Asylum Seekers.

Well I'll get stuck into that one over breakfast. But for now, I was want to make clear that what I said about some comments was not actually at you SixthStitch, it was actually at some other people who indulged in stereotypes and spouted sensationalist and extremely emotive one-liners that just missed the point completely. Now whether you already knew that or not, I thought I'd make it clear.

Isn't the difference between being a minor or an adult about 7 years in a detention centre or something? Can you blame them?

*looking at the Aaron's post*
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

*weeps* you KNOW I can't help myself, I have to address as much detail as possible. Now you've set me a challenge: To respond in less than bible's length.

Gawds, I know what I'll be doing tonight when I get home (Sorry daughter, no bed time reading tonight, daddy has to blah blah on the net)

Just a quickie before I go. Re the teens lying about their age. I don't doubt that there are SOME that lie, but the reason why I challenged this was that, like in some of your other posts, you make claims that are implicit generalisations (ie the lying thing, without including some, most, or a few, etc), foreclosing other possibilities. Without knowing for sure if that is what you meant (because we know that text based discussions has its limitations. Just think how much quicker all this would be over a beer in a pub! Or tea, or whatever ), you could say I'm interrogating your meaning and choice of words for sake of verifying your claim. I'll talk more about minor's lying about their age later (it'll be brief, i swear!)

JMort, ya, I knew that your observation wasn't levelled at me. I just felt the need to echo your thoughts and add a bit of my own

Coming soon: Wall of text.

this conversation has gotten so heated i can't even find my own post to work out whether anyone agreed with it!

_______________________________________________________________________

Chapter 1... (just kidding)

As far as I am aware there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. [1]  

Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents.

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.

It is also incorrect to refer to asylum seekers as migrants. A migrant is someone who chooses to leave their country to seek a better life. They decide where they migrate to and they can return whenever they like. Refugees are forced to leave their country (for reasons stipulated in the Refugee Convention of 1951)  and cannot return unless the situation that forced them to leave improves (and so on).

An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applies to the government of another country for protection as a refugee.

Some people may argue that the Refugee Convention is dated and that Australia should remove itself as a signatory or encourage a revision of the Convention to accommodate increasing global movements of people (as suggested by Scott Morrison in a speech November 2010), or perhaps contest international law with domestic policy, and those are valid things to discuss, BUT, as it stands, Asylum Seekers are not ‘illegal’, recognised by the Australian government as evidenced by their signature on the Refugee Convention.    

I want to know why Aaron (and anyone else) persists in referring to asylum seekers, or asylum seekers that come by boat, as illegals.    

This prevarication, unless justified through evidence that supports the contrary, only exacerbates further demonisation of a minority group (one that is fleeing persecution), no thanks to the symbiotic relationship between the triumvirate of media, politics and an ill-informed public (note: An extremely contentious generalisation here, but reluctantly used to bring to attention on how the public are mostly informed on matters).

If you want an example of ‘illegals’ in Australia, I can point to Visa overstayers. As at June 30 2009 there were 48, 700 visa overstayers in Australia. (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/popflows2008-09/ ). Interestingly, the largest groups of overstayers are from the UK and USA...(http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/stats-02.html)

Ok.

Before I attend to the rest of Aaron’s input, I’d like to point the obvious out that the Asylum Seeker issue (or non-issue, for some) is so complex and contentious that (IMO) it can’t be reduced down to one feature, one fact or one moral absolute. It should not be considered in terms of black and white. It entails human rights, economic cost, international relations, history, geography, media, public attitudes, interpretation of and adjudicating priority to conflicting laws, morals and ethics, transparency, and more.... It can be exhausting to discuss, and if this were not a forum devoted to the issue of animals, I would break this topic down into many subtopics, e.g. people smugglers, government policy. Anywho, this will have to suffice.

I do hope that within the exchange of ideas here and elsewhere that people not conflate disagreement on a claim/point with the extremity of its polar opposite (e.g if you disagree with mandatory detention, then you must want to ‘open the gates’ and let anyone in willy nilly). To assume is to make an ass out of u and me both - or to something of that effect  


_______________________________________________________________________



__Unchanging Views__
I’m always open to new ideas Aaron, and I don’t need you to produce a flawless argument (flawless to whom? ) for me to consider your points and change my views accordingly. A good argument with sufficient evidence will suffice [2]

I hope you don’t misinterpret my questioning of your claims as something common for someone arguing from the ‘opposite side’ (though I don’t see it as sides). No, I request verification of claims because I want to know how and why you know what you know in order to assess your position and the grounding of your views. You are the first person of those I’ve encountered over the years (i.e people that are not so tolerant of asylum seekers) that has actually backed up most of what you claim (which prior to yourself, has been extremely infuriating), despite the contentious nature of sources.    

I disagree that the corporate media only allows for one view - go watch Fox News and then MSNBC(?)  [or specifically, Keith Olbermann vs Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest of faux news] - if that’s what you mean? Fun fun. Education system...well, I don’t know what that view is so I can’t really comment? I would like to think that we live in a pluralist society (but not of static equal parts), but I do agree however that it’s closed minded to demand everyone to be open minded in a particularly close-minded open-minded way

______________________________________________________________________




___Children seeking asylum___
Correlation does not equal causation. It is perfectly reasonable to not make a premature conclusion of causation between two events without considering the multitude of other factors first. [3]

It’s not to say that your correlations aren’t without merit. Correlations can -suggest- causation, but it’s good practice to err on the side of caution and question as much as the phenomena as you can to get a more comprehensive picture. You simply do not know for sure why there has been a spike in children coming over by boat. It could be because Julia Gillard pledged to move most children out of locked, guarded facilities and into community detention by June 2011’, or when the Labor government stupidly froze the processing of afghan and Sri-Lankan asylum seekers for 6 and 3 months respectively back in April last year as a punitive measure without making extra provisions for burgeoning detention centres. Or it could be both. Or maybe it could be that the Taliban in Afghanistan are still around after all these years and that the US are slowly withdrawing their troops from the area. While correlations may -appear- obvious so as to point to a casual relationship, they can also be misleading and void of other contributing factors.

You simply do not know if ‘they’ are trying to manipulate the system, but conversely it shouldn’t be ruled out as a possibility. Maybe it’s just a few bad apples that are doing it. Or maybe boat operators are instructing them in the ways of bettering their chances. Who knows for sure? As for lying about their age, ‘may’ is a big difference than stating it as an absolute. Following the context of this, I did not think my “prove it” request implied that it's “unthinkable” that they might be manipulating the system. I admit it was curt, but it was a direct response to a generalisation. So...”prove it” somehow implies that if you can’t prove that at least one adult lied about their age, then no one is lying about their age? C’mon dude, cut me some slack

As for the baby bonus, well yes, it seems likely that the government’s initiative may have pushed birth rates up, though an an article from the Australian plays down the government’s bonus. [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/baby-bonus-failing-to-deliver/story-e6frg6nf-1111117119032] . I did not research further to verify the Australian’s piece, so I will not rule out suggested causality of the correlation.

However. The baby bonus issue is far more quantifiable for investigation than asking families abroad why unaccompanied young’ins are being sent off. Your claims on this issue (and ensuing generalisations), which are manipulation of the system, deceit, and an absence of parental duty of care and morals encouraged by ‘soft’ Labor policy (read: supposed incentives) still remain, other than an appeal to correlation, unsubstantiated... but cannot be entirely ruled out. It is one view, possibly a suspicious or inflammatory one, and it should be considered when entertaining other views. In keeping in the spirit of our laws, however, and perhaps Australian values (whatever they may be, depends on who I ask), I think adhering to the theme of “innocent until proven guilty” gives greater credibility to our strength of character and to our national practices. I think it would do us well to investigate the who, what, where when and why before jumping to conclusions, no matter how convenient two sets of data correlate with one another. These are peoples lives we are dealing with here.            

________________________________________________________________________



____People Smugglers____
Very possible. While the current statistic is somewhere between 70-90% asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees (though I need to investigate more on how this is ascertained and what is the process of determining whether someone or not is a refugee.)[Source: Future Seekers; Refugees and Irregular Migration in Australia, Mary Crock, Ben Saul & Azadeh Dastyari. See also facts sheets issued by the Department of Parliamentary Services], I do agree that the profiteering nature of people smugglers and attracting less legitimate people, despite this number being low,  really f****s things up for everyone else. But, how do you combat that? How do we address future fears? It’s hardly fair on the poor saps that get duped by the boat operators (assuming they are legitimate asylum seekers) that they get turned around or incarcerated, so what should (and what does) happen to boat operators when they get caught? [4]

edit: I read recently that most people smugglers get sent back to Indonesia. Have to verify this.

ABC news article on two people smugglers talking about enticement, like you said. Interesting read: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/02/2971338.htm

_______________________________________________________________________



__Indonesia__
The technicality stands, but you are right on the work of the UN. [5] I found this:

“In Indonesia, due to the absence of national refugee legislation and procedures, UNHCR continues to be the primary provider of protection and assistance to refugees and asylum-seekers, undertaking responsibility for registration, RSD and the search for durable solutions. UNHCR will continue assisting the Government in preparing for its planned accession to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Efforts to build national capacity will be advanced by a programme of country-wide training sessions.”
(http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e488116.html)

I’m not entirely sure what they do specifically and how it relates to Indonesian practices, but I do know that Australia and Indonesia had an arrangement where Indonesia would hold asylum seekers for Australia, or just send them back to their country of origin without processing their claim. I’m not too familiar with this area and I’ll have to research it and get back to you.  I did find this, however:

“They [Indonesia's top military officers and high-ranking government officials] insisted that Indonesia would not become a dumping ground for what they saw as Australia's problem, pointing out that asylum seekers can spend up to 10 years in Indonesia waiting for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to resettle them in another country.“
(http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/rudd-took-indonesia-for-granted-over-asylum-seekers-20091117-ijwo.html).

I think the Indonesian government allows the UN operate within their country and take care of Asylum seekers, rather they do it themselves?  

Again, I’ll have to read up further on this.


________________________________________________________________________




___[6] Claim of men pushing women off sinking ship and taking life jackets____
I don’t know what you mean by ‘it’s no wonder the rest of the media didn’t report it’ (paraphrase)? I’ll take the eyewitness testimony recorded in one notorious newspaper, with a pinch of salt. Just like how the Daily Telegraph ran a story in Jan before the Sydney funeral was to take place that claimed dozens of asylum seekers were on the run having escaped from an immigration detention facility, with fears they were being supported by underground networks, splashed in large text on the front page. Five days later the daily telegraph issued a clarification on page 56 in small text which said that the escapees were not asylum seekers afterall. This is one of many examples of this paper getting it wrong, and you can imagine how damaging this kind of misinformation was. Yes all papers do get it wrong sometimes, and their clarifications and amendments should match the size of their respective original articles, but the Daily Telegraph...well, I’ll say no more.  

Let’s assume, however, it is true, that these actions did happen (curiously the specifics of the account are largely absent.). Again, how do you know their motivation was because of women’s inferior status and/or not being able to swim or giving into self-preservation? Yes, women and children SHOULD always come first in these situations, just like rape, paedophilia, murder, and theft SHOULD never happen Australia. But it does. That’s because people, regardless of their background, are fallible. Perhaps moreso when under extreme circumstances. This does not mean that I condone/excuse behaviour or practices that go against morals and ethics that I embrace, but I do want and try to understand the bigger picture and the consequences of jumping to a conclusion before thinking it through.

I don’t like religion, and I don’t know enough about Islam. I also don’t like the subjugation of women, be it due to religion, ethnicity or whatever, but I AM willing to give individuals, groups, cultures etc a chance, in the same way that I don’t judge all meat-eaters for being complicit in the subjugation and exploitation of animals. I -try- not to let preconceived ideas get in the way of critical inquiry and understanding (though this does not necessitate acceptance). But Islam is another topic altogether.


_________________________________________________________________________



     
____[7]The use of hotels___

I'm going to assume you're saying "all good and well that you're putting AS's in hotels, but what about the homeless?

What I hope you're NOT saying is "charity begins at home", because someone ALWAYS goes for the “charity begins at home” mantra.

Charity is not something that should be considered in terms of "us" and "them". If we are being responsible members of the human community we should seek ways to assist __all__ those in need. The plight of the homeless and asylum seekers are both worthy of our charity and compassion, and it does not mean they are mutually exclusive, much in the same way veg*ns are subjected to “Why don’t you care about human rights?” and implying that veg*ns A. don’t care about human rights, and B. should prioritise human rights.    

The homeless are indeed unfortunate and equally problematic, but that is not for this topic discussion.

And I agree, it IS a costly procedure (keeping peeps in motels); detention centres much more so. And this ties into with everything else surrounding the issue of ASylum Seekers.



______________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

It may be. I can’t find statistics on the rejected.

But wouldn’t that be insensitive and racist to claim they haven’t had a hard life? Many of those who ARE rejected (55%) have left their families and sold everything to come in to a strange foreign country where they don’t know anyone. Who are we to say they don’t deserve asylum just because we don’t like their skin colour?

(yet it’s no surprise to me (under this government) that those most eager to work, bring skills and integrate best into Australia are the first to be rejected)

The point is if you come by boat you have almost a 100% success rate. How would that sound to someone who is stuck in Indonesia with over 15,000 of cash? Documentation or no documentation, persecution or no persecution, you have the cash, you’ll almost certainly be approved.

I’m not talking exclusively about a visa. I mean any type of documentation. If you can bring thousands dollars you can bring a little documentation. They destroy their documentation (at the advice of the boat operators) so that they can’t be sent back. And it works.
BTW illegal advocates seem to always want it both ways, “these people cant get documentation” but “these people destroy documentation because of X Y Z…” “these people never lie” but  “these people have to lie because X Y Z..”

There is an issue with misrepresentation. When you choose to take illegal means to enter a country ripping up documentation or lying about your age, alarm bells should ring. This is a system that asks refugees to decide their own means and status. It is a system that resulted in the profitable deaths of 200 people and will soon cause many more to die..  This is the system of complete chaos. It’s the system that you support.

And how do you know they are all legitimate? The answer is, You Don’t. You just have to trust the system run by a government who hasn’t got a clue.

“figures show that, while most Afghan boatpeople did indeed fail at the first instance, the vast majority of those - 75 per cent - went on to succeed on appeal.”
So most ARE rejected but later succeed at the appeal. How strange. Can you explain what is going on?
I also have heard of instances where asylum seekers who have already been rejected simply go to another country and try again.  http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68c4380.html

may I offer this solution to you sixth and tarkine.
I'd seriously like you to consider this

Why dont we go to Indonesia where they are all awaiting processing.
Ask for those who have $10,000plus to meet elsewhere
Offer them a safe trip to Aus and fast tracked processing with a 98% chance of approval in return for their cash.
Use cash for their flights and processing, saving taxpayers and we dont get any of those dirt poor refugees who will be stay in Indonesia until we run out of those with money (sorry guys)

Oh crap. I need to finish my reply.

Side note, News.com only draws from newspapers that belong to News Ltd OR come from AAP. Nothing from Fairfax or other non-News Ltd sources.

Back in a few.

Alright, so the plan is to respond to the rest of Aaron's thoughts on Google Doc (since it is straying towards a private conversation), and post some responses to other peeps and my thoughts in AR and AS here.

I have to admit, this thread really took it out of me. I would  look at the ridiculous length it got to and groan. Most of what we say (and it is a lot!) is laden with assumptions, beliefs and different interpretations on stuff, and I'm a sucker for calling each and every thing into question, because it really does matter. The problems surrounding the asylum seeker issue are soooo multi-faceted. It involves prejudice, facts, ideology, psychology, politics, morality and ethics, and well, I think I've covered this before.

The principal reason why I asked if peeps saw a connection with the way society regards animals and their attitudes to asylum seekers, is that -and this is the ultra short version- I'm finding much of language and frame of argument used to oppose to asylum seekers to be one of dehumanisation, to treat them as the other, the stranger, i.e not one of us. To dehumanise is to take away legitimacy, moral status and value, much in the same way that animals are deemed and treated as 'not human', and I don't mean in the literal sense. If one is dehumanised, then what is one compared, or referred, to?  Do get what I'm saying? I'm probably floundering here, but I'd be more than happy to elaborate.