Asylum Seekers

[Hawkforce]

Who woulda thunk it?

Asylum falling around the world

Asylum seekers recently arriving on the Italian island of Lampedusa
The number of asylum seekers coming to the industrialised world fell by a fifth in 2004 to its lowest level in 16 years, according to the United Nations.
The refugee agency says applications fell by 40% since a high in 2001.

snip

Europe's asylum trends
The Russian Federation continues to produce the most asylum applicants in the industrialised world, followed by Serbia and Montenegro and China.

However, the number of asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Iraq continued to fall - the two nations formerly having produced some of the largest movements of people into Europe in recent years.

The number of Afghans seeking asylum has dropped by 83% since 2001 while Iraqi asylum applications have fallen by 80% since 2002. These falls have coincided with regime changes in both countries.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

W

The number of Afghans seeking asylum has dropped by 83% since 2001 while Iraqi asylum applications have fallen by 80% since 2002. These falls have coincided with regime changes in both countries.

Nothing to do with the fact that most established western countries refuse to grant asylum to refugees from there?

 

[rick James]

Nothing to do with the fact that most established western countries refuse to grant asylum to refugees from there?

Actually know, because is it talking about asylum seekers not neccessarily genuine refugees.

The report is referring to those who actually land on a country, whether they are granted refugee status or not is irrelevant.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Actually know, because is it talking about asylum seekers not neccessarily genuine refugees.

The report is referring to those who actually land on a country, whether they are granted refugee status or not is irrelevant.

I know, but surely the chances of being granted asylum would have a fair effect on the amount of people attempting to claim refugee status?

 

[Hawkforce]

Anyone got a spare straw for Freo to clutch at?

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Anyone got a spare straw for Freo to clutch at?

I'm sorry, I forgot voting protected you from suicide bombers and gunfire. My mistake.

 

[rick James]

I know, but surely the chances of being granted asylum would have a fair effect on the amount of people attempting to claim refugee status?

Well if the chances of being acccepted are coming into it, the people seeking asylum don't really have a right to refugee status anyway.

If you're a refugee, you're leaving because it was the only choice, not because you thought you'd get in.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Well if the chances of being acccepted are coming into it, the people seeking asylum don't really have a right to refugee status anyway.

If you're a refugee, you're leaving because it was the only choice, not because you thought you'd get in.

True. I simply figured that;

The number of Afghans seeking asylum has dropped by 83% since 2001 while Iraqi asylum applications have fallen by 80% since 2002. These falls have coincided with regime changes in both countries.

took both legitimate and erroneus applications into account.

Hawkowitz here in all his wisdom is trying to make a political point, when really you'd find that the reduction comes down to stricter immigration policy (eg. the Australian government refusing to accept a large majority of applications from Iraq and Afghanistan because there is nothing in those countries to flee from apparently).

 

[rick James]

Hawkowitz here in all his wisdom is trying to make a political point, when really you'd find that the reduction comes down to stricter immigration policy (eg. the Australian government refusing to accept a large majority of applications from Iraq and Afghanistan because there is nothing in those countries to flee from apparently).

But that is flawed logic, as this relates only to seekers. Not those granted Visa's. Whether people are accepted or not does not come in to it. It could be for a few reason though other than the one the OP has implied:

1. I would assume that border security on these countries is super-tight at the moment for terrorism reasons. not to mention the large cache of biological weapons attempting to be smuggled from Jordan into Iraq last year.

2. Conditions in a lot of iraq and Afghanistan ARE improving, at least beyond that were civilians would be killed for no reason or dsiagreeing with teh govnerment. this reduced the number of people who would have any real grounds for refugee status. iraqi's and Afghans are not stupid when it comes to poltiics, it is basically their national sport. They realise they have no grounds to be accpeted in many cases at this point in time.

 

[Hawkforce]

True. I simply figured that;




took both legitimate and erroneus applications into account.

Hawkowitz here in all his wisdom is trying to make a political point, when really you'd find that the reduction comes down to stricter immigration policy (eg. the Australian government refusing to accept a large majority of applications from Iraq and Afghanistan because there is nothing in those countries to flee from apparently).

You didn't really think this through did you?

The whole point about Asylum seekers is that they flee persecution.

Perseuction is a real thing. Oppression is a real thing. People flee from it. They go to refugee camps, or seek political asylum in other countires.

THey don't stay where they are thinking "Oh, I'll just stick with this persuction cos now the West doesn't reckon I have a reason to seek asylum".

Are the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis leaving refugee camps and returning home doing so because the refugee camps don't think they're necessary?


You need to have a good long think about why you immediately react to any post that indicates good coming from the Afghani and Iraqi liberations. YOu don't have to give up your principled objections to those wars in order to do so.

But if you can't, then you are not principled - you are just blind.


From the Guardian

This leaves opponents of the Iraq war in a tricky position, even if the PM is not about to rub our faces in the fact. Not only did we set our face against a military adventure which seems, even if indirectly, to have triggered a series of potentially welcome side effects; we also stood against the wider world-view that George Bush represented. What should we say now?

First, we ought to admit that the dark cloud of the Iraq war may have carried a silver lining. We can still argue that the war was wrong-headed, illegal, deceitful and too costly of human lives - and that its most important gain, the removal of Saddam, could have been achieved by other means. But we should be big enough to concede that it could yet have at least one good outcome.

Second, we have to say that the call for freedom throughout the Arab and Muslim world is a sound and just one - even if it is a Bush slogan and arguably code for the installation of malleable regimes. Put starkly, we cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of opposing democracy in the Middle East simply because Bush and Blair are calling for it. Sometimes your enemy's enemy is not your friend.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

You didn't really think this through did you?

The whole point about Asylum seekers is that they flee persecution.

Perseuction is a real thing. Oppression is a real thing. People flee from it. They go to refugee camps, or seek political asylum in other countires.

THey don't stay where they are thinking "Oh, I'll just stick with this persuction cos now the West doesn't reckon I have a reason to seek asylum".

Are the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis leaving refugee camps and returning home doing so because the refugee camps don't think they're necessary?


You need to have a good long think about why you immediately react to any post that indicates good coming from the Afghani and Iraqi liberations. YOu don't have to give up your principled objections to those wars in order to do so.

But if you can't, then you are not principled - you are just blind.


]

Bollocks, they flee anything. War, fear, disease, Terrorism, Natural Disasters. The first four featuring fairly heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Oh the irony.Firstly, I'm about as moderate as they come (with regards to this board anyway). I supported the Liberation of Afghanistan, and I'm slowly moving in favour of a status quo involvement in Iraq now that the elections have been a success.

You make a blanket judgment using statistics. Do you have access to the figures from Sri Lanka? Ghana? Sudan? Vietnam? have they dropped in the same period? You may be right, you may be wrong. I'm not going to accept what you suggested until you can show me worldwide data on Asylum Seeker Applications to compare the numbers from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not arguing against the war, I'm arguing against peoples mistaken belief that Iraq and Afghanistan are safer places to live than before the war. They aren't, you're just getting killed by a different bunch of people.

 

[medusala]

Oh the irony.Firstly, I'm about as moderate as they come (with regards to this board anyway). I supported the Liberation of Afghanistan, and I'm slowly moving in favour of a status quo involvement in Iraq now that the elections have been a success.
.

That doesnt make you a moderate on Big Footy that makes you a rodent loving, rabid right redneck.

 

[Contra Mundum]

That doesnt make you a moderate on Big Footy that makes you a rodent loving, rabid right redneck.

Brother - you underestimate us

 

[Hawkforce]

Bollocks, they flee anything. War, fear, disease, Terrorism, Natural Disasters. The first four featuring fairly heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Asylum Seekers flee persecution - that's what makes them seek asylum. Refugees flee anything that threatens their lives.

Now there are %80 less asylum seekers, and refugees are swarming back to those countries.

What's changed for those people do you think?

Oh the irony.Firstly, I'm about as moderate as they come (with regards to this board anyway). I supported the Liberation of Afghanistan, and I'm slowly moving in favour of a status quo involvement in Iraq now that the elections have been a success.

Good to see that you've come on board re Iraq now its clear that Iraqis are just like white westerners and kinda like the whole democracy thing.

You make a blanket judgment using statistics. Do you have access to the figures from Sri Lanka? Ghana? Sudan? Vietnam? have they dropped in the same period?

If you click on the link I provided all your questions will be answered.

You may be right, you may be wrong.

Right/wrong about what?

I'm not going to accept what you suggested until you can show me worldwide data on Asylum Seeker Applications to compare the numbers from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I gave you a link - follow it!

I'm intrigued as to what you think I "suggested".

%80 fall in asylum applications from IRaq and Afghanistan, combined with the millions of refugees returning to those nations, seems to me irrefutable evidence that Iraqis and Afghanis prefer things now.

I'm not arguing against the war, I'm arguing against peoples mistaken belief that Iraq and Afghanistan are safer places to live than before the war. They aren't, you're just getting killed by a different bunch of people.

I'm not arguing at all that Iraq or Afghanistan are "safer". In fact, that's my whole point.

Despite the dangers, there is mass migration INTO those countries.

What has changed?


I'm a bit confused, Freo.

You referred to me as "hawkistan". You immediately made a judgement on my post, assuming a point and rejecting it out of hand.

Yet you claim to support the liberation of Afghanistan - but that support is less important than rejecting anything I say? You can't celebrate the clear, indisputable fact that the removal of the Taliban has allowed millions of refugees to return home?

Still, at least you had the guts to acknowledge this thread. You might have noticed that it's been given a very wide berth by those who otherwise have a lot to say about Asylum Seekers...

 

[skipper kelly]

Yes, I agree Hawkforce. The removal of Saddam is a good thing.

 

[Hawkforce]

Yes, I agree Hawkforce. The removal of Saddam is a good thing.

Not really the point SK. Sure, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's dependent on what replaces it.

The removal of the Shah of Iran was a "good thing" until he was replaced by a theocrat who murdered all his former secular allies in the revolution.

The removal of the Soviets from Afghanistan was a "good thing" until the power vacuum was filled by the Taliban.

I wouldn't have supported the liberation of Iraq if I didn't believe the US would create a democracy. That's what makes it "liberation".

Yes, removing Saddam was good, but creating a democracy, however embattled, is what has brought the refugees home and stopped those seeking asylum.

 

[Blues_Man]

Not really the point SK. Sure, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's dependent on what replaces it.

The removal of the Shah of Iran was a "good thing" until he was replaced by a theocrat who murdered all his former secular allies in the revolution.

The removal of the Soviets from Afghanistan was a "good thing" until the power vacuum was filled by the Taliban.

I wouldn't have supported the liberation of Iraq if I didn't believe the US would create a democracy. That's what makes it "liberation".

Yes, removing Saddam was good, but creating a democracy, however embattled, is what has brought the refugees home and stopped those seeking asylum.

yes and then theres the added bonus of getting one's hands on all that glorious oil !!!

 

[skipper kelly]

Not really the point SK. Sure, removing Saddam is a good thing, but it's dependent on what replaces it.

The removal of the Shah of Iran was a "good thing" until he was replaced by a theocrat who murdered all his former secular allies in the revolution.

The removal of the Soviets from Afghanistan was a "good thing" until the power vacuum was filled by the Taliban.

I wouldn't have supported the liberation of Iraq if I didn't believe the US would create a democracy. That's what makes it "liberation".

Yes, removing Saddam was good, but creating a democracy, however embattled, is what has brought the refugees home and stopped those seeking asylum.

There is still a long way to go in Iraq, obviously. But if those figures you quoted are true and accurate, and in real terms there are less people seeking asylum, then that is a positive.

What the true reasons behind the fall in applications are, are most likely not as clear cut as statistics tell us.

Could another factor in the fall of these applications be, (a) growing hatred towards the west? or (b) stricter control of asylum seekers?

Note: These questions are only alternative factors, of which I have no factual or statistical basis to support them as being true or real. I dont put them forward as being true or real. They are just alternatives to consider.

 

[- PC -]

A bit like you SK I have a lot of supposition but no stats

I think Government policy not only here but all over the world is kicking in.

I think ''liberation'' has actually stopped genuine refugee/asylum seekers from gainful employment which would allow them to pay the boaties.

Some may also wait the outcome of ''Liberation''

I dont think there is a ''growing hatred towards the west'' I dont think it comes into consideration IMO. Can you explain your thought processes behind this?

 

[skipper kelly]

A bit like you SK I have a lot of supposition but no stats

I think Government policy not only here but all over the world is kicking in.

I think ''liberation'' has actually stopped genuine refugee/asylum seekers from gainful employment which would allow them to pay the boaties.

Some may also wait the outcome of ''Liberation''

I dont think there is a ''growing hatred towards the west'' I dont think it comes into consideration IMO. Can you explain your thought processes behind this?

As I said PC its only supposition, but I assume that there is a strong anti-western movement developing in the ME and surrounds. But having not been there, and with no intentions of going either, I can only use the media or hearsay as a guide to base my assumptions. I hope I am wrong. But the media and hearsay tell me everyday of attacks against democracy in the ME, so I threw this up as a possible reason for the decreased applications. ie. increased anti-western in turn creates decreased asylum seekers. Most likely a long stretch though.

 

[- PC -]

As I said PC its only supposition, but I assume that there is a strong anti-western movement developing in the ME and surrounds. But having not been there, and with no intentions of going either, I can only use the media or hearsay as a guide to base my assumptions. I hope I am wrong. But the media and hearsay tell me everyday of attacks against democracy in the ME, so I threw this up as a possible reason for the decreased applications. ie. increased anti-western in turn creates decreased asylum seekers. Most likely a long stretch though.

Ok Fair enough Is this ''hate'' media driven? Like you I have not travelled to the region and cant get the vox populi that is essential I guess in making true judgement . But it seems Rupert et al are driving a hate filled bus at the moment and I wonder how much balance there is

 

[skipper kelly]

Ok Fair enough Is this ''hate'' media driven? Like you I have not travelled to the region and cant get the vox populi that is essential I guess in making true judgement . But it seems Rupert et al are driving a hate filled bus at the moment and I wonder how much balance there is

Other than info from the web, I mainly watch SBS news shows and docs. I dont know what way the SBS leans, but like you I kind of need more than a reporters say so. But when thats all we have got then I sense a bit of blindness, so I try to keep both eyes open, so to speak.

 

[Former]

The number of Afghans seeking asylum has dropped by 83% since 2001 while Iraqi asylum applications have fallen by 80% since 2002. These falls have coincided with regime changes in both countries.

Perhaps if, instead of spending $200 b. on fighting questionable wars, they spent it on fighting poverty in Africa you'd have had a huge drop in refugees from Africa.

But that would be the peaceful, humanitarian thing to do. And we all know the US isn't capable of doing anything without direct economic benefit despite their claims to the contrary.

 

[Hawkforce]

Perhaps if, instead of spending $200 b. on fighting questionable wars, they spent it on fighting poverty in Africa you'd have had a huge drop in refugees from Africa.

But that would be the peaceful, humanitarian thing to do. And we all know the US isn't capable of doing anything without direct economic benefit despite their claims to the contrary.

Err.. yeah Groves. Spending 200 billion in Africa would have done wonders to end the refugee crisis caused by the Baath and Taliban governments. A crisis that ended by those "questionable wars".

 

[Fevola4God]

Perhaps if, instead of spending $200 b. on fighting questionable wars, they spent it on fighting poverty in Africa you'd have had a huge drop in refugees from Africa.

But that would be the peaceful, humanitarian thing to do. And we all know the US isn't capable of doing anything without direct economic benefit despite their claims to the contrary.

They wouldn't really have to spend anything, they could in fact spend less, and help Africa, by removing protection...