In my previous post, 'Immigration Officials Getting it Wrong in Australia,' I pointed out that it would be far more humane, as well as more cost effective, if asylum seekers were to live in the community, rather than being detained, while their claims were processed. Today, finally, the government have announced that at least some of them will now be able to do so. An article in the Australian today read as follows:
"Under a plan announced by the Prime Minister today, all asylum-seekers will be processed on Australian soil with community detention and bridging visas provided to those unable to be processed within the existing detention centre network." The Australian, 13/10/2011
This will not help the many asylum seekers who do fit in to the current detention facilities, which is a great shame and pity. However, it is certainly a huge step in the right direction and marks a divergence from the government and opposition's 'race to the bottom,' which has consisted to date of each party trying to outdo the other for sheer cruelty and abuse of human humanity's right to flee persecution. Let us hope it is the beginning of a broader rethinking of policy in this area. It is important that we all continue to pursue this issue in the spheres of public debate and to communicate some sense to the politicians.
Showing posts with label Detention centres. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Detention centres. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Asylum Seeker Detention Unlawful and Extreme - Conversation.
Earlier I shared a link to this article on Facebook. I commented that though I have very little respect for Sky News I was glad to see someone making this point.
A response from another friend prompted me to clarify a few points. The conversation went as follows:
Me:
"Do we really want those people on our roads though? If yes, you know they will keep coming."
"Roads? That seems like a very strange thing to say. There have never been enough asylum seekers to make any noticeable difference to traffic congestion and wouldn't be even if their numbers doubled or tripled. Anyway, since government policy is to try to increase the population with things like the baby bonus, any extra people, especially ones who have already grown up and gained skills and life experience, should be welcomed. I'm not all that pro population, but surely giving homes to asylum seekers should be a higher priority than having more babies born here."
Friend: "I disagree with you. Bear in mind that tax payers money will go to them, and they won't have the education needed to adapt in Australian culture. before they are released, and are allowed to live within us, the government must create some sort of education system, and ensure they find a job when they are released. we simply cannot release people in a new country. It's like releasing an animal in the wild, whre they'll have to find their own prey to survive, they'll grab the first one and think that's only there is. we have to educate them on what is prey and what is not. I have got my permanent residency in Australia the hard way, and so should they. if the requirements to come to Australia is an academic transcript, it must be followed."
Me: "There are some things you need to consider here: 1. They have a legal right to seek asylum and to have it granted if they have genuinely fled from danger. This is international law and Australia must either adhere to it or give up it's international reputation, if it has not done so already. Australia, as a country, is committing a crime by imprisoning people illegally. It's an infringement of the universal bill of human rights and of Australia's constitution. 2. There are many ways and reasons to come to Australia and academic transcripts are just one of many criteria. 3. Migrants with or without transcripts have been shown historically to be of net benefit to the economy. Many unskilled immigrants set up small businesses and others perform jobs for which labor otherwise has to be imported in the form of temporary workers from Asia because locals won't do it. Such work includes fruit picking and work in food preparation for factories that supply supermarkets. 4. The cost of detaining these people while their claims are assessed is about four times as much as it would cost to allow them to live in society and pay them social security money.
I agree that there need to be proper educational resources made available. Our primary and secondary schools can be pretty hopeless and because refugees are often allocated to a school level based on age rather than ability, it is often difficult or impossible for those who arrive as teenagers to progress through the most direct channels to university. There are other ways, but of course that needs improving. Also, two terms of specialized ESL schooling, which is what is offered with a refugee visa now is obviously insufficient. Australia has a duty of care to these people and it is in the national interest to provide better education and integration services, both because it will help the economy by enhancing skills while reducing dependance on welfare and because it demonstrates a requisite level of respect for people's livelihoods upon which the country's reputation depends.
Anyway, there is not necessarily any need to increase refugee intake in order to make the system more humane. Simply providing social security and a place to live in the community would be far less costly than detention. Once claims are processed, people who are found to be genuine refugees are currently allocated to any of the refugee intake countries, not necessarily Australia, based on their intake quotas. The only differences would be a. a reduced cost to the tax payer and b. freedom for the asylum seekers during the processing of their claims."
Other friend: "The solution's remarkably simple, really - massively increase the resources devoted to processing the claims, and pay for it by not having to pay for such lengthy detention. The only arguments I'm aware of against this plan are purely political.
The main rhetoric I hear from the other side is along the lines of "we shouldn't make ourselves a soft target", and it's only just occurred to me to think that through properly. If we actually care about our legal obligations (or, y'know, human rights and welfare), we should want to be a very soft target indeed for genuine refugees. We don't necessarily want to be a "soft target" for those we don't judge to be genuine refugees, but it's utterly barbaric to achieve this deterrence by punishing all asylum seekers (or even any asylum seekers). As a modern democracy, what we should do with false claimants for refugee status is to process their claims quickly and thoroughly, and then promptly kick them out.
*****, Australia is fundamentally an immigrant nation - we've had wave after wave of immigrants more than twice as long as we've actually had a nation, and technically we're all immigrants anyway. I've heard quite a bit of rhetoric about the newest batches of immigrants, but I've not yet heard a substantial argument for why this particular episode is in any meaningful way worse or more dangerous than any other. The numbers are trivial in context of our existing population - we've dealt with much more significant waves in the past - and in stating your argument you're making some fairly serious claims without actually providing any evidence.
As ***** notes, overall population is a separate question. I also have grave reservations about overpopulation here, but the "boat people" we're talking about here are utterly insignificant to that debate. The vast majority of refugees come by plane anyway, and the vast majority of illegal residents are people (especially students) overstaying their visas. The public panic about "boat people" overrunning the country has no basis in fact."
Me: "I'm afraid that solution just makes too much sense to ever happen."
Hope this clears up a few popular misconceptions.
A response from another friend prompted me to clarify a few points. The conversation went as follows:
Me:
"Do we really want those people on our roads though? If yes, you know they will keep coming."
"Roads? That seems like a very strange thing to say. There have never been enough asylum seekers to make any noticeable difference to traffic congestion and wouldn't be even if their numbers doubled or tripled. Anyway, since government policy is to try to increase the population with things like the baby bonus, any extra people, especially ones who have already grown up and gained skills and life experience, should be welcomed. I'm not all that pro population, but surely giving homes to asylum seekers should be a higher priority than having more babies born here."
Friend: "I disagree with you. Bear in mind that tax payers money will go to them, and they won't have the education needed to adapt in Australian culture. before they are released, and are allowed to live within us, the government must create some sort of education system, and ensure they find a job when they are released. we simply cannot release people in a new country. It's like releasing an animal in the wild, whre they'll have to find their own prey to survive, they'll grab the first one and think that's only there is. we have to educate them on what is prey and what is not. I have got my permanent residency in Australia the hard way, and so should they. if the requirements to come to Australia is an academic transcript, it must be followed."
Me: "There are some things you need to consider here: 1. They have a legal right to seek asylum and to have it granted if they have genuinely fled from danger. This is international law and Australia must either adhere to it or give up it's international reputation, if it has not done so already. Australia, as a country, is committing a crime by imprisoning people illegally. It's an infringement of the universal bill of human rights and of Australia's constitution. 2. There are many ways and reasons to come to Australia and academic transcripts are just one of many criteria. 3. Migrants with or without transcripts have been shown historically to be of net benefit to the economy. Many unskilled immigrants set up small businesses and others perform jobs for which labor otherwise has to be imported in the form of temporary workers from Asia because locals won't do it. Such work includes fruit picking and work in food preparation for factories that supply supermarkets. 4. The cost of detaining these people while their claims are assessed is about four times as much as it would cost to allow them to live in society and pay them social security money.
I agree that there need to be proper educational resources made available. Our primary and secondary schools can be pretty hopeless and because refugees are often allocated to a school level based on age rather than ability, it is often difficult or impossible for those who arrive as teenagers to progress through the most direct channels to university. There are other ways, but of course that needs improving. Also, two terms of specialized ESL schooling, which is what is offered with a refugee visa now is obviously insufficient. Australia has a duty of care to these people and it is in the national interest to provide better education and integration services, both because it will help the economy by enhancing skills while reducing dependance on welfare and because it demonstrates a requisite level of respect for people's livelihoods upon which the country's reputation depends.
Anyway, there is not necessarily any need to increase refugee intake in order to make the system more humane. Simply providing social security and a place to live in the community would be far less costly than detention. Once claims are processed, people who are found to be genuine refugees are currently allocated to any of the refugee intake countries, not necessarily Australia, based on their intake quotas. The only differences would be a. a reduced cost to the tax payer and b. freedom for the asylum seekers during the processing of their claims."
Other friend: "The solution's remarkably simple, really - massively increase the resources devoted to processing the claims, and pay for it by not having to pay for such lengthy detention. The only arguments I'm aware of against this plan are purely political.
The main rhetoric I hear from the other side is along the lines of "we shouldn't make ourselves a soft target", and it's only just occurred to me to think that through properly. If we actually care about our legal obligations (or, y'know, human rights and welfare), we should want to be a very soft target indeed for genuine refugees. We don't necessarily want to be a "soft target" for those we don't judge to be genuine refugees, but it's utterly barbaric to achieve this deterrence by punishing all asylum seekers (or even any asylum seekers). As a modern democracy, what we should do with false claimants for refugee status is to process their claims quickly and thoroughly, and then promptly kick them out.
*****, Australia is fundamentally an immigrant nation - we've had wave after wave of immigrants more than twice as long as we've actually had a nation, and technically we're all immigrants anyway. I've heard quite a bit of rhetoric about the newest batches of immigrants, but I've not yet heard a substantial argument for why this particular episode is in any meaningful way worse or more dangerous than any other. The numbers are trivial in context of our existing population - we've dealt with much more significant waves in the past - and in stating your argument you're making some fairly serious claims without actually providing any evidence.
As ***** notes, overall population is a separate question. I also have grave reservations about overpopulation here, but the "boat people" we're talking about here are utterly insignificant to that debate. The vast majority of refugees come by plane anyway, and the vast majority of illegal residents are people (especially students) overstaying their visas. The public panic about "boat people" overrunning the country has no basis in fact."
Me: "I'm afraid that solution just makes too much sense to ever happen."
Hope this clears up a few popular misconceptions.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Immigration Officials Getting it Wrong in Australia
According to this article there are significant numbers of errors occurring in the processing of claims for asylum in Australia. Two thirds of the asylum seekers challenging the rejection of their claims for refugee status in the federal court have had their challenges upheld on the basis that the department had made legal errors or failed to exercise fairness. In the majority of those cases, the department admitted to the errors before the legal proceedings were completed.
There are over two hundred more cases waiting to be heard.
This number is obviously unacceptably high. For asylum seekers to make a court challenge to a decision by Australian government officials requires them to overcome significant barriers, such as lack of knowledge of the Australian legal and immigration systems, backgrounds in countries where they may be accustomed to having limited rights, language difficulties and the anxiety and self doubt brought on by long periods of imprisonment in immigration detention centers. There must surely be large numbers of injustices that are not challenged in the court system and no doubt many asylum seekers give up or accept unsatisfactory decisions out of fatigue, frustration or lack of comprehension.
The current system is absolutely unacceptable. It would be far more fare and humane if asylum seekers could at least get on with their lives and live among the rest of us while their claims are processed. That would cost less than detaining them and would give them access to friends, supporters and other services we citizens take for granted.
There are over two hundred more cases waiting to be heard.
This number is obviously unacceptably high. For asylum seekers to make a court challenge to a decision by Australian government officials requires them to overcome significant barriers, such as lack of knowledge of the Australian legal and immigration systems, backgrounds in countries where they may be accustomed to having limited rights, language difficulties and the anxiety and self doubt brought on by long periods of imprisonment in immigration detention centers. There must surely be large numbers of injustices that are not challenged in the court system and no doubt many asylum seekers give up or accept unsatisfactory decisions out of fatigue, frustration or lack of comprehension.
The current system is absolutely unacceptable. It would be far more fare and humane if asylum seekers could at least get on with their lives and live among the rest of us while their claims are processed. That would cost less than detaining them and would give them access to friends, supporters and other services we citizens take for granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)