Rudd Assylum Seeker Policy

[ninwa]

@Polonium, it is a treaty and not customary international law but rather actual international law and therefore harder to make an argument for ignoring it.

Secondly, there ARE enforcement mechanisms, although they are necessarily not as strong as domestic ones due to the horizontal nature of international law. Look up the jurisprudence on Australia's multiple breaches of its obligations to refugees, and look up also the repeated criticisms from other states and from UN experts of Australia's refugee policies during the Universal Periodic Reviews (admittedly, from some rather hypocritical states, but nonetheless)

Thirdly, "we can withdraw any time we like" is a piss weak argument for overtly flouting it. Either withdraw, or observe it if you're going to sign up for it.

Fourthly, the fact that Australia is a signatory to international law instruments and is a participant in the system necessarily suggests that we have given up some of our sovereignty in order to benefit from the international law system. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to benefit from being able to pick on Japan's whaling policy in the one hand and scream "sovereignty" on the other when it's turned back on you. Sovereignty is another piss weak argument and sounds like another attempt to grasp at straws by the right wing bogans who don't want those dirty "sand niggers" polluting our "boundless plains to share".

Fifthly, repeat offenders are NOT "ignored" and I suggest you do more research into the enforcement mechanisms that exist and the nature and history behind the int law system that prevents the stronger, more coercive systems that you are used to in a domestic context.

[lala1911]

In related but unrelated news, the processing centre in Nauru has been burnt down by riots.

And people are still arguing to allow immigrants into the country? These are the sort of people that we're allowing into Australia.

[vox nihili]

And people are still arguing to allow immigrants into the country? These are the sort of people that we're allowing into Australia.

That's an awful statement. The diversity of Australia and our immigration history is one of the best things about it.

[Yeezus]

And people are still arguing to allow immigrants into the country? These are the sort of people that we're allowing into Australia.

Rofl, you're all happy and dandy when you have your writers festival type reffo but not your western suburbs of Sydney type.

Such hypocrisy that you'll watch your Ahn Do's of the world on TV and praise 'straya  for being such a land of opportunity but then not give two shits about people who can't take the systematic bullshit any more and revolt.

If it were up to me, we would be allowing as many people into the country as possible from poorer countries. They add so much.

[Professor Polonsky]

@Polonium, it is a treaty and not customary international law but rather actual international law and therefore harder to make an argument for ignoring it.

Secondly, there ARE enforcement mechanisms, although they are necessarily not as strong as domestic ones due to the horizontal nature of international law. Look up the jurisprudence on Australia's multiple breaches of its obligations to refugees, and look up also the repeated criticisms from other states and from UN experts of Australia's refugee policies during the Universal Periodic Reviews (admittedly, from some rather hypocritical states, but nonetheless)

Thirdly, "we can withdraw any time we like" is a piss weak argument for overtly flouting it. Either withdraw, or observe it if you're going to sign up for it.

Fourthly, the fact that Australia is a signatory to international law instruments and is a participant in the system necessarily suggests that we have given up some of our sovereignty in order to benefit from the international law system. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to benefit from being able to pick on Japan's whaling policy in the one hand and scream "sovereignty" on the other when it's turned back on you. Sovereignty is another piss weak argument and sounds like another attempt to grasp at straws by the right wing bogans who don't want those dirty "sand niggers" polluting our "boundless plains to share".

Fifthly, repeat offenders are NOT "ignored" and I suggest you do more research into the enforcement mechanisms that exist and the nature and history behind the int law system that prevents the stronger, more coercive systems that you are used to in a domestic context.

Depending on how the Convention is read, you could say we're ignoring it right now - as are most Western countries. While I'm not suggesting we actually withdraw from it, it is in need of serious reform.

It is a State's right to pick and choose which international treaties it wishes to be bound by. Australia can enter into any treaty, or choose not to enter into it. They are completely separate from each other. The US is not a signatory to the Convention, for example.

The only international organs which hold any power to adequately enforce international law are the SC and the ICJ, with the latter needs the former's approval of any enforcement (see Nicragua v. US). All other organs' enforcement powers are farcical. To be quite frank, the UNHRC not only has zero power, but also zero credibility. If you're getting yelled at by the UNHRC, you're doing the right thing. And that's about all that they can do, anyway - yell.

[ninwa]

To be quite frank, the UNHRC not only has zero power, but also zero credibility. If you're getting yelled at by the UNHRC, you're doing the right thing. And that's about all that they can do, anyway - yell.

That is not true. Australia has heeded UNHRC views on numerous occasions (when it doesn't concern refugee policy).

[M_BONG]

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Wow. Your insensitivity towards the issue is just appalling.
Just read through what you have just said: "Australia is a sovereign entity and thus its only interests should be its nationals" and therefore Australia "shouldn't treat those people as any class of citizens"
Aren't we bound by the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights - which, by the way, Australia had a great role in creating? Isn't the fundamental premise of the treaty that all humans, regardless of arbitrary grounds, be treated equally? When you come up and say that Australia's "ONLY" interests should be its nationals, you are showing what kind of a selfish prick you are, tbh. Seriously, if your logic worked, Australia shouldn't have entered Afghanistan, pursued anti-whaling missions at the ICJ or even pusued a non-permanent seat in the SC. Why? Because it does not benefit Australians in the domestic context.

"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."
Remind me again: who are you? When about 90-95% of refugee arrivals are actually deemed genuine refugees by the AFP (or some other body), who are you to undermine the legitimacy of these asylum seekers? Honestly, you just show yourself to have no empathy for these people - people who do it tough in their home countries. Your generalisation that most Iranians, and other refugees, would risk their life, board a leaky boat, be parted from their families to come to Australia and "strike it rich" shows how little humanity and empathy you really have. If you are going to risk your life, why would you go to another country that would potentially endanger you? Yes: Australia is becoming a people-smuggler haven - we definitely need to curb that, but that does not warrant you making such a comment.


"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."

Well.. yes, refugees' claims have to be assessed. If legitimately done, these should take MONTHS at most. Not years (in manycurrent  cases). And seriously I don't know what you are complaining for. Considering we taxpayers pay $300 to keep criminals incarcerated each day, why are you displaying bigotry to these refugees - a relatively small proportion of the population? Why are you not complaining about prisoners wasting all our money? Because they are "citizens"? Because they are "Australian"?

"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. "
Yup cool story. Because a few Sudanese refugees can speak for the whole crowd.

[ninwa]

Oh wow, I didn't see this before and I'm disgusted

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.

Who would "prefer" to arrive via a leaky boat that could capsize any time? If their home country's situation were not so bad, would they be willing to risk their lives to escape?

I did some basic refugee work during summer semester, and I think this status I posted about it fits well here:

Today I spent an hour sorting through a bunch of asylum seeker and humanitarian visa applications. Yes, those evil "boat people" who allegedly threaten the very sovereignty of our nation.

In just one hour, I read about applicants with family members beaten up because of their religion or ethnicity. Fathers kidnapped and murdered on the way to work. Primary school-aged children disappearing on the way to school and never heard from again. Mothers, sisters and daughters raped for committing the heinous crime of being female. Best friends kidnapped for having different political views. Houses and farms destroyed by thugs because of their race or religion. Fatwas issued by extremist groups crying for an entire ethnicity to be wiped out. Living day to day in fear that the next time your family walked down the road they would be blown up by a suicide bomber.

These people had their family contribute their entire savings to pay a people smuggler to get the one person out in search of a better place.

To those who say, "well why don't they apply via the proper avenues?" - do you know how long a typical application takes via the Department of Immigration? 16 months. Most of those files dated back from 2009 and have still not been resolved.

Yes, why don't you go and say "apply properly and wait at least 16 months" to the widowed mother with 5 dependent daughters who cannot even go outside for fear of being raped, beaten up or killed because she has no males to accompany her. Say it to the Shia family who are not legally recognised in their OWN country and whose government wouldn't even lift a finger to punish the thugs who destroyed their home because they are the "wrong" type of Muslim. Say it to the family who fears to leave their house because there is a jihad against their ethnicity. Say it to the mother whose son "disappeared" for daring to apply to relocate the family.

I love this country, but fuck you, Australian government, for not giving a shit about your fellow suffering humans, and fuck you to everyone who agrees with them.

[vox nihili]

I'm seeing the title for the Greens' campaign, ninwa...

I love this country, but fuck you, Australian government, for not giving a shit about your fellow suffering humans, and fuck you to everyone who agrees with them.

[lala1911]

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

I completely agree with you.
Also, the fact that you're doing EAL is beyond me.

[Professor Polonsky]

I'll consolidate my response to both M_BONG and Nina into one post.

The principle that a country's foremost obligation is to its nationals is one that I will ardently hold onto. Perhaps it was wrong to say that its only ethical obligation is its citizenry, as obviously there are things which are plainly wrong and a minimum moral threshold does exist.

However, your suggestion that "all humans should be treated the same" is an outright joke. If that is the case, then we should be giving away almost all of our wealth away as foreign aid. We enjoy a very high standard of living here in Australia, while in other countries humans are starving to death. If we really had an equal obligation to every single person, this would not be the case. We would be spending a lot less than 99% of our money on ourselves.

The examples which you gave do not support your point. Australia joined the War in Afghanistan to support the United States in collective self-defence against the attack by a group which is supported and provided aid and comfort by the Afghani government. There was no humanitarian consideration here.

Australia initiated a legal case against the Japanese whaling operation in the ICJ as the Australian citizenry deemed it prudent. Australia pursued a seat on the Security Council mostly to enhance our standing in the world, not the other way around.

I am not doubting that life in other countries is shit. That people would be willing to risk their lives in order to enjoy the comforts of living in a Western country. I'm also saying, however, that we are not bound, neither should we, accept all of them.

This goes to the very basic question of "Why do we accept refugees?" In my view, not every person who lives a disadvantaged life is a genuine refugee. By the very broad standard some have advocated in this thread, we owe an obligation to just about every person living in a developed country - especially going by the status Nina posted.

Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights by a government, which boil down to the most fundamental human rights. Furthermore, for resettlement in a third country, relocating back to your original country cannot be an option due to ongoing persecution.

[vox nihili]

I think it's probably worthwhile saying at this point that rioters have done a lot less damage to this world than xenophobes.

[Yeezus]

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.

Who gives two shits?

Honestly, they're fucking human beings of kingdom Animalia.

[spectroscopy]

are there any other people who were refugees on this board whose country they came from was bad and had the sorts of things that ninwa talked about in her post, that get really upset at asylum seekers who dont go through the proper motions at refugee camps and just get on the boat?
all this asylum seeker stuff makes people in my community/family angry because instead of waiting in the camp for years and doing everything properly the asylum seekers get on a boat.
here in australia people can argue "thats so insensitive" but seriously in countries with lots of people leaving you have the people that go to refugee camps and put up with the shit for ages then get through properly, and then you have the families that choose to get on the boats instead which in some cases can shortcut the process by a year.

[M_BONG]

I'll consolidate my response to both M_BONG and Nina into one post.

The principle that a country's foremost obligation is to its nationals is one that I will ardently hold onto. Perhaps it was wrong to say that its only ethical obligation is its citizenry, as obviously there are things which are plainly wrong and a minimum moral threshold does exist.

However, your suggestion that "all humans should be treated the same" is an outright joke. If that is the case, then we should be giving away almost all of our wealth away as foreign aid. We enjoy a very high standard of living here in Australia, while in other countries humans are starving to death. If we really had an equal obligation to every single person, this would not be the case. We would be spending a lot less than 99% of our money on ourselves.

The examples which you gave do not support your point. Australia joined the War in Afghanistan to support the United States in collective self-defence against the attack by a group which is supported and provided aid and comfort by the Afghani government. There was no humanitarian consideration here.

Australia initiated a legal case against the Japanese whaling operation in the ICJ as the Australian citizenry deemed it prudent. Australia pursued a seat on the Security Council mostly to enhance our standing in the world, not the other way around.

I am not doubting that life in other countries is shit. That people would be willing to risk their lives in order to enjoy the comforts of living in a Western country. I'm also saying, however, that we are not bound, neither should we, accept all of them.

This goes to the very basic question of "Why do we accept refugees?" In my view, not every person who lives a disadvantaged life is a genuine refugee. By the very broad standard some have advocated in this thread, we owe an obligation to just about every person living in a developed country - especially going by the status Nina posted.

Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights by a government, which boil down to the most fundamental human rights. Furthermore, for resettlement in a third country, relocating back to your original country cannot be an option due to ongoing persecution.

You obviously have a very narrow scope of equality. Equality does not have to refer to living standards: it can refer to intangible things such as dignity, due process (ie. not detained arbitarily) and much more. Your red herring on "equality means we have to give all our money away" actually made me laugh.

When I used the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right as an example, I did so because you said Australia should not treat refugees as citizens. I used the treaty as an example because it is inarguable that specific treaty is one of the most important rights document. As Australia is a signatory to it, it should respect the content of that treaty: which demands equality (Not merelywealth, like you stated): but instead, important processes such as dignity, due process etc., should be afforded to all citizens, not just Australians, because that is what the treaty actually stipulates.

Oh and: thank you for addressing all the examples that I used. I merely used them as examples to show how your point that Australia's only concern should be of its legal citizens was nonsense : perhaps you misunderstood my point?

And I never said refugee status should be granted to all. You seem to have that perception. Yes - I absolutely agree with you that "Refugee status needs to be reserved to the cases of very serious and systematic abuses of human rights": what is that to say that this is not so with the current situation? Yes - there may be some so called "economic refugees" (people who only want a better life) but Australia's current intake is mostly genuine refugees, as per a threshold set by the Department of Immigration & Citizenship (~90% arrivals are granted refugee status). My advice to you is: look at the bigger picture, by providing asylum to X amount of genuine refugees (which inevitably will contain 'economic refugees'), the greater good is served. We have a moral duty to do so.


Finally I think perceptions of refugees arriving by boat being "queue jumpers" and thereby illegal are simply not right. Desperate times call for desperate measures - these refugees probably do not even know that what they are doing is illegal. They just want to get out.  The system surely needs to be fixed: but suggestions that we should incarcerate "queue jumpers" because other people "put up with shit" in refugee camps (as perhaps, a punishment and deterrent) has no real basis.