And surely you can see that burning down/destroying property via violence is not really incentive for them to be processed and granted access to Australia any faster - it's incentive to prolong their detainment.

It's not so easy to sit down and shut up when you're being treated like a criminal.

You know what they do with boat people in Italy? Radical idea, they let them in. Refugees are the most hard working people I've met, you don't get any being bludgers. They work their socks off and contribute to our society.

[vox nihili]

It's not so easy to sit down and shut up when you're being treated like a criminal.

You know what they do with boat people in Italy? Radical idea, they let them in. Refugees are the most hard working people I've met, you don't get any being bludgers. They work their socks off and contribute to our society.

That's not always been true. Italy was one of the most awful countries to asylum seekers. Their waters were policed 24/7 and they would arrest and imprison any Albanians that tried to cross the border.

[Russ]

What? Italy has a terrible track record of treating its asylum seekers badly and returning them to countries they're fleeing from

[Yeezus]

What? Italy has a terrible track record of treating its asylum seekers badly and returning them to countries they're fleeing from

Source?

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.

[vox nihili]

Source?

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.

By land area it is smaller, but that's not really an accurate way to look at the situation. Its population is almost three times the size of ours.


Not a really clear picture of how they deal with boat arrivals, but it gives some idea and shows that they're not accepting refugees as has been suggested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-15/thousands-of-asylum-seekers-flood-italian-island/1943002

I watched a documentary on it a couple of years back. They spend a huge amount of money and pour a huge amount of resources into "protecting" their borders.

[Yeezus]

By land area it is smaller, but that's not really an accurate way to look at the situation. Its population is almost three times the size of ours.


Not a really clear picture of how they deal with boat arrivals, but it gives some idea and shows that they're not accepting refugees as has been suggested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-15/thousands-of-asylum-seekers-flood-italian-island/1943002

I watched a documentary on it a couple of years back. They spend a huge amount of money and pour a huge amount of resources into "protecting" their borders.

Don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country?

How can you say they are not accepting refugees when the stats are right there, 2011: 61,000 arrivals by boat. It's not up for debate.

[thushan]

That's the number of people who come in. That's not the number of people who are accepted.

[vox nihili]

Don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country?

How can you say they are not accepting refugees when the stats are right there, 2011: 61,000 arrivals by boat. It's not up for debate.

The ability to take extra people isn't predicated on the space that the country has for them in terms of area, it's more about the country's existing infrastructure. A higher population would probably suggest that there is more habitable space. Governments also tightly immigration so as to regulate population growth. If the amount of refugees accepted is based on the proportion of population, the bigger the overall population, the larger the number in real terms. Traditionally, poorer countries take on far more refugees than anybody else.

[Professor Polonsky]

Bullshit. If I was treated like a second class citizen for so long, I'd riot too. Solidarity to my brothers on Nauru.

Doesn't matter. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and as a first-class citizen. Anything less is unacceptable.

They are not citizens of Australia, nor even nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens, quite simply because they are not. It is a sovereign entity, and thus its only interest should be its nationals. If they believe that it should let in asylum seekers, then it can do that. But it is under no obligation to.

Yeh t-rav that seems real likely, men and women (and children no less) getting on a shonky boat to risk their lives for a dollar.

Then why do they come to Australia? They are mostly Iranian. Do you know anything about Iran? Beyond a couple of minority groups, I really can't fathom a legitimate refugee from Iran.

It's not so easy to sit down and shut up when you're being treated like a criminal.

They came to Australia without legal authorisation (which many of them could have sought), preferring to arrive unauthorised by boat. What do you suggest we do, let anyone who comes in by boat right into the country? You'll see millions of arrivals in a matter of years. Their claims need to be assessed.

You know what they do with boat people in Italy? Radical idea, they let them in. Refugees are the most hard working people I've met, you don't get any being bludgers. They work their socks off and contribute to our society.

No, they don't. And same, actually. I actually know a few Sudanese refugees. They went to UNHCR in Egypt, applied for an Australian visa and got here.

Source?

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.

You're a moron. That's ARRIVALS BY BOAT, not how many people they let in or accepted. For all that document tells us, they may turn around all of them.

Don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country?

How can you say they are not accepting refugees when the stats are right there, 2011: 61,000 arrivals by boat. It's not up for debate.

You don't see what population has to do with letting people into a country. Wow. Okay.

Actually, it is up to debate. The number of boat arrivals in 2012 was 17202, and will be over 50000 this year according to the government.

[vox nihili]

They are not citizens of Australia, nor even nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens, quite simply because they are not. It is a sovereign entity, and thus its only interest should be its nationals. If they believe that it should let in asylum seekers, then it can do that. But it is under no obligation to.

On this point, before you get mauled for it by everyone. We are actually under an obligation to accept genuine refugees. As a signatory to the refugee convention, by international law we are required to accept refugees irrespective of how they make it to Australia. That's why this has caused a stir because it's seen as ignoring that legal responsibility. I'd say the government thinks that it has circumvented it though by actually providing them with a place of settlement. They'll think that will be what the voters take from it, though if they were ever held to account (though we wouldn't be) I doubt that it would hold.

[Professor Polonsky]

On this point, before you get mauled for it by everyone. We are actually under an obligation to accept genuine refugees. As a signatory to the refugee convention, by international law we are required to accept refugees irrespective of how they make it to Australia. That's why this has caused a stir because it's seen as ignoring that legal responsibility. I'd say the government thinks that it has circumvented it though by actually providing them with a place of settlement. They'll think that will be what the voters take from it, though if they were ever held to account (though we wouldn't be) I doubt that it would hold.

It's our choice, as a sovereign nation, to be a signatory to the Convention. We could withdraw from it at any time we like. There is also no enforcement mechanism.

To anticipate the next reply: Yes, elements of it are considered customary international law. But firstly, the same sovereignty argument applies. And secondly, even if we accept its validity... There are repeat offenders of international law out there who get completely ignored, I think people will move on from this one.

[Russ]

Source?

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

In 2011, boat arrivals to Italy: 61,000 Australia: 4,000 and Italy is far far smaller than Australia.

Other people have pointed out how that's a bad metric for assessing it but with respect to their terrible track record here are three commentaries spread out across the last decade:

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/february/human-rights-court-slams-italian-migration-policy/73682.aspx
http://www.internationallawobserver.eu/2010/05/04/italys-asylum-policy-violates-international-law/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3719528.stm

[vox nihili]

It's our choice, as a sovereign nation, to be a signatory to the Convention. We could withdraw from it at any time we like. There is also no enforcement mechanism.

To anticipate the next reply: Yes, elements of it are considered customary international law. But firstly, the same sovereignty argument applies. And secondly, even if we accept its validity... There are repeat offenders of international law out there who get completely ignored, I think people will move on from this one.

You're right, it is our choice to sign to the convention. Having said that though, I don't think that refugees post any threat to our sovereignty whatsoever. The rhetoric in this country about refugees is astonishing at times. We forget far too quickly our own stories.

[Professor Polonsky]

That's true, and I fully support an expansion of our humanitarian visa program.

However, the meteoric rise in unauthorised arrivals by boat - what we got in a year in 2011 we now get in a month - surely represents a problem. Not only are we propping up people smugglers, the system is unable to cope with it - it'd be impossible to assess so many claims.