Subject:
|
Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:10:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
359 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > > We can only
> > > build and operate so many detention centres, so that accomodation suddenly
> > > disappears, and the refugee who's applied legally has to wait even longer. I
> > > don't think this is fair.
> >
> > Why not just let them all live in the community at large? Why should they be
> > locked up like criminals?
>
> WHERE in the general community? Tents? Caravans? Maybe some can afford >houses,
> but the houses still have to be found. There are currently many thousands in
> detention centres in Australia, and I dare say many thousands in other places
> waiting on their applications to be processed. Even if the government helps
> with costs, the accomodation still needs to be found. And you can bet if this
> policy was implemented, the numbers would swell drastically.
I'm sure the building industry would be delighted to find room and resources
to accomodate new Australians. As for the cost, how about a $14000 new home
buyers grant? Seriously, the government is spending a massive amount of
money on refugee detention already. A couple of instantly researched cites:
~$170/person/day
http://www.immi.gov.au/annual_report/annrep97/html/prog8002.htm
(government's own figures, a little out of date)
~$10000/person
http://www.erc.org.au/issues/text/as01.htm
(quoting Ruddock, Minister for Immigration -- this site also presents some
facts the government never manages to mention)
> > > and if they make their application before entering the country, even though • they may
> > > > have to wait a while,
> >
> > I think a life-threatening journey that puts the few remaining members of
> > your family in debt for years would be an awful prospect: I suppose living
> > in a displaced persons camp on the Afghani-Pakistani border is just that
> > much worse. I'm not sure that filling out the correct forms and taking the
> > luck of the draw in a Western-government approved quota is too high on the
> > priority list.
>
> But many still do. Should they be dis-advantaged?
I don't think an aptitude for bureaucracy is the best measure of a person's
persecution. The fact that Australia doesn't have an embassy in either
Afghanistan or Iraq might also affect the availablity of the correct forms.
> > I'd be interested to see where this rhetoric of "the queue" first appeared.
> > It implies some sort of calm, orderly process, where pushing, begging and
> > desperation are a little unseemly. "The queue" sounds like a pleasant
> > alternative to the squalor of a refugee camp or detention centre.
>
> The "queue" I'm alluding to is not a queue in the strict sense of the word, but
> the process performed by the immigration department to look at the refugee
> applications.
Given that the selection of a fraction of a percent of the world's refugees
is a more or less arbitrary process anyway, I find this perspective
farcical, not to say tragic. Would you wait quietly at the back of the line
if Saddam or the Talibaan had your number?
> > > I find it hard to believe they'd be starving if they've just paid several
> > > thousand dollars for a place on one of these boats.
> >
> > Leaving aside the question of economics, I can think of a few reasons why
> > even "wealthy" people might want to leave their home. Religious and ethnic
> > persecution come to mind.
>
> But I don't see they should be allowed to "force" their way in ahead of "less
> wealthy" people seeking asylum for other reasons.
They shouldn't -- I agree. But once someone arrives, and is assessed as
being a genuine refugee (which is no easy criterion to satisfy) what would
you do with them?
> > On a more constructive note, hopefully, I think that these massive
> > migrations of people reflect the lack of opportunities that are afforded
> > them in their home countries. If developed economies put some more of their
> > effort into economic and humanitarian aid, there might be less of a need to
> > patrol borders so rigorously. I think Vietnam and South China are good
> > examples. As burdens of social repression have lifted people have not been
> > driven to other countries in the hope of finding a decent life.
>
> Agreed.
Glad to hear it... but then that's not much of a .debate is it? ;^)
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
| (...) I (...) I think we're getting confused between asylum seekers, and refugees here. See below. (...) I don't have anything to back this up except some snippets I've read in newspapers (and we all know how reliable they are), but I think most of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
| (...) WHERE in the general community? Tents? Caravans? Maybe some can afford houses, but the houses still have to be found. There are currently many thousands in detention centres in Australia, and I dare say many thousands in other places waiting (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
