To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 12399
12398  |  12400
Subject: 
Re: Views on asylum seekers?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:46:48 GMT
Viewed: 
466 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
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(government's own figures, a little out of date)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)

I think we're getting confused between asylum seekers, and refugees here. See
below.

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 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 them
leave their home country first, then lodge the application somewhere else which
*does* have an embassy (eg Indonesia).

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?

See previous comment.

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?

Welcome them into Australian society with open arms! However when they land on
our coast they have to stay somewhere while the government makes that
assessment. Currently, that's usually a detention camp. But whereever it is,
they're forcing our government to pay for their accomodation during that
period, taking money which could be used to pay housing grants for others
who've applied before they got here. And if they're not assessed as genuine
refugees, the government also carries the cost of deportation.

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? ;^)

Let's just call it a sub-agreement...8?)

ROSCO



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Views on asylum seekers?
 
(...) Whichever, the argument against detention remains the same I think. The sustainable development question of population carrying capacity/infrastruct...mmigration levels is separate, but certainly related. (...) Here's another perspective, from (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Views on asylum seekers?
 
(...) 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 (...) (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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR