Boat People

[Eagle_Fan]

Thursday's controversial topic for anyone bored at work...

OK, watching the late news now, and I see there's another boatload -the biggest ever?- being processed on Christmas Island.

Is what we do with these people right? Do we do that because that is the correct process, or is it more out of concern for a bad international human rights reputation?
If not then what should we do differently?

The whole constant cycle is really starting to shlt me anyway

Any thoughts?

 

[The Hitman]

We are doing this topic in issues at school.

Very touchy subject, because they are people, but illegal people, and not citizens. I think they need to be treated better, but we need to deal with them in centres still.

There is a proper process of getting into the country, and there are plrnty of people waiting by going throught the proper processes.

It's an intriguing topic, with perhaps no definitve answer.

The Hitman

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

OK - very touchy subject and I'm a bit biased as I am a migrant myself.

But I would like to make just one point :

85 % (yes, thats right nearly 9 out of every 10) of these boat people are found by the Australian Immigration authorities to be GENUINE REFUGEES.

So, if the overwhelming majority are OK and have no problem staying in Australia as refugees -

then why lock them up in the first place ?

To me it just seems cruel and inhumane, why not just give them a fast-track assessment and release them straight into the community ?

Instead we lock them up in gulags and treat them like criminals. Why do we do this when by our own rules (which are very VERY tough btw) they are not criminals at all but genuine refugees ?

oh and btw - we are the ONLY country in the whole wide world that locks up refugees.

Again I have to ask myself - why ?

The 'White Australia' mentality seems to linger on in some sections of the community it seems ....

cheers

 

[Bee]

I agree BSA. Why do we lock these people up in conditions that are worse than our prisons? They are not criminals. They are escaping from oppression to what they think will be a better life.
But when they get here we force them into a situation that must seem almost as bad as what they have come from.
Why lock them up at all? Surely we can find better ways to house them until their refugee status is checked.

Look at what we did to the Kosovars. Welcomed them with open arms then a few months later told them to go back home. Go back home to what? There was nothing to go back to!

Yes, I agree, it is cruel and inhumane. But inhumanity is caused by ignorance not intent. You only need to listen to Phillip Ruddock to prove that point!

 

[TigerTank]

The other side of the coin is that Australia has a due process for accepting immigrants and that many people go through the correct procedure to come and live here. They should not be disadvantaged and delayed for doing the right thing.

While Australia certainly has a responsibility to treat illegal immigrants with dignity, we also have the sovereign right to decide what kind of person (in terms of character) we want. Likewise, Australia has a sovereign right to set our own population policy based on the lifestyle and environment Australians want to live in. Personally, I believe a population of around 20 million is a desirable maximum taking into account the populations of Melbourne and Sydney - and I am perfectly entitled to that opinion.

A proportion of those who arrive illegally do so because they do not meet our immigration criteria - some are criminals while others are otherwise unacceptable.

Until the genuine refugees (without criminal history) can be sorted from those who are simply avoiding the proper immigration procedure, they ALL must be detained - and they should be detained in an area that makes it difficult for the criminal element to escape and be hidden by sympathisers in the Australian population.

Australia should also do whatever is reasonable to discourage illegal immigration, if nothing else but to encourage legitimate immigration. To accept all and sundry who land on the Australian coast would be a disincentive for immigrants to do the right thing.

To bring the matter of race into the mix is a cheap shot - race is yet to be mentioned by anyone else. It is an attempt to shut down legitimate opposing arguments with an emotive response, and for the accuser to suggest he/she is morally superior without providing a satisfactory argument.

SOME people oppose immigration for racist reasons - many people oppose immigration for non-racist reasons. To suggest they are the same is as bigoted as the racists themselves. I defy anyone to find anything racist in this text and if there is no evidence of racism then it should not be accused.

I believe that the illegal immigrants should be processed more quickly than they are at the moment, and that those who are unable to meet the correct criteria should be deported immediately.

I don't however accept that a person who has gone to the risk and discomfort of coming illegally to Australia in a barely sea-worthy boat should have too many complaints about Woomera, when Australian citizens have used the centre for a variety of reasons in the past.

And Mr Ruddock, having been to the detention centres himself and with an entire bureaucracy to advise him, is less likely to be ignorant on the issue than you, me or anyone else.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Excellent post TT, couldn't have said it better myself. Whilst I sympathise with illegal refugees, it seems unfair on those people who have followed the correct procedures that these people jump the queue. Think how annoyed you are when someone jumps in front of you in a line. Well imagine how immigrants and refugees who are trying to escape to a better life feel when other people jump in front of them by not following the correct procedures.

BSA - A good point about 85% turning out to be legitimate. I find it very annoying when people (ie Andrew Bolt) stereotype all these people as criminals, where these are just exceptions to the rule. However, if the majority of these people are legitimate refugees, why aren't they following the process that will see them admitted to the country like everyone else?

The other point is things like the riots and escapes and Woomera are doing absolutely nothing for the cause of illegal immigrants. It seems very hypocritical to complain about the treatment you are receiving when you haven't followed the proper process in entering the country.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

But TT

That is exactly my point - they are NOT illegal immigrants

and thats not just my opinion, that is the finding of our immigration authoritries in nearly 9 out of 10 cases.

Don't forget also our admission criteria is one of the toughest and most stringent in the whole world.

If nearly 9 out of every 10 of these people can pass this criteria, it is quite clear that they are genuine refugees and not illegal immigrants.

Yet they are all locked up in places like Woomera and treated like criminals. When it is perfectly clear they are not criminals at all.

Again I repeat - we are the ONLY country in the world that locks up refugees - why is this ?

Countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany have far FAR bigger problems with asylum seekers than little old Australia but they don't lock anyone up - why do we ?

As far as I can see - its a dumb, hypocritical and bigoted policy from any angle you look at it.

cheers

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by TigerTank
The other side of the coin is that Australia has a due process for accepting immigrants and that many people go through the correct procedure to come and live here. They should not be disadvantaged and delayed for doing the right thing.

While Australia certainly has a responsibility to treat illegal immigrants with dignity, we also have the sovereign right to decide what kind of person (in terms of character) we want. Likewise, Australia has a sovereign right to set our own population policy based on the lifestyle and environment Australians want to live in. Personally, I believe a population of around 20 million is a desirable maximum taking into account the populations of Melbourne and Sydney - and I am perfectly entitled to that opinion.

Only problem I see here TT is that we still want the 'right' type of person populating our country, ie. European and white.

A proportion of those who arrive illegally do so because they do not meet our immigration criteria - some are criminals while others are otherwise unacceptable

Until the genuine refugees (without criminal history) can be sorted from those who are simply avoiding the proper immigration procedure, they ALL must be detained - and they should be detained in an area that makes it difficult for the criminal element to escape and be hidden by sympathisers in the Australian population

True, but many of these refugees with a 'criminal history' are political refugees who may have been arrested for simply speaking out against a dictatorship or the shocking human rights record of their government. We have absolutely no idea what it would be like to live in fear of losing our families or lives just because we speak out against the government.

Australia should also do whatever is reasonable to discourage illegal immigration, if nothing else but to encourage legitimate immigration. To accept all and sundry who land on the Australian coast would be a disincentive for immigrants to do the right thing.

To bring the matter of race into the mix is a cheap shot - race is yet to be mentioned by anyone else. It is an attempt to shut down legitimate opposing arguments with an emotive response, and for the accuser to suggest he/she is morally superior without providing a satisfactory argument.

SOME people oppose immigration for racist reasons - many people oppose immigration for non-racist reasons. To suggest they are the same is as bigoted as the racists themselves. I defy anyone to find anything racist in this text and if there is no evidence of racism then it should not be accused.

I think your being morally defensive here. You also can't dismiss someones argument because they bring race into it. Race has historically played a major part in our immigration policies and it would be interesting to see how we handled a boat load of anglo- saxins escaping from the tyranny of Prime Minister Blair.


I believe that the illegal immigrants should be processed more quickly than they are at the moment, and that those who are unable to meet the correct criteria should be deported immediately.

Send them back in the 'barely sea-worthy boat' they came in or fly them back at costs to the tax payer?

I don't however accept that a person who has gone to the risk and discomfort of coming illegally to Australia in a barely sea-worthy boat should have too many complaints about Woomera, when Australian citizens have used the centre for a variety of reasons in the past.

The refugees come here in the hope of freedom, not to be locked up in 'detention' centres with no heating or proper facilities. They are worse than prisons......this is a fact that many would find hard to deny, seeing quite a few here think prisons are like luxury hotels.

And Mr Ruddock, having been to the detention centres himself and with an entire bureaucracy to advise him, is less likely to be ignorant on the issue than you, me or anyone else.

Ruddock will make any decision which will please the majority.......remember there's an election coming.

 

[TigerTank]

Santos L Helper said:

I think your being morally defensive here.

... but earlier said (despite my reference to character):

Only problem I see here TT is that we still want the 'right' type of person populating our country, ie. European and white.

That's precisely why.

 

[dees01]

They are illegal which means they ARE BREAKING THE LAW. We have to take a tough stance so we do not encourage more people to come. What do you want to do? Put them up in a five star hotel.
As far as I am concerned they should be sent back straight where they came from. They are more than welcome to apply for refuggee status through the right channels, but I have no sympathy for boat people what so ever.

 

[Bee]

TT,
I did not say we should let anyone into the country who wants to come here. I am saying, why do we treat these people who have come from atrocities that you and I (thankfully) will never experience with such lack of compassion?

Because they have arrived here illegally, doesn't mean we have to treat them like criminals or animals. We should be able to treat them with a bit more respect while their status is being checked.
But then again as you said, why should they have the effrontery to complain? Afterall they have come from such shocking conditions in a piece of un-seaworthy crap that Woomera must seem like paradise to them! Right?

And as for Phillip Ruddock his ignorance, not just on this but other immigration matters is obvious. In his interview the other night about the plight of six year old Shayan he referred to the child all the way through the interview as "it". I would have thought that Shayan at least deserved to be referred to as "he".
Perhaps more a lack of respect or compassion than ignorance.

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
But TT

If nearly 9 out of every 10 of these people can pass this criteria, it is quite clear that they are genuine refugees and not illegal immigrants.

If TEN PERCENT or more of these people are criminals or other undesireables, who could potentially do damage to Australia and its people, then that is reason enough to spend at least some time weeding them out.

I don't see how Australia could afford to let through 100 criminals (with crimes potentially ranging from petty theft through to corruption, rape, murder and war crimes) for the sake of letting through 900 others without proper processing. That process (including background checks and the like) will take some time.

It may seem harsh, but I see no other way. We have a right to prevent that 10% entering Australia even if it means delaying the remaining 90%. That is the price of not going through the formal process of applying for immigration.

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany have far FAR bigger problems with asylum seekers than little old Australia but they don't lock anyone up - why do we ?

That is because we aren't governed by an unelected parliament in Brussels.

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
As far as I can see - its a dumb, hypocritical and bigoted policy from any angle you look at it.

Maybe, but it is not a perfect world.

If it were, we would not have to worry about criminals entering along with legitimate refugees. 10% is still an awful lot of strife. I think we have the right to be more choosy than that.


Cheers back,

 

[TigerTank]

Oh, Santos, I would send them back by RAAF C130 Hercules - not in a leaky boat.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Did anyone else hear Ruddock on ABC radio on saturday?
He was comparing some place that he had been on holiday to with Villawood and Woomera. All because the bathroom was at the end of the hallway. This man is living in a complete fantasy world.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

TT

I take your point, yes we should be concerned about that 10 % - of course we should. BUT, again, why are these p[eople being locked up in a hell-hole like Woomera when it takes about 3 weeks to properly process an appliccation for refugee status.

Some of these detainees spend well over a year or even more doing nothing but sitting in the dust and squalor of Woomera while immigration officals do everything possible to obstruct, to obfiscate, to stone wall, to doggedly and stubbornly do everything in thier power to make these peoples lives as miserable as possible.

If immigration officials moved to expedite these cases in a speedy and efficient manner, then the 10 % of undesirables wouyld back on the plane to where they came from and the 90 % of genuine refugees would be able to take their place in the Australian community free from the persucution and denial of basic human rights that occurs in detention centres at the moment.

Your contebntion that European countries have ther hands tied by the EU government in Europe is simply not true and, with respect, is a disingeneous throw away line.

The EU Government in Brussels monitors member countries to ensure they comply International Treaties and Covenants but individual immigration policies are the soile responsibility of those sovereign governments.

How about Sweden and the USA ? - two more examples of countries that have MASSIVE problems with asylum seekers - but they don't lock them up - why do we ?

Sweden is not a member state of the EU and neither is the USA

Again - please answer the question- why are we alone in the entire world in locking up asylum seekers and treating them as criminals when 9 out of 10 of them are not, and where Australia has a problem that is SMALL BEER compared to other countries in the world ?

As I said, I might be biased because I am a migrant myself but I say

"Come one come all, everybody is welcome and Australia becomes a better place each time a migrant sets foot in this country"

cheers

 

[Pessimistic]

Why are we the only country which locks them up.

I think there is a huge insecurity in the Australian public. It relates to our rights to 'be here'. Even though in other aspects we are quite comfortable with ourselves.

I moved here 12 years ago from britain but spent time in other countries so that's where I'm coming from.

Examples

- Visiting celebrities are always asked 'what they think of australia' - if they are sensible they will only have one answer - or they will be villified in the press ans redneck radio.

- Immigrants from most countries are treat well but there seems to be a deep fear that the original australians are going to take over someday.

- In the sixties everyone was so scared that communist hoards were going to move here that we sent people to a stupid war in vietnam. Logic would have said that the commies would have had a hard time moving through 100 million indonesians and some of the harshest deserts going before they got here.

- We always have to have 'the best stadium etc in the world. Why couldn't we have onw which fits our needs ?

 

[Fat Red]

A couple of observations:

In response to the question: Why don't they come through the proper channels?

To come through the proper channels, some other country has to let you in first. You can't apply for refugee status from the country in which you are being persecuted; you can't be sending letters to Australia saying "I want to come to Australia; I am a persecuted person here"; you'd be locked up straightaway.

So you have to LEAVE that country, and go to ANOTHER one. Which means you're going to be an illegal immigrant somewhere, whether Australia or somewhere else. It's inescapable for refugees to be illegal immigrants.

What Ruddock means when he talks about proper channels is that some 3rd country has to hold, feed etc these people while they wait for Australia to make up their mind. And that country is most likely to also be a 3rd world country that can little afford that, and also in some cases likely to oppress the refugees themselves. And in the end Australia and other developed countries pay for that anyway through aid money.

In many cases, they have no choice of coming through the "proper channels", and even if they did the benefit to Australia is minimal.

Secondly, about locking them up because 10-15% are not genuine refugees.

TT says: If TEN Percent of these people are criminals or other undesirables, that is reason enough to spend time weeding them out. (In other words, reason enough to lock them up.)

But to say that 85% are refugees, does not mean the other 15% are criminals or "undesirables", whatever that means. No doubt some are criminals. But most will just be people who are trying to get a better life for themselves by coming to Australia.
That's no reason to let them in: I think they should be deported, otherwise immigration might be a free-for-all. But it is no reason to lock them up while you are finding out.

Most of those people are not going to be hard to find, because they want to come to Australia and establish a new life. So they are going to do their best to establish themselves, in the hope that we let them stay. But even if that wasn't true, it's not that hard to find these people. The money now spent on detention centres could be used to make sure they don't disappear or are caught if they do.

Thirdly, locking people up is bloody expensive. On the other hand, let them out in the community and they can make a contribution.

 

[TigerTank]

OK, I'll have an open mind on this one.

a) Could someone please tell me of an alternative system that would achieve a positive result for the legitimate refugees while still making it extremely difficult for criminals and terrorists sneaking into the country?

b) Do you think it is fair or unfair to set a maximum number of refugees that can enter Australia during a set period? While I'm happy to concede that Australia does have 'some' obligation with regard to refugees, surely the national interest would be disadvantaged if too many refugees are allowed in without measuring the social cost of this.

c) While it is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of race, surely it is fair to choose those of each and any race who have the most to offer Australia in terms of skills, training, etc.?

 

[Sly77]

Very interesting debate going on here - which I have been reading over the course of the morning (between periods of work naturally!).

I personally will not enter the debate due to not knowing enough FACTUAL information regarding the situation to create my owned INFORMED decision. I am not one to launch "gung ho" into something which I in my cuishy little arm chair have not experienced.

However, just a few points to think about.

1) Its funny how all the "good" our country has done for others is strangely forgotten. The peace keeping in East Timor is a prime example. I think most of us would know people who have contributed to the rebuilding of the provence - to give East Timorese a decent quality of life.

2) Australia is a beautiful country - not just for asthetic reasons, but because of the way in which it is run. We as Australians have a freedom which many others will never experience, so it is only natural that it will be a highly desirable destination.

You need to keep in mind that we are a young country. Politicians are elected by us to govern our country. Policies, procedures, rules etc need to be based on the general publics concensus in matters, which comes from us communicating with our government either directly or indirectly via elections. It is the job of our governments representatives to ensure our country remains "beautiful", the place that we all live in and love.

From this and various other debates on this issue, what I am noticing is that people want change to the "treatment of illegal refugees" NOW. But, they forget that EFFECTIVE change can't happen overnight. I am sure nobody would like to see the uniqueness that is Australia lost.

How about conversing with your local member on the issue?

3: Why is it always the vocal minority who are given public attention - has anyone actually sat down and listened to the majority who are both happy and thankful for the opportunities given by this country?

 

[Bee]

The Howard government has made it quite clear that they have no compassion or respect for these people. From the time the boats carrying the refugees started arriving the government has shown nothing but hostility towards them. Have they ever had the decency to explain to the public the atrocities that these people have fled from? The tyrannies of Iraq under Hussein, from Afghanistan under the Taliban?
Instead of calming public anxiety Ruddock actually poured fuel on the situation by speaking of the imminent arrival of whole villages of refugees. And suggesting that they were actually "well off queue jumpers". The man’s Hansonite ignorance is unbelievable.

Australia is actually in breach of United Nations guidelines, set down by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The guidelines state that asylum seekers should only be detained for the initial period of assessment. Every effort should be made to spare children from detention and above all detention should never be used as a weapon to deter future refugees.
A working group from the United Nations has been trying for the last two years to visit Australia and investigate the way we detain asylum seekers. They gave up trying two weeks ago because the Howard government has made it impossible for them to come.

 

[TigerTank]

The United Nations?

The Australian Government is elected to govern Australia, not the United Nations.

And it should be Australians' choice how many refugees are allowed to stay in Australia, not an undemocratic caucus in Geneva.

Bee, how would you suggest that Australia sort refugees quickly without letting in criminals and other anti-social elements?

The behaviour of a minority of illegal immigrants in detention centres is proof enough to me that Australia should be careful with the filtering process.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we let everyone in without some sort of screening process to filter out those that are 'unsuitable' (for whatever reason)

But locking everyone up is just not the way to go.

Now TT, I don't know enough about what the procedure is in other countries bu I do know that other countries that have a far worse problem than us seem to be able to deal with the situation without locking everyone up.

If other countries can do it - why can't we ?

oh and TT - You might think the UN is a bloody joke (you have a point here, thats for sure) but the fact remains that their treaties and covenants that Australia has signed on to, and, as s ignatory, Australia must follow those conventions otherwise we are breaking International Law.

Which is precisely what we are doing at the moment.

Bee - Its easy to blame the Howard Government for this but don't forget mandatory detention has been bi-partisan policy for many years now. The previous Hawke / Keating ALP governments were just as bad in this respect.

The critical difference I think is that the Howard Government has been prepared to play politics with the issue because they want to appeal to the Pauline Hanson / Talkback Radio / Redneck / Lock 'em all up type of voter.

this is a voter group that the Howard Government see as a crucial voter bloc for them, and they are prepared to ratchet-up the 'heat' on any contentious social issue so as not to offend these people so much that they will desert the Coalition and vote for One Nation.

Its all about politics but please remember - the ALP have no more compassion for refugees than the Coalition has, its just that the Coalition are alone in attempting to make cruelty and inhumanity a vote winning issue.

cheers

 

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Sly77
Very interesting debate going on here - which I have been reading over the course of the morning (between periods of work naturally!).

I personally will not enter the debate due to not knowing enough FACTUAL information regarding the situation to create my owned INFORMED decision. I am not one to launch "gung ho" into something which I in my cuishy little arm chair have not experienced.

However, just a few points to think about.

1) Its funny how all the "good" our country has done for others is strangely forgotten. The peace keeping in East Timor is a prime example. I think most of us would know people who have contributed to the rebuilding of the provence - to give East Timorese a decent quality of life.

2) Australia is a beautiful country - not just for asthetic reasons, but because of the way in which it is run. We as Australians have a freedom which many others will never experience, so it is only natural that it will be a highly desirable destination.

You need to keep in mind that we are a young country. Politicians are elected by us to govern our country. Policies, procedures, rules etc need to be based on the general publics concensus in matters, which comes from us communicating with our government either directly or indirectly via elections. It is the job of our governments representatives to ensure our country remains "beautiful", the place that we all live in and love.

From this and various other debates on this issue, what I am noticing is that people want change to the "treatment of illegal refugees" NOW. But, they forget that EFFECTIVE change can't happen overnight. I am sure nobody would like to see the uniqueness that is Australia lost.

How about conversing with your local member on the issue?

3: Why is it always the vocal minority who are given public attention - has anyone actually sat down and listened to the majority who are both happy and thankful for the opportunities given by this country?

I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

1) So because Australia has "done good" in East Timor, that grants us moral exemption? How ridiculous.

2) What has the beauty of this country got to do with refugees? Do you think if we have more refugees it will be less beautiful?

3) Why? Because they are vocal. I'm happy and thankful for the opportunities given to us by this country, I don't see why other people shouldn't share those opportunities if they are in genuine need.

Sbagman.

 

[Bee]

That was my point TT. Under the guidelines detention is only meant to be for the initial period of assessment, but the mandatory detention of asylum seekers in Australia stretches well beyond the initial assessment. It drags on for months and sometimes years. And it occurs without any consideration for personal circumstances or even the right to some form of independent review. The government doesn't seem to want to rush the proceedings either. And in my opinion this is aimed at deterring other potential asylum seekers from arriving without authority to seek a better life.

Why don't we need to comply with UN guidelines, especially when we are one of the first to point out to other countries that they are in breach of the guidelines? If we are doing nothing wrong why then has the Howard government effectively stopped the visits from the UN to investigate our system for asylum seekers?
If we are not following the guidelines or adhering to the agreements and treaties we have signed then we are breaking international law.

 

[sbagman]

Originally posted by TigerTank
OK, I'll have an open mind on this one.

c) While it is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of race, surely it is fair to choose those of each and any race who have the most to offer Australia in terms of skills, training, etc.?

Is this called racism?

By the way, I agree entirely with BSA and Santos on this one.