Asylum Seekers' vessel torched Options

[The_Psychonaut]

First of all, those refugee camps are shit - I agree with you.

India's not perfect. It's better than refugee camps in Sri Lanka though. It's $3 or something ridiculously cheap for a ferry across and a couple of hundred for a lodgement of intent to immigrate to Australia. It's $10-15000 for a leaky bathtub spot with less chance of making it, and less chance of refugee status acceptance.

Read the article I linked. If they manage to make it to India without their 'bathtubs' sinking, or getting turned back by the Indian navy, corrupt Indian official are stripping the refugees of everything they own, and the shear number of people are making it very difficult for them to lodge legitimate applications. If they bribe the officials and do manage to get one out, they still have to survive for up to 6 months in the camps, not a pleasant prospect. You're also assuming that they're even aware of the legitimate ways to enter Australia.

The reason we're not filling our quote is because they die on the way while you struggle to understand their predicament.

You don't like human trafficking. Why don't you support methods to try to stop it?

Less than 5% come via illegal means, so again your logic is faulty. We're not filling our quota because the government aren't accepting the applications, probably for legitimate reasons.

What methods would you suggest?

Perhaps "border enforcement" is a bad term for what I'm trying to say. What I meant to say was that our exclusion zone prevented easy access to Australia.

The exclusion zone was implemented in 94, and is still in place today. Has something else changed?

[LogicprObe]

When you're done riding your moral high-horse, what do you actually propose should be done?

It really isn't too complicated from my perspective.

- Shift the detention centres from Christmas Island to the mainland, save nearly 90% on operating costs.

- Allocate necessarily resources to process applications in a reasonable time frame, which would cut down on operating costs and facility size requirements.

- Take in the amount of refugees we agreed to, which is 12,000 per year. Continue to return bogus applicants to their country of origin with a bill for the resources spent on them. Continue to bill successful applicants for their time spent in detention centres (as a way of discouraging queue jumping).

- Instead of isolating refugees and essentially forcing them to live off a government allowance once they've been let into the country, set up programs to get them into work ASAP.


We've made a commitment to help out 12,000 people a year, it'd be un-Australian not to honour it.

Get your facts right.

2007-8

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/18/2008713.htm

2008-9

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013871,00.html

When people come illegally........these people miss out.

[The_Psychonaut]

When people come illegally........these people miss out.

First up, fair enough. Looks like my figures were out of date.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the UN declaration we signed doesn't specify how legitimate asylum seekers need to come to Australia. They're not queue jumping, there is no queue. Also, we're not filling our quota, at least in terms of immigrants getting protection visas, so they're not taking someone else's place.

This post has been edited by The_Psychonaut: Nov 3 2009, 06:23 PM

[LogicprObe]

When people come illegally........these people miss out.

First up, fair enough. Looks like my figures were out of date.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the UN declaration we signed doesn't specify how legitimate asylum seekers need to come to Australia. They're not queue jumping, there is no queue. Also, we're not filling our quota, at least in terms of immigrants getting protection visas, so they're not taking someone else's place.

Where does it say that?

[The_Psychonaut]

Where does it say that?

There has been an increase in the number of asylum-seekers who have been found in our northern waters so far this year - 221 compared with just 179 for all of last year.

But a total of 4750 asylum-seekers arrived in Australia last year. All but 179 came on airlines.

Actually, I stand corrected. That just covers people who applied for visas after they arrived in Australia. We are filling our quotas.

However, the previous argument still stands:

6. People who arrive unauthorised are not “genuine” refugees

Most of the obligations that Australia has accepted by becoming a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention concern proper treatment of people who seek asylum, regardless of the means by which they arrive in a country to ask for it. The Convention states that assessment of refugees’ claims should not be influenced by how they enter a country to seek protection. Assessment should be purely according to the legitimacy of those claims. However, Australian Government promotes the idea that those applying for asylum offshore, under its Humanitarian Program, are more “deserving” of refugee status than those who arrive unauthorised, and pursues the electorally popular course of “getting tough” with unauthorised arrivals. To justify the strategy, it insists that unauthorised arrivals are, collectively, not “genuine” refugees. 3 Nonetheless, the immigration department’s figures indicate that around 84 per cent of those who arrive in Australia seeking asylum are found to be legitimate refugees.

In order to be granted refugee status asylum seekers have to prove they would be under real threat of persecution, as defined by the Convention, if they were to return to their home country — that to send them back could mean death, imprisonment or torture.

Anyone in that situation is a genuine refugee. In the last two years the government has made various claims to support its argument that boat people, collectively, are not really refugees, including that:

7. Boat people are “queue jumpers”, stealing the places of “genuine” refugees waiting patiently in camps for their turn at orderly processing by the UNHCR
8. Boat people are rich because they can afford to pay people smugglers “ ... on the Afghan-Pakistan border, a family sit hopelessly in a wretched refugee camp. No chance for them to start a new life because a group of selfish, relatively rich illegal immigrants made a lifestyle choice, passed through at least three countries where they could have applied for asylum, and tried to barge their way through Australia’s back door.”
Letter to Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 17 2002

Many boat people have themselves come from refugee camps.

A queue is an orderly line with an eventual end — conditions in many refugee camps throughout the world are such that the chances of survival, let alone getting out, are poor. The situation for refugees is more like a lottery than a queue, even if they do manage to find their way into the official processing system. For example, in the last three years, of 535 certified refugees processed by the UNHCR in Jakarta, only 31 have been resettled, and only two taken by Australia.4
There have been numerous detailed accounts of conditions in refugee camps, and explanations of the circumstances that lead refugees to seek methods of getting to countries where they can seek asylum. Among the most commonly made points:

- In many of the countries generating high numbers of refugees, including Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no Australian diplomatic presence and no “queue” for would-be emigrants to join. Even to express a desire or intention to leave can be dangerous.
- Refugees in the camps often have to pay large bribes to processing officials, to have their claims assessed.
- Increasingly, many refugees will try to avoid taking refuge in a camp, as they don’t believe doing so will increase their chances of escape, or even survival. People in camps in countries whose governments support regimes from which the camp inmates have fled are likely to experience hostility and violence.
- Families in strife-torn areas may sell everything they have to buy a passage out from smugglers. Extended families may pool resources to send one person to the West, with the expectation that that person will work hard to send money home to enable other family members to make the trip.
- Many families end up with large debts to the smugglers. A study by the French agency Medecins Sans Frontieres, in refugee camps on the Iranian border, found that nearly all families were in debt, with members held hostage by smugglers until the debt was paid. A truly well-off person can afford other methods of getting to Australia than by making a perilous sea journey in an unreliable craft.
- There is, in any case, no reason why possession of wealth should disqualify a person from being considered a refugee. Material prosperity is unlikely to save people from persecution if a hostile regime, or a society in which they are a minority, seriously targets their ethnic or religious group. The relative prosperity of many Jews in pre-war Germany made them more of a target of resentment.

References
- Pittaway E. 2001, Queue — there is not even a counter! Informal report from a visit to camps for Muslims displaced from their home by civil war, Centre for Refugee Research, University of NSW
= Edmund Rice Centre for Justice & Community Education/School of Education, Catholic University 2001, “Debunking The Myths About Asylum Seekers”, in Just Comment, Special Edition, Sept. www.erc.org.au
= Edmund Rice Centre for Justice & Community Education/School of Education, Catholic University 2001, “Debunking More Myths About Asylum Seekers”, in Just Comment, Special Edition no. 2, Oct.
www.erc.org.au
- Journey of Desperation: series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald on the world refugee situation smh.com.au/news/specials/intl/refugees

This post has been edited by The_Psychonaut: Nov 3 2009, 06:42 PM

[LogicprObe]

Where does it say that?

There has been an increase in the number of asylum-seekers who have been found in our northern waters so far this year - 221 compared with just 179 for all of last year.

But a total of 4750 asylum-seekers arrived in Australia last year. All but 179 came on airlines.

That's illegal immigrants.

13,000 minus 4750 equals 8250 spots for the poor bastards sitting in camps.........doing the right thing.

That's 4750 people who have been queue jumped!

Like I said.
Get you facts right and know what you're talking about.

[The_Psychonaut]

Like I said.
Get you facts right and know what you're talking about.

See my edit. Explains your faulty logic.

[LogicprObe]

Like I said.
Get you facts right and know what you're talking about.

See my edit. Explains your faulty logic.

Your edit provides no link.

I hate edit.
Why didn't you just make another post?

[The_Psychonaut]

Your edit provides no link.

I hate edit.
Why didn't you just make another post?

Link. Also note the references at the end of the post.

Should have made another post, but you hadn't responded by the time I first put the extra information in (then I had to edit it again, because the formatting was poor).

[@~thehung]

The cynic in me says there are arterial motives outside of looking for just a safe place to live.

oh i get it. youre inferring that they *might* be vampires, right?

i think thats rather fanciful.

[Leonid]

The vast majority of those in Immigration Detention are from areas which have recently experienced conflict and most likely have legitimate grounds for asylum in this country... What's your point again? Is it that since the ridiculous detention laws of the Howard era have ended, and that we may now face up to our international responsibilities, that they may make it to this country now?

You realise that people coming here via crime syndicates is separate from us fulfilling our responsibility?

Howard prevented criminals from profiting. Not refugees from applying for Australian citizenship. He also saved lives as a secondary measure.

You and Psychonaut are both confused about this.

The Sri Lankan civil war ended in May '09, btw...

And what happened in July 08 for the trend to shoot up?

Read the article I linked. If they manage to make it to India without their 'bathtubs' sinking, or getting turned back by the Indian navy, corrupt Indian official are stripping the refugees of everything they own, and the shear number of people are making it very difficult for them to lodge legitimate applications. If they bribe the officials and do manage to get one out, they still have to survive for up to 6 months in the camps, not a pleasant prospect. You're also assuming that they're even aware of the legitimate ways to enter Australia.

Please link to an article NOT from Tamil Nation.

Also please explain how being robbed of everything they own is different to being robbed of everything they own + risking their lives

Less than 5% come via illegal means, so again your logic is faulty. We're not filling our quota because the government aren't accepting the applications, probably for legitimate reasons.

a: We're filling our quote so your argument's shithouse
b: 5% coming via illegal means vs 95% coming via legal means doesn't change the fact that 5% come via illegal means.

What methods would you suggest?

Return to the Howard-era exclusion zones.

The exclusion zone was implemented in 94, and is still in place today. Has something else changed?

Wake up

[The_Psychonaut]

You realise that people coming here via crime syndicates is separate from us fulfilling our responsibility?

The treaty we signed didn't specify how the refugees need to arrive, so actually it is. If they're legitimate refugees, we're going back on our agreement by turning them away.

Howard prevented criminals from profiting.

Via what policies?

Please link to an article NOT from Tamil Nation.

Also please explain how being robbed of everything they own is different to being robbed of everything they own + risking their lives

Because they're also risking their lives by taking a dodgy ferry to India and commiting themselves to the camps for 6 months?


As Sri Lanka called yesterday for international help in dealing with tens of thousands fleeing fighting, the Guardian has learned that boat-loads of refugees have arrived in Tamil Nadu – and others have attempted the trip – to avoid internment in government-run camps. Aid workers say some boats have sunk and children have been washed overboard. Other fleeing the fighting have sailed along the coast to government-held areas.

Link.

Return to the Howard-era exclusion zones.

We haven't left Howard-era exclusion zones.

[LogicprObe]

Your edit provides no link.

I hate edit.
Why didn't you just make another post?

Link. Also note the references at the end of the post.

Should have made another post, but you hadn't responded by the time I first put the extra information in (then I had to edit it again, because the formatting was poor).

You dare to quote from a document by Marcus Einfeld?

[The_Psychonaut]

You dare to quote from a document by Marcus Einfeld?

Straight for the ad hominem eh?

[LogicprObe]

You dare to quote from a document by Marcus Einfeld?

Straight for the ad hominem eh?

No.
I just don't trust convicted liars.

[Errorist]

The vast majority of those in Immigration Detention are from areas which have recently experienced conflict and most likely have legitimate grounds for asylum in this country... What's your point again? Is it that since the ridiculous detention laws of the Howard era have ended, and that we may now face up to our international responsibilities, that they may make it to this country now?

You realise that people coming here via crime syndicates is separate from us fulfilling our responsibility?

I don't believe it is. These people wouldn't have to resort to criminal syndicates had we (a multilateral we) a greater framework for access for resettlement... IMO.

Howard prevented criminals from profiting. Not refugees from applying for Australian citizenship. He also saved lives as a secondary measure.

You and Psychonaut are both confused about this.

I'm not confused about this topic, thanks. I did state in a previous post that regardless of the amount of time refugees were forced to stay in detention, they were let in. I'm not accusing the Howard government of entirely going against international agreements, I'm accusing it of treating refugees incredibly poorly and stating that there were more humane treatment alternatives...

The Sri Lankan civil war ended in May '09, btw...

And what happened in July 08 for the trend to shoot up?

There was a continuing Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

Timeline after Government's withdrawal from Ceasefire


This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (September 2009)
On January 2, 2008, the Sri Lankan government officially pulled out of the Ceasefire Agreement.[160] This was amidst the demands of the defense secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa on December 29, 2007.[161]
Donor countries such as the United States,[162] Canada,[163] and Norway[164] have shown deep regrets on this decision by the Sri Lankan government. Neighboring India has also shown its dismay of Sri Lanka's abrogation of the ceasefire.[165]
On January 10, 2008, the LTTE formally responded with the statement from the new head of the Tigers' political wing, B. Nadesan. According to him, the LTTE was shocked and disappointed, since the Government of Sri Lanka had unilaterally withdrawn from the ceasefire agreement without any justification. It was further stated that even then the LTTE was ready to implement every clause of the CFA agreement and respect it one hundred percent. The LTTE claimed that, taking into account the acts of the Government, the international community ought to immediately remove the bans it had placed on the LTTE.[166][167]
It was reported that 185 Sri Lankan soldiers were killed on April 23, 2008, when troops manning the Muhamalai Forward Defence Line attempted to open a third front and advance towards Kilinochchi from Jaffna peninsula. The incident was a setback to military efforts to eliminate the rebels.[168]
On May 9, 2008, the town of Adampan was captured by the Sri Lankan Army.[169] On June 30, 2008, SLA troops linked up the Mannar battlefront with the Vavuniya battlefront, in the southwest of Periyamadhu.[170] On July 16, 2008, SLA troops captured Vidattaltivu, the biggest town situated on the North-Western coast of the island and the main Sea Tiger base.[171] On July 20, 2008, the Sri Lankan Army captured the town of Iluppaikkadavai.[172]
On July 21, 2008, the LTTE announced that it would be declaring a unilateral ceasefire from July 28 to August 4, to coincide with the 15th summit of the heads of state of SAARC to be held in Colombo.[173] However, the government of Sri Lanka dismissed the LTTE's offer as needless and treacherous.[174]
[edit]Significant military gains by the Government
On August 2, 2008, Vellankulam town, the last LTTE's stronghold in Mannar District, fell to the advancing SLA troops.[175] This marked the liberation of the entire Mannar district by the Army, which took eight months.[176] Two days earlier the Army crossed the Mannar-Kilinochchi boundary and entered the district of Kilinochchi.[177] The defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa commented that the Army was on target to take the rebel stronghold of Kilinochchi before the end of the year.[178][dead link]
Following weeks of heavy military confrontation, on September 2, 2008, the Army took complete control of the town of Mallavi.[179]

I don't have hard figures on the number of people displaced at any given time, and would certainly appreciate them otherwise... however, given that there was a civil war at the time (and of course, ongoing conflict in Afghanistan), I'm not inclined to look down or view negatively those who wish to pay for fast access by any means, but who are genuine refugees/asylum seekers... I just don't buy the "jump the queue" rhetoric...

[Leonid]

The treaty we signed didn't specify how the refugees need to arrive, so actually it is. If they're legitimate refugees, we're going back on our agreement by turning them away.

The treaty also doesn't specify that we need to help crime syndicates make money out of human misery.

Via what policies?

The ones that put nations currently in the inclusion zone, into the exclusion zone. Also the Pacific Solution.

Because they're also risking their lives by taking a dodgy ferry to India and commiting themselves to the camps for 6 months?

A dodgy ferry in one of the most busy seas in the world over a short distance and always within sight of other ships?

Committing themselves to camps for 6 months? Or behind bars for 5 years?

We haven't left Howard-era exclusion zones.

Wake up.

I don't believe it is. These people wouldn't have to resort to criminal syndicates had we (a multilateral we) a greater framework for access for resettlement... IMO.

Start believing. And we do have a greater framework - the same as every other country - we have our UN obligations.

There are just over 1161 refugees/detainees in our detention centres. 630 have not applied or sought a protection visa.

I guess that means that of the refugees in our detention centers only about 500 are actual people seeking protection. We let 11500 in per year from UN camps, without funding crime syndicates.

I'm not confused about this topic, thanks. I did state in a previous post that regardless of the amount of time refugees were forced to stay in detention, they were let in. I'm not accusing the Howard government of entirely going against international agreements, I'm accusing it of treating refugees incredibly poorly and stating that there were more humane treatment alternatives...

Maybe their treatment of them was responsible for the dropping of boat numbers?

There was a continuing Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

Timeline after Government's withdrawal from Ceasefire


This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (September 2009)
On January 2, 2008, the Sri Lankan government officially pulled out of the Ceasefire Agreement.[160] This was amidst the demands of the defense secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa on December 29, 2007.[161]
Donor countries such as the United States,[162] Canada,[163] and Norway[164] have shown deep regrets on this decision by the Sri Lankan government. Neighboring India has also shown its dismay of Sri Lanka's abrogation of the ceasefire.[165]
On January 10, 2008, the LTTE formally responded with the statement from the new head of the Tigers' political wing, B. Nadesan. According to him, the LTTE was shocked and disappointed, since the Government of Sri Lanka had unilaterally withdrawn from the ceasefire agreement without any justification. It was further stated that even then the LTTE was ready to implement every clause of the CFA agreement and respect it one hundred percent. The LTTE claimed that, taking into account the acts of the Government, the international community ought to immediately remove the bans it had placed on the LTTE.[166][167]
It was reported that 185 Sri Lankan soldiers were killed on April 23, 2008, when troops manning the Muhamalai Forward Defence Line attempted to open a third front and advance towards Kilinochchi from Jaffna peninsula. The incident was a setback to military efforts to eliminate the rebels.[168]
On May 9, 2008, the town of Adampan was captured by the Sri Lankan Army.[169] On June 30, 2008, SLA troops linked up the Mannar battlefront with the Vavuniya battlefront, in the southwest of Periyamadhu.[170] On July 16, 2008, SLA troops captured Vidattaltivu, the biggest town situated on the North-Western coast of the island and the main Sea Tiger base.[171] On July 20, 2008, the Sri Lankan Army captured the town of Iluppaikkadavai.[172]
On July 21, 2008, the LTTE announced that it would be declaring a unilateral ceasefire from July 28 to August 4, to coincide with the 15th summit of the heads of state of SAARC to be held in Colombo.[173] However, the government of Sri Lanka dismissed the LTTE's offer as needless and treacherous.[174]
[edit]Significant military gains by the Government
On August 2, 2008, Vellankulam town, the last LTTE's stronghold in Mannar District, fell to the advancing SLA troops.[175] This marked the liberation of the entire Mannar district by the Army, which took eight months.[176] Two days earlier the Army crossed the Mannar-Kilinochchi boundary and entered the district of Kilinochchi.[177] The defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa commented that the Army was on target to take the rebel stronghold of Kilinochchi before the end of the year.[178][dead link]
Following weeks of heavy military confrontation, on September 2, 2008, the Army took complete control of the town of Mallavi.[179]

I don't have hard figures on the number of people displaced at any given time, and would certainly appreciate them otherwise... however, given that there was a civil war at the time (and of course, ongoing conflict in Afghanistan), I'm not inclined to look down or view negatively those who wish to pay for fast access by any means, but who are genuine refugees/asylum seekers... I just don't buy the "jump the queue" rhetoric...

So basically nothing happened in July that would make it easier for Sri Lankans to arrive here?

There was no change in government policy whatsoever?

This post has been edited by Leonid: Nov 3 2009, 09:56 PM

[LogicprObe]

Link. Also note the references at the end of the post.

I have to say, a lot of that document, especially a lot of the Australian stuff is hopelessly out of date.
Also, the references are all about self interest and guilt.
It's a shamefully biased piece of work.

[The_Psychonaut]

The treaty also doesn't specify that we need to help crime syndicates make money out of human misery.

Like I said, it's unfortunate that they're able to extort these people out of their money, but it's still irrelevant. If they're legitimate refugees, they're legitimate refugees. Doesn't matter how they get here.

The ones that put nations currently in the inclusion zone, into the exclusion zone. Also the Pacific Solution.

If anything, that's made it more profitable for them. It certainly hasn't stopped them, the rate at which asylum seekers arrive by sea has been rising.

A dodgy ferry in one of the most busy seas in the world over a short distance and always within sight of other ships?

Committing themselves to camps for 6 months? Or behind bars for 5 years?

Most Tamils can't swim, there's a cultural fear of the ocean. It doesn't make much of a difference if it takes 5 minutes or 10 hours for help to arrive, they're still fucked. Then they have to deal with indian officials, and then cramped and unsanitary camp conditions.

Where are you getting 5 years behind bars? It takes up to 6 months to process an application, if it's approved they're given a protection visa. If it's denied, they're sent home. Are you confusing them with those charged with people smuggling?

Wake up.

Did you read the article at all?

Preparing to leave for the United States for five days, Mr Howard said the evidence was behind his government's decision to include more islands in its migration exclusion zone. He also said that for Labor to block the move would be to act against the national interest.

It's Howard complaining about labour failing to support an extension to the PPZ, which hasn't been retracted since implemented in 94. Wake up?

[Leonid]

Like I said, it's unfortunate that they're able to extort these people out of their money, but it's still irrelevant. If they're legitimate refugees, they're legitimate refugees. Doesn't matter how they get here.

Once again: You are confused

We absolutely do have the right to stop human trafficking across our borders.

Refugee or otherwise.

We fulfil our quote of refugees with or without allowing criminal gangs to prosper.

Most Tamils can't swim, there's a cultural fear of the ocean.

Proof that most Tamils can't swim, please.

Or I call Bullshit.

It doesn't make much of a difference if it takes 5 minutes or 10 hours for help to arrive, they're still fucked. Then they have to deal with indian officials, and then cramped and unsanitary camp conditions.

As opposed to months across warzones in cramped and unsanitary conditions? Then on a leaky bathtub with little food or water, cramped like sardines in a can?

Sorry, but the picture you pain is bullshit.

Where are you getting 5 years behind bars? It takes up to 6 months to process an application, if it's approved they're given a protection visa. If it's denied, they're sent home. Are you confusing them with those charged with people smuggling?

Wake up.
Wake up.

Did you read the article at all?

Preparing to leave for the United States for five days, Mr Howard said the evidence was behind his government's decision to include more islands in its migration exclusion zone. He also said that for Labor to block the move would be to act against the national interest.

It's Howard complaining about labour failing to support an extension to the PPZ, which hasn't been retracted since implemented in 94. Wake up?

I read that article. You obviously did not read past the first 2 lines.

While it makes sense to keep mandatory detention, albeit in a radically different form, there is no sound policy reason to continue to excise parts of Australia. This legal fiction was introduced to deprive people arriving by boat of the normal protections of the law and to enable them to be removed to places such as Nauru. Evans has indicated that Labor's new immigration values will apply in the excised areas, leading to the question of why the excisions are to be maintained. One answer is that it honours, at least in form, an election commitment, and another might lie in Evans's answer that the new values will apply to excised areas ''as much as possible''. This leaves some disturbing wiggle room and might even allow a return to Howard's policies if the Rudd Government takes too much heat over a large number of boat arrivals.

Wake up.