Refugees - Is seeking asylum wrong?

[Risottia]

As many of us would know Immigration between nations

Dude, apart from your grammar, your premise - that is the equation between asylum seekers and immigrants - is fundamentally flawed.

Immigrants move mostly for economical reasons (poverty and unemployment). Asylum seekers flee from wars or political/religious/ethnical persecution. The two things cannot be compared... also, generally the influx of immigrants is WAY greater than the influx of asylum seekers.

Also, while immigrants can legally be prevented from entering a country as they must undergo a regular visa application, asylum seekers have the right (as per various international conventions and treatises) to cross borders without any visa or passport being required until they arrive in a safe location where they can file their request.

[Riftend]

As many of us would know Immigration between nations

Dude, apart from your grammar, your premise - that is the equation between asylum seekers and immigrants - is fundamentally flawed.

Immigrants move mostly for economical reasons (poverty and unemployment). Asylum seekers flee from wars or political/religious/ethnical persecution. The two things cannot be compared... also, generally the influx of immigrants is WAY greater than the influx of asylum seekers.

Also, while immigrants can legally be prevented from entering a country as they must undergo a regular visa application, asylum seekers have the right (as per various international conventions and treatises) to cross borders without any visa or passport being required until they arrive in a safe location where they can file their request.

One moment

Immigration: noun - the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

Immigrant: noun - a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

Asylum seeker: noun - a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another.

Refugee: noun - a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

---

---

Well - An Asylum seeker leaves their country to find asylum in another. An immigrant moves to another country. What the Asylum seekers are doing is immigrating. In saying that Immigrant, Asylum seeker and Refugee ALL can be labelled onto the people being spoken about in this. I'm sorry but if you want to upstage me with what the definition of each are at least go get the correct one before doing it.

Immigration is the act of moving to another country - Exactly what asylum seekers do

That is what is being questioned - is the protocols and all the rest being followed appropriately. If we want them and all the rest is a matter of public opinion. I am failing to see what you are trying to point out other than you wish to pick at things that aren't broken?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Should refugees be allowed in your country?
Yes, of course

Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes?
Yes, of course

Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes?
Yes, of course

Should refuges be able to receive citizenship ever?
They should be allowed to stay indefinitely and if travelling, have the power to get back immediately if ever necessary, but for one to be our citizen, it has to have a minimal accordance with our shared ethical values so as to truly represent our nation.

Should refuges vote?
Yes, of course.

Should refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country?
All citizens should have the same rights and benefits, non-citizens maybe not all the same benefits, but certainly about all of the same rights.

Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed?
Only if it is needed to not threaten our own people's safety, such as for example to avoid terrorism or epidemics

On a scale of one (they shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (they should let everyone in) where'd you feel you sit?
Somewhere between a 9.7 and a 9.9, but count it as 10 if decimals aren't allowed.

[Finland SSR]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country? Yes.
Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes? Yes, why not?
Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes? Maybe
Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever? Yes.
Should Refuges vote? No. They are still citizens of their country, not ours.
Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country? I don't think so.
Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed? I guess.
On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit? 4-5

[Riftend]

Again thank you for all the contributions!

[Yoitzu]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country? Yes, but only after they have filled in the appropriate documentation and have had their backgrounds checked
Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes? Generally no
Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes? Depends heavily on the situation but again generally no
Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever? Yes, there is nothing wrong with the refuge appointing citizenship provide they pass all the standard criteria
Should Refuges vote? If they have citizenship, they are of this country; otherwise no
Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country? Yes, only with citizenship
Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed? Yes
On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit? 3

[Toronina]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country? Yes
Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes? Yes
Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes? Yes
Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever? Yes
Should Refuges vote? Yes, after becoming citizens
Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country? Yes
Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed? No
On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit? 8

[Saint Jade IV]

Some. Not all of them. Some of them.

So we should just worry about the consequences until after they wash ashore dead?

And once they're back in Sri Lanka, if the government wants to torture them, well, not our problem?

Right. Funny, the Western world said similar things in the 40's.

Aside from the brilliant Godwin, the only country that said it wasn't an issue was the United States. And Switzerland. Everyone else was too busy being invaded and occupied.

A lot of countries pretty much said they didn't want the Jews. That they either didn't believe what was happening, or didn't really care. A lot of countries actively helped well before invasion too.

They realised after that what a terrible idea it was. Seems history is doomed to repeat itself.

Well I'm glad to know you think asylum seekers are like an invasion by Nazis.

I was referring to the fact that many countries felt rather guilty about things like the SS St Louisa, after the concentration camps were discovered. I believe the guilt the world felt about not taking Jewish refugees was a major reason for the creation of Israel.

That would be why we should process them. Rather than simply turn them back.

And that is what detention centers are for.

I know.

Then they don't qualify as refugees.

They are refugees by name.

Unless they are being persecuted by their government for certain, very specific reasons, they actually aren't.

But many of them lack documents. As I said, it's fine if they are documented migrants or documented refugees, welcome.

What about the nice men who were "found to be refugees", with all the right documentation, after waiting in camps, only to later come clean and admit they were war criminals? Or that were found out? Documents don't prove anything.

Most Jews escaping the Nazis bought false documents. Why? Because the German government wouldn't issue them real ones. Should the British government have turned its back on the Kindertransport, for example? Many of those children did not have identity documents, except what their parents or carers told the organisations running the transports.

If they aren't, no red carpet for you.

So, most Jews in WWII should have been sent back?

But we won't know until we verify their claims.

So just tell them to bugger off. The only reason they try to get into Australia is because they know they'll be sent somewhere else which is better than where they came from.

I see that you are very compassionate towards people fleeing persecution.

[Gravlen]

As many of us would know Immigration between nations of the world occurs quiet frequently between the Developing nations to the already Developed ones - What i will be asking is if this is wrong or not? This will be somewhat of a survey for whether or not you feel immigrants, "Boat people,""Que Jumpers" or whatever else you know of them being referred too being allowed in your country in real life.

Refugees often leave their current countries for better one as they face persecution, sever poverty, poor living standards and other factors that force them to leave.

Refugees are a subset of immigrants. I'm a bit confused as to what you're really asking, since this particular group enjoys much wider legal rights than other migrants. Do you want to know my feelings about immigrants in general, or refugees in particular?

This is in regards to your real life nation mostly but is to scope a view on whether or not they should or should not be allowed to enter Australia since the current Government which is led by Tony Abbott is currently under scrutiny whether what they are currently doing is ethical or not. Some more information on the matter can be found here - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/asylum-s ... gees-guide

It's neither ethical nor legal, what Australia is doing to asylum seekers. Australia has taken upon themselves a responsibility which they're now trying to avoid.

I ask that you all take this seriously as I will be using this statistics in a presentation that i plan on doing as well as a Petition currently being put forward to local government.

What power does the local government have over immigration issues?

Survey says...
Should Refugees be allowed in your country? Of course.
Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes? Of course, since the law allows for it. (What does it matter what is lawful in my eyes anyway? If I were to say no, I would simply be... wrong.)
Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes? Of course. How could it not be.
Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever? Yes.
Should Refuges vote? They should, when they get the right to do so when becoming citizens.
Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country? Yes, probably.
Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed? Depends what you mean by "detention centres".
On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit? 6.

[Riftend]

As many of us would know Immigration between nations of the world occurs quiet frequently between the Developing nations to the already Developed ones - What i will be asking is if this is wrong or not? This will be somewhat of a survey for whether or not you feel immigrants, "Boat people,""Que Jumpers" or whatever else you know of them being referred too being allowed in your country in real life.

Refugees often leave their current countries for better one as they face persecution, sever poverty, poor living standards and other factors that force them to leave.

Refugees are a subset of immigrants. I'm a bit confused as to what you're really asking, since this particular group enjoys much wider legal rights than other migrants. Do you want to know my feelings about immigrants in general, or refugees in particular?

This is in regards to your real life nation mostly but is to scope a view on whether or not they should or should not be allowed to enter Australia since the current Government which is led by Tony Abbott is currently under scrutiny whether what they are currently doing is ethical or not. Some more information on the matter can be found here - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/asylum-s ... gees-guide

It's neither ethical nor legal, what Australia is doing to asylum seekers. Australia has taken upon themselves a responsibility which they're now trying to avoid.

I ask that you all take this seriously as I will be using this statistics in a presentation that i plan on doing as well as a Petition currently being put forward to local government.

What power does the local government have over immigration issues?

Survey says...
Should Refugees be allowed in your country? Of course.
Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes? Of course, since the law allows for it. (What does it matter what is lawful in my eyes anyway? If I were to say no, I would simply be... wrong.)
Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes? Of course. How could it not be.
Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever? Yes.
Should Refuges vote? They should, when they get the right to do so when becoming citizens.
Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country? Yes, probably.
Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed? Depends what you mean by "detention centres".
On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit? 6.

To answer the question:

It's in regards to asylum seekers in particular and a petition to local government (if it has enough signatures) will than be taken higher up into the federal government.

[Zammora]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country? Depends entirely on the circumstances.
Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes? Yes.
Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes? Yes.
Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever? If they fit all the requirements then in certain cases it should be allowed.
Should Refuges vote? Only if they obtain citizenship. Otherwise no.
Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country? Certain rights should be denied, such as access to social security and government handouts.
Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed? Yes.
On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit? 4

[Rissolton]

(Image)

---

Immigration in Today's Moderen Society
There is also a survey below

---

As many of us would know Immigration between nations of the world occurs quiet frequently between the Developing nations to the already Developed ones - What i will be asking is if this is wrong or not? This will be somewhat of a survey for whether or not you feel immigrants, "Boat people,""Que Jumpers" or whatever else you know of them being referred too being allowed in your country in real life.

Refugees often leave their current countries for better one as they face persecution, sever poverty, poor living standards and other factors that force them to leave.

This is in regards to your real life nation mostly but is to scope a view on whether or not they should or should not be allowed to enter Australia since the current Government which is led by Tony Abbott is currently under scrutiny whether what they are currently doing is ethical or not. Some more information on the matter can be found here - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/asylum-s ... gees-guide

I ask that you all take this seriously as I will be using this statistics in a presentation that i plan on doing as well as a Petition currently being put forward to local government.

Survey

[b]Should Refugees be allowed in your country?[/b]
[b]Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes?[/b]
[b]Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes?[/b]
[b]Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever?[/b]
[b]Should Refuges vote?[/b]
[b]Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country?[/b]
[b]Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed?[/b]
[b]On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit?[/b]

Thank you for answering all this - I really do appreciate it!

---

My views on the matter

---

I am all for Refugees immigrating to Australia - so far as this is getting the view of a global community through this survey. I currently am working on a presentation for a rally and a petition to the public that will be handed to a Local Government member of Australia.

Should Refugees be allowed in your country? Yes they should
Is seeking asylum in another country lawful in your eyes? Lawful indeed
Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes? It sure is
Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever? Yes they should
Should Refuges vote? Yes they should - even before citizenship
Should Refuges receive the same benefits as natives to the country? They should receive the exact same as a native or citizens
Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed? Detention Centres should never be used
On a scale of one (They shouldn't be allowed in my country ever) to ten (They should let everyone in) where d you feel you sit? Nine

Yes they should, but Tony Abbott's an idiot, hence why it doesn't happen. Seriously, 75% of our "illegals" come by plane anyway, he just lies and creates a media circus over nothing.

[Gravlen]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country?
Only if they are refugees, and not asylum seekers. That is, people who could not realistically find food, shelter and elementary safety in a country closer to home.
In my country's case, the only countries where refugees could realistically come from are Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Britain and Denmark.

And China, Marocco, Iran, Chile, Rwanda...

You see, there's this new invention called "flight", and something called "airplanes" [air-pleyns] going between countries far away from each other...

Is seeking asylum in another country moral in your eyes?
No, it is immoral in that it reduces the chances of survival and access to resources of another population in order for a foreign population to survive and grow.

You seriously believe that taking steps to protect your own life is immoral? Interesting...

Should Refuges be able to receive citizenship ever?
Only if there is no way they could return to their own country within a decade.
Also, 'refugees' and not 'asylum seekers', who should as a general rule be refused citizenship.

Why do you differentiate between the two as if they're somehow exclusionary groups? They aren't. An asylum seeker is a person seeking the protection of a host state, and the recognition of his status as a refugee. That person may or may not be a refugee, but if his request for asylum is granted it means the host state has recognized his status as refugee. A refugee is a refugee no matter where in the formal process he finds himself.

Or to put it differently: An asylum seeker may simply be a refugee waiting for his status to be confirmed.

Should they have to go to detention centres to be processed?
If they are refugees, they should be subject to a few background checks.

How would you go about checking their backgrounds?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Yes they should, but Tony Abbott's an idiot, hence why it doesn't happen. Seriously, 75% of our "illegals" come by plane anyway, he just lies and creates a media circus over nothing.

Some people say there are 1 million illegal Brazilians in the USA who get there by plane, but they are much less notorious than the Mexicans or the Chinese, so they end up staying.

Going all the way from Brazil to the Texan border is a specialty of people from regions of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo who have a similar dialect to mine, but they are for obvious reasons (Brazil rising, USA's economy staling) increasingly rarer.

[Gravlen]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country?
If they have the proper documentation and a legitimate reason, yes.

What do you mean by "proper documentation"? Travel documents, visa documents, ID documents, or documents to prove they're being persecuted?

What if they have a legitimate reason (fear of persecution) but not proper documentation (possibly denied them because the government issuing documentation is persecuting them, or denied because the country no longer has a central authority producing valid documentation)?

[Calimera II]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country?
If they have the proper documentation and a legitimate reason, yes.

What do you mean by "proper documentation"? Travel documents, visa documents, ID documents, or documents to prove they're being persecuted?

What if they have a legitimate reason (fear of persecution) but not proper documentation (possibly denied them because the government issuing documentation is persecuting them, or denied because the country no longer has a central authority producing valid documentation)?

I think ''proper documentation'' in this case means ''good enough story to stay''

[Gravlen]

Right. Funny, the Western world said similar things in the 40's.

Aside from the brilliant Godwin, the only country that said it wasn't an issue was the United States. And Switzerland. Everyone else was too busy being invaded and occupied.

Im not sure what you mean... The US and Switzerland both turned away many refugees who lacked the necessary documentation. In 1939, jews were told to await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible into the United States.

[Saint Jade IV]

Should Refugees be allowed in your country?
If they have the proper documentation and a legitimate reason, yes.

What do you mean by "proper documentation"? Travel documents, visa documents, ID documents, or documents to prove they're being persecuted?

What if they have a legitimate reason (fear of persecution) but not proper documentation (possibly denied them because the government issuing documentation is persecuting them, or denied because the country no longer has a central authority producing valid documentation)?

Apparently, in Costa Fierro's view, that's not his problem.

And what about all those who don't have another way of getting to a safe destination? Or the ability to get papers from their country?

It's not our problem. Don't simply rock on up to NZ uninvited because the door won't be opened.

[Gravlen]

It's in regards to asylum seekers in particular and a petition to local government (if it has enough signatures) will than be taken higher up into the federal government.

Honestly, what you should ask is for the federal government to respect its obligations under the refugee convention which it is a party to. Simple as that.

[Gravlen]

What do you mean by "proper documentation"? Travel documents, visa documents, ID documents, or documents to prove they're being persecuted?

What if they have a legitimate reason (fear of persecution) but not proper documentation (possibly denied them because the government issuing documentation is persecuting them, or denied because the country no longer has a central authority producing valid documentation)?

I think ''proper documentation'' in this case means ''good enough story to stay''

Well, you don't actually need documentation for that, so it would be a strange choice of words...

[Gravlen]

What do you mean by "proper documentation"? Travel documents, visa documents, ID documents, or documents to prove they're being persecuted?

What if they have a legitimate reason (fear of persecution) but not proper documentation (possibly denied them because the government issuing documentation is persecuting them, or denied because the country no longer has a central authority producing valid documentation)?

Apparently, in Costa Fierro's view, that's not his problem.

It's not our problem. Don't simply rock on up to NZ uninvited because the door won't be opened.

He's wrong about that. NZ is a party to the Refugee Convention, and there's no such requirement to be found in the Convention. For his position to be correct NZ would have to withdraw from the Convention, something which they haven't done so far...

[Baiynistan]

I think the betrayal of the Cossacks still leaves a bitter after-taste in the collective British pallet. I would hope that we won't make the mistake of treating other asylum-seeking groups similarly ever again.

[Saint Jade IV]

Apparently, in Costa Fierro's view, that's not his problem.

He's wrong about that. NZ is a party to the Refugee Convention, and there's no such requirement to be found in the Convention. For his position to be correct NZ would have to withdraw from the Convention, something which they haven't done so far...

You would be surprised how many uneducated Australians don't get that. I assume it's the same in NZ. There's also an alarming number of Australians who think that withdrawing from the Convention is the way to go. For a country founded as a convict colony, who was subsequently bolstered by the influx of refugees in the 40's and 50's (many of whom were collaborators or outright war criminals), we are disgustingly insular.

[Calimera II]

I think ''proper documentation'' in this case means ''good enough story to stay''

Well, you don't actually need documentation for that, so it would be a strange choice of words...

Yes, I am confused as well.

[Riftend]

Well, you don't actually need documentation for that, so it would be a strange choice of words...

Yes, I am confused as well.

Add me to the list of confusion xD