Australia found guilty of human rights violations.

[AiliailiA]

This might sound crazy, but ... isn't the Australian policy of confiscating the boats asylum seekers arrive on, precisely why the supposedly well-funded 'people smugglers' send the asylum seekers over in such shitty boats?

I guess the 'people smugglers' who take money from asylum seekers probably haven't committed any crime either, other than perhaps a violation of Indonesian or Australian laws about safe passage of passengers. Prosecuting them for that (in Indonesia presumably) would force them to use proper vessels, with life jackets and so on, making the journey much safer for their 'customers' and actually leading to more of them.

Australian politicians say they're concerned about the risk to asylum seekers of the sea passage, but secretly I think they rely on it being unsafe as a disincentive. And it would take substantial co-operation from Indonesia to fine boat owners instead of confiscating the boats.

[DogDoo 7]

Uhh...it doesn't matter how you arrive if you are claiming asylum.

That's not the point. You can't just get on a boat, go to Australia and claim asylum. That's not how the system works.

That said, claiming asylum in any country is a whole lot more complicated than getting off a plane and saying "no I don't have a Visa, I'm here to claim asylum" and walking straight into the community as a happy new citizen. And most people who oppose the system we currently have in Australia don't seem to have a grasp of this which sorta undermines the position of anyone who wants to have a legitimate discussion about refugees here in Australia. So I wonder if the problem in Australia because we demand refugees jump through a ridiculous number of legal hoops before we consider them for visas or because the system we set up to handle refugees is in a pathetic state? I'm leaning towards the latter option at the moment. Either way, something needs to change.

uhh...it doesn't matter how you arrive if you are claiming asylum. there is no such thing as 'illegal entry' for asylum seekers. now, practically speaking, they actually have to enter the country in order to request asylum, although in the case of interdiction in international waters, they are considered to have entered the country of the interdicting vessel.

If you want to claim asylum legally, you have to get a visa to come to Australia as a visitor and claim asylum once you're here. You go through official channels. These people just meet with people smugglers and are snuck into Australia by fishing boat by the several hundred (usually 600 onboard a boat that can only hold 75). They arrive illegally with no visa and paperwork and are usually intercepted by our navy who transfer them to detention centres where they are held while we process their asylum claims. We've been doing this for years and now we've decided it has to stop, you need to come legally if you want to be settled in Australia, if you come legally we will accept you with open arms, but if you come illegally... you won't be allowed to come to Australia. It's a simple as that. It's our country, we have a right to do what we want and they're very lucky that we've been so lenient for so long, but those days are over. Come legally or not at all.

No. this is EXACTLY how the system works. Your claim might not necessarily be APPROVED, and you can be detained while your claim is evaluated (and deported for illegal entry if your claim is denied), but simply washing ashore (or arriving in an airplane's landing gear) is a PERFECTLY VALID METHOD of reaching a jurisdiction in which you can claim asylum.

[Vitaphone Racing]

No. this is EXACTLY how the system works. Your claim might not necessarily be APPROVED, and you can be detained while your claim is evaluated (and deported for illegal entry if your claim is denied), but simply washing ashore (or arriving in an airplane's landing gear) is a PERFECTLY VALID METHOD of reaching a jurisdiction in which you can claim asylum.

Not that I disputed this or anything. Hell, the only reason I said "illegal" was to make a definition between the those who arrive here via people smuggling and those who don't.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This might sound crazy, but ... isn't the Australian policy of confiscating the boats asylum seekers arrive on, precisely why the supposedly well-funded 'people smugglers' send the asylum seekers over in such shitty boats?

I guess the 'people smugglers' who take money from asylum seekers probably haven't committed any crime either, other than perhaps a violation of Indonesian or Australian laws about safe passage of passengers. Prosecuting them for that (in Indonesia presumably) would force them to use proper vessels, with life jackets and so on, making the journey much safer for their 'customers' and actually leading to more of them.

Australian politicians say they're concerned about the risk to asylum seekers of the sea passage, but secretly I think they rely on it being unsafe as a disincentive. And it would take substantial co-operation from Indonesia to fine boat owners instead of confiscating the boats.

The primary ethical concern I have with people smuggling, and it's not the fact they might die, is that we're creating a situation where people can buy themselves a better life. The only people who can afford to come here by boat are those who sell every last thing they own and come here with the clothes on their back, or those people who are already doing better than average for most in their country. No. Nobody should be able to buy fast access into Australia. There should be no premium option.

[AiliailiA]

This might sound crazy, but ... isn't the Australian policy of confiscating the boats asylum seekers arrive on, precisely why the supposedly well-funded 'people smugglers' send the asylum seekers over in such shitty boats?

I guess the 'people smugglers' who take money from asylum seekers probably haven't committed any crime either, other than perhaps a violation of Indonesian or Australian laws about safe passage of passengers. Prosecuting them for that (in Indonesia presumably) would force them to use proper vessels, with life jackets and so on, making the journey much safer for their 'customers' and actually leading to more of them.

Australian politicians say they're concerned about the risk to asylum seekers of the sea passage, but secretly I think they rely on it being unsafe as a disincentive. And it would take substantial co-operation from Indonesia to fine boat owners instead of confiscating the boats.

The primary ethical concern I have with people smuggling, and it's not the fact they might die, is that we're creating a situation where people can buy themselves a better life. The only people who can afford to come here by boat are those who sell every last thing they own and come here with the clothes on their back, or those people who are already doing better than average for most in their country. No. Nobody should be able to buy fast access into Australia. There should be no premium option.

Well then, you would want that anyone coming to Australia with a visa ... a 457 work visa, or a tourist visa ... would automatically be ineligible to apply for asylum.

According to this source, half of the temporary protection visas granted are to people who arrived in Australia "legally" ... in that they entered the country with a visa. Granted that July of this year may make the source already dated, it seems to be a distinct advantage to arrive by plane.

I'm also not sure whether sailors or cruise passengers (who necessarily have a visa of some sort if they come ashore) are counted as "boat arrivals" or whether the SBS figures mean what most people mean by "boat people".

In any case, there certainly seems to be a "premium option". With the sort of money people are apparently paying for passage to Indonesia (probably not under very safe conditions either) then crossing the Timor Gap in a fishing boat or coastal freighter, they could get a passport, a tourist visa and a plane ticket ... and fly all the way in just one day. Why aren't they doing that instead?


Perhaps it is that someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of citizenship is suddenly in a lot more danger the moment they apply for a passport ... or visit the Australian embassy there ...

[Costa Alegria]

No. this is EXACTLY how the system works. Your claim might not necessarily be APPROVED, and you can be detained while your claim is evaluated (and deported for illegal entry if your claim is denied), but simply washing ashore (or arriving in an airplane's landing gear) is a PERFECTLY VALID METHOD of reaching a jurisdiction in which you can claim asylum.

No. It. Isn't. What is it about the letters "n" and "o" do you not understand?

[DogDoo 7]

No. this is EXACTLY how the system works. Your claim might not necessarily be APPROVED, and you can be detained while your claim is evaluated (and deported for illegal entry if your claim is denied), but simply washing ashore (or arriving in an airplane's landing gear) is a PERFECTLY VALID METHOD of reaching a jurisdiction in which you can claim asylum.

Not that I disputed this or anything. Hell, the only reason I said "illegal" was to make a definition between the those who arrive here via people smuggling and those who don't.

Yeah I know. You just got included in the shotgun response. The whole purpose of the Convention on Refugees is to incentivize a consistent, orderly, and expedient process to process claims.

[DogDoo 7]

No. this is EXACTLY how the system works. Your claim might not necessarily be APPROVED, and you can be detained while your claim is evaluated (and deported for illegal entry if your claim is denied), but simply washing ashore (or arriving in an airplane's landing gear) is a PERFECTLY VALID METHOD of reaching a jurisdiction in which you can claim asylum.

No. It. Isn't. What is it about the letters "n" and "o" do you not understand?

The signed and ratified international treaty that says otherwise?

[DogDoo 7]

The primary ethical concern I have with people smuggling, and it's not the fact they might die, is that we're creating a situation where people can buy themselves a better life. The only people who can afford to come here by boat are those who sell every last thing they own and come here with the clothes on their back, or those people who are already doing better than average for most in their country. No. Nobody should be able to buy fast access into Australia. There should be no premium option.

Well then, you would want that anyone coming to Australia with a visa ... a 457 work visa, or a tourist visa ... would automatically be ineligible to apply for asylum.

According to this source, half of the temporary protection visas granted are to people who arrived in Australia "legally" ... in that they entered the country with a visa. Granted that July of this year may make the source already dated, it seems to be a distinct advantage to arrive by plane.

I'm also not sure whether sailors or cruise passengers (who necessarily have a visa of some sort if they come ashore) are counted as "boat arrivals" or whether the SBS figures mean what most people mean by "boat people".

In any case, there certainly seems to be a "premium option". With the sort of money people are apparently paying for passage to Indonesia (probably not under very safe conditions either) then crossing the Timor Gap in a fishing boat or coastal freighter, they could get a passport, a tourist visa and a plane ticket ... and fly all the way in just one day. Why aren't they doing that instead?


Perhaps it is that someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of citizenship is suddenly in a lot more danger the moment they apply for a passport ... or visit the
Australian embassy there ...

One would also think that the Australian Foreign Ministry would at least try to attempt to prevent the issuance of visas to suspected asylum seekers. One of the purposes of US Immigration facilities in non-US airports is to interdict asylum seekers before they enter US soil.

Anyway, I don't see why you can't just process the claims, and if denied, just deport them? With Israel, the main countries where refugees come from are Sudan and Eritrea. Nobody is currently allowed to deport people to Eritrea and we don't have diplomatic relations with Sudan. So there's really no incentive to process claims.

[AiliailiA]

No. Nobody should be able to buy fast access into Australia. There should be no premium option.

I'll reply separately to this, because it's a different issue. Neither the US nor Australia has any problem with people buying "fast access". As the source above shows, the skilled migration program granted indefinite residency visas to 71,819 prospective migrants in 2011-12. These people will presumably become citizens if they don't choose to leave again and don't break laws.

Compared to a capped limit of 13,750 refugees, that's a pretty fat fast-track to citizenship. If these people have skills that are lacking in Australia, a developed nation with an excellent education and training system and fairly good social mobility, it's fair to say they could do fairly well for themselves anywhere. They're not let into Australia because they're in any need, they're let in because it is in Australia's economic interest to import trained labor.

That's a bit hard on the Australians isn't it? While asylum seekers are legally prevented from working at all, and will blow their chance if they defy the law and work anyway (assuming they're in "community detention" not a prison camp), five times as many migrants are allowed to compete with Australians for skilled, high-paying jobs. Young Australians considering a tertiary education they will have to pay for must consider that if their chosen specialty is in high demand when they graduate, they will need to compete with foreign-trained workers, likely with experience in the industry, and perhaps never be able to pay back their education loan. I know the loans scheme is generous (being essentially zero-interest) but nonethesless such a system continued into the future will be disastrous for the labour market in Australia.

It would actually be preferable to import unskilled labor to do the jobs native-born Australians disdain. Working on fishing-trawlers, agricultural work, late night shifts. Refugees will do this work, because it's still better than what they could get in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. They'll do it gladly at the Australian minimum wage, with Australian law protecting them from unsafe working conditions or indentured labor. Though WorkChoices certainly weakened it, they would still have greater protection from unfair dismissal or abuse of contract.

Isn't this how migrants have always proven themselves, and overcome discrimination? By working hard? That, more than any other kind of social integration (even food!) is how migrants prove themselves and become welcome. I think it is foolish to deny it from the get-go, and tell asylum seekers "you're only here because we feel sorry for you. We're paying your way, because we feel sorry for you".

Note, I'm not saying asylum seekers should be required to work while their application is considered. I'm just saying they should be allowed to.

[Erinkita]

Our treatment of refugees is an embarrassment. Both parties are milking the issue in the most shameful way. They've turned it into a "who can be the cruellest" contest. Both sides appeal to, and incite, our xenophobia. They make us worse, as a country, and as people, and we let them. And the asylum seekers pay for it. This is something we have to change fast. I don't think it will happen, but it really needs to.

[Toronina]

Well, this is not a pleasant topic for me to address, but I don't see anyone else doing so.

Australia has been found guilty - for the first time in history - of broad violations of human rights law by the UN Human Rights Council. The Council has particularly condemned Australia's policy of indefinite detention for refugees with adverse security findings, without informing the refugees in question of the causes of the finding or permitting them to appeal it.

I apologise for not providing the primary documentation (it seems hard to find it on the UNHRC website) but this is nothing new. As of 2006, Australian Senate reports were decrying the cruel and inhumane conditions imposed upon refugees in Australia, and we frankly really, really need ot pull our socks up on this matter.

I have on many occasions been told about the time immediately after the Fall of Saigon in 1975, when tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, to be welcomed and provided for by our Liberal (i.e., "conservative") Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and I am frankly ashamed to admit that today, we - the people of Australia - are failing to live up to the example set for us by our parents and grandparents. We are not welcoming these people in the spirit of humanitarianism and tolerance, we are not fulfilling our obligations under international law and we aren't even treating them with basic decency!

What's more, the situation is getting worse, not better. Undeterred by the UNHRC finding, Labor and Liberal and each pledged to excise the entirety of mainland Australia from the "acceptable" zone for refugees to arrive in. Labor has pledged to resettle them in Papua New Guinea (thus far without securing the agreement of Port Moresby) and Liberal wishes to restart the so-called "Nauru solution". We have no plan to take these people in, no plan to provide even basic needs for them, let alone offering them a new homeland, and no plan to actually be anything but racist fuckwads. Nowhere outside the Greens is a voice being heard saying, "Let's do the right thing"; instead, whichever party forms government after the upcoming election will do so on the back of promises to be even harsher - promises prompted by a racist and xenophobic media which treats every new arrival as a purposeful and deliberate affront to Australian sovereignty, not an appeal for help and humanity.

What's happened to my country? I want it back.

NSG, what do you think? Is Australia being too harsh on asylum seekers? Too lenient (ha!)? Something else?

EDIT: Thanks to Gravlen, whose search-fu is apparently stronger than might right now, links to the two decisions are here and here, and the committee's statement is here.

Like you're precious Libreals will do anything right. Tell me which party has fu**ed up the most, the ALP or the LNP/ANP Coalition

[Toronina]

Well, this is not a pleasant topic for me to address, but I don't see anyone else doing so.

Australia has been found guilty - for the first time in history - of broad violations of human rights law by the UN Human Rights Council. The Council has particularly condemned Australia's policy of indefinite detention for refugees with adverse security findings, without informing the refugees in question of the causes of the finding or permitting them to appeal it.

I apologise for not providing the primary documentation (it seems hard to find it on the UNHRC website) but this is nothing new. As of 2006, Australian Senate reports were decrying the cruel and inhumane conditions imposed upon refugees in Australia, and we frankly really, really need ot pull our socks up on this matter.

I have on many occasions been told about the time immediately after the Fall of Saigon in 1975, when tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, to be welcomed and provided for by our Liberal (i.e., "conservative") Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and I am frankly ashamed to admit that today, we - the people of Australia - are failing to live up to the example set for us by our parents and grandparents. We are not welcoming these people in the spirit of humanitarianism and tolerance, we are not fulfilling our obligations under international law and we aren't even treating them with basic decency!

What's more, the situation is getting worse, not better. Undeterred by the UNHRC finding, Labor and Liberal and each pledged to excise the entirety of mainland Australia from the "acceptable" zone for refugees to arrive in. Labor has pledged to resettle them in Papua New Guinea (thus far without securing the agreement of Port Moresby) and Liberal wishes to restart the so-called "Nauru solution". We have no plan to take these people in, no plan to provide even basic needs for them, let alone offering them a new homeland, and no plan to actually be anything but racist fuckwads. Nowhere outside the Greens is a voice being heard saying, "Let's do the right thing"; instead, whichever party forms government after the upcoming election will do so on the back of promises to be even harsher - promises prompted by a racist and xenophobic media which treats every new arrival as a purposeful and deliberate affront to Australian sovereignty, not an appeal for help and humanity.

What's happened to my country? I want it back.

NSG, what do you think? Is Australia being too harsh on asylum seekers? Too lenient (ha!)? Something else?

EDIT: Thanks to Gravlen, whose search-fu is apparently stronger than might right now, links to the two decisions are here and here, and the committee's statement is here.

I call this opening statement a complete bias towards the Liberals, next time try to tone down your love for Tony Abbot, lets not forget he's from England, and will completely undermine the people who want a Australia free from England, just like Howard did

[AiliailiA]

Well, this is not a pleasant topic for me to address, but I don't see anyone else doing so.

Australia has been found guilty - for the first time in history - of broad violations of human rights law by the UN Human Rights Council. The Council has particularly condemned Australia's policy of indefinite detention for refugees with adverse security findings, without informing the refugees in question of the causes of the finding or permitting them to appeal it.

I apologise for not providing the primary documentation (it seems hard to find it on the UNHRC website) but this is nothing new. As of 2006, Australian Senate reports were decrying the cruel and inhumane conditions imposed upon refugees in Australia, and we frankly really, really need ot pull our socks up on this matter.

I have on many occasions been told about the time immediately after the Fall of Saigon in 1975, when tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, to be welcomed and provided for by our Liberal (i.e., "conservative") Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and I am frankly ashamed to admit that today, we - the people of Australia - are failing to live up to the example set for us by our parents and grandparents. We are not welcoming these people in the spirit of humanitarianism and tolerance, we are not fulfilling our obligations under international law and we aren't even treating them with basic decency!

What's more, the situation is getting worse, not better. Undeterred by the UNHRC finding, Labor and Liberal and each pledged to excise the entirety of mainland Australia from the "acceptable" zone for refugees to arrive in. Labor has pledged to resettle them in Papua New Guinea (thus far without securing the agreement of Port Moresby) and Liberal wishes to restart the so-called "Nauru solution". We have no plan to take these people in, no plan to provide even basic needs for them, let alone offering them a new homeland, and no plan to actually be anything but racist fuckwads. Nowhere outside the Greens is a voice being heard saying, "Let's do the right thing"; instead, whichever party forms government after the upcoming election will do so on the back of promises to be even harsher - promises prompted by a racist and xenophobic media which treats every new arrival as a purposeful and deliberate affront to Australian sovereignty, not an appeal for help and humanity.

What's happened to my country? I want it back.

NSG, what do you think? Is Australia being too harsh on asylum seekers? Too lenient (ha!)? Something else?

EDIT: Thanks to Gravlen, whose search-fu is apparently stronger than might right now, links to the two decisions are here and here, and the committee's statement is here.

Like you're precious Libreals will do anything right. Tell me which party has fu**ed up the most, the ALP or the LNP/ANP Coalition

Well, this is not a pleasant topic for me to address, but I don't see anyone else doing so.

Australia has been found guilty - for the first time in history - of broad violations of human rights law by the UN Human Rights Council. The Council has particularly condemned Australia's policy of indefinite detention for refugees with adverse security findings, without informing the refugees in question of the causes of the finding or permitting them to appeal it.

I apologise for not providing the primary documentation (it seems hard to find it on the UNHRC website) but this is nothing new. As of 2006, Australian Senate reports were decrying the cruel and inhumane conditions imposed upon refugees in Australia, and we frankly really, really need ot pull our socks up on this matter.

I have on many occasions been told about the time immediately after the Fall of Saigon in 1975, when tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, to be welcomed and provided for by our Liberal (i.e., "conservative") Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and I am frankly ashamed to admit that today, we - the people of Australia - are failing to live up to the example set for us by our parents and grandparents. We are not welcoming these people in the spirit of humanitarianism and tolerance, we are not fulfilling our obligations under international law and we aren't even treating them with basic decency!

What's more, the situation is getting worse, not better. Undeterred by the UNHRC finding, Labor and Liberal and each pledged to excise the entirety of mainland Australia from the "acceptable" zone for refugees to arrive in. Labor has pledged to resettle them in Papua New Guinea (thus far without securing the agreement of Port Moresby) and Liberal wishes to restart the so-called "Nauru solution". We have no plan to take these people in, no plan to provide even basic needs for them, let alone offering them a new homeland, and no plan to actually be anything but racist fuckwads. Nowhere outside the Greens is a voice being heard saying, "Let's do the right thing"; instead, whichever party forms government after the upcoming election will do so on the back of promises to be even harsher - promises prompted by a racist and xenophobic media which treats every new arrival as a purposeful and deliberate affront to Australian sovereignty, not an appeal for help and humanity.

What's happened to my country? I want it back.

NSG, what do you think? Is Australia being too harsh on asylum seekers? Too lenient (ha!)? Something else?

EDIT: Thanks to Gravlen, whose search-fu is apparently stronger than might right now, links to the two decisions are here and here, and the committee's statement is here.

I call this opening statement a complete bias towards the Liberals, next time try to tone down your love for Tony Abbot, lets not forget he's from England, and will completely undermine the people who want a Australia free from England, just like Howard did

This is ridiculous.

New Chalcedon, biased towards the Liberal Party?

[New Chalcedon]

Like you're precious Libreals will do anything right. Tell me which party has fu**ed up the most, the ALP or the LNP/ANP Coalition

I call this opening statement a complete bias towards the Liberals, next time try to tone down your love for Tony Abbot, lets not forget he's from England, and will completely undermine the people who want a Australia free from England, just like Howard did

This is ridiculous.

New Chalcedon, biased towards the Liberal Party?

You beat me to it. Toronina, I'm too far left for Labor's liking, and am likely to vote for the Greens....if I vote at all. I'm disgusted with both of the parties, but as Labor was the government when this shit was being done (this specific shit, that is - asylum seekers didn't have it much better under Howard) they cop the brunt of it on this occasion.

Also, your reading comprehension is lacking. What part of this screams "Liberal bias"?

What's more, the situation is getting worse, not better. Undeterred by the UNHRC finding, Labor and Liberal and each pledged to excise the entirety of mainland Australia from the "acceptable" zone for refugees to arrive in. Labor has pledged to resettle them in Papua New Guinea (thus far without securing the agreement of Port Moresby) and Liberal wishes to restart the so-called "Nauru solution".

Or this?

Nowhere outside the Greens is a voice being heard saying, "Let's do the right thing"; instead, whichever party forms government after the upcoming election will do so on the back of promises to be even harsher - promises prompted by a racist and xenophobic media which treats every new arrival as a purposeful and deliberate affront to Australian sovereignty, not an appeal for help and humanity.

As for the praise I give Fraser, his actions toward the Vietnamese refugees are a matter of public record, so I give credit where it's due.

[AiliailiA]

This is ridiculous.

New Chalcedon, biased towards the Liberal Party?

You beat me to it.

Sorry about that.

[New Chalcedon]

You beat me to it.

Sorry about that.

Nothing to be sorry about

[Gravlen]

No. this is EXACTLY how the system works. Your claim might not necessarily be APPROVED, and you can be detained while your claim is evaluated (and deported for illegal entry if your claim is denied), but simply washing ashore (or arriving in an airplane's landing gear) is a PERFECTLY VALID METHOD of reaching a jurisdiction in which you can claim asylum.

No. It. Isn't. What is it about the letters "n" and "o" do you not understand?

You're wrong, DogDoo 7 is correct: That's exactly how the system works. The requirement is, in part, that the applicant is outside his or her country of nationality. That means being able to apply for asylum in Australlia regardless of the method used to get to Australia. Swim, float, fly, tunnel, it doesn't matter as long as you are on or across the border / territorial waters.

[Ifreann]

No. It. Isn't. What is it about the letters "n" and "o" do you not understand?

You're wrong, DogDoo 7 is correct: That's exactly how the system works. The requirement is, in part, that the applicant is outside his or her country of nationality. That means being able to apply for asylum in Australlia regardless of the method used to get to Australia. Swim, float, fly, tunnel, it doesn't matter as long as you are on or across the border / territorial waters.

I would be extremely impressed if someone managed to tunnel into Australia.

[AiliailiA]

As for the praise I give Fraser, his actions toward the Vietnamese refugees are a matter of public record, so I give credit where it's due.

It was different to either Sri Lanka or Afghanistan though.

Australia in Vietnam lost a war, and there were two sides. (Australia was there to support the US of course, "all the way with LBJ"). The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong won. It's pretty reasonable to assume that anyone leaving Vietnam had an expectation of being persecuted there: they were likely "our allies" in the war, not the winners of it.

Afghanistan was a war Australia (as a small part of coalition) supposedly won. Anyone leaving now for fear of persecution is either fearing future persecution (if the current government collapses), or they're from a region of afghanistan where people are still persecuted, or ... sorry to say ... they're losers of the war. "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" cuts both ways. I actually have a lot of sympathy for emigrants from Afghanistan, because I think it's a disaster waiting to happen. But the standard of asylum requires that the threat be immiment: "my country is going to the dogs and I'll be persecuted if it does" does not meet that standard, and furthermore some emmigrants from Afghanistan may actually be the losers of the war there: Taliban.

Sri Lanka though is the major source of boat arrivals to Australia. That's complicated. Australia wasn't much involved in that, so Australia doesn't bear any special responsibility. On the one hand, it's good to deal with a regional problem (of asylum seekers leaving their country by the shortest route to a safe haven). On the other hand, it was a rather brutal civil war, on both sides, and some of the emigrants may be fleeing "persecution" more properly called "prosecution". For war crimes.

Vietnam was a relatively simple case. Australia was the nearest developed country, Australia took sides in a civil war ... and lost. Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Somalia aren't such clear cut cases, for why refugees would head to Australia.

That said, I think asylum seekers should spend only a short time in custody. Either the immigration department is grossly underfunded that they can't do background checks within a few weeks, or there is a deliberate tardiness to release into the community (intended as a punishment). And once released, I think asylum seekers waiting for immigrant status should be allowed to take paid work.

[Abatael]

I say it's too soft.

But it's a good policy so far.

[Gravlen]

You're wrong, DogDoo 7 is correct: That's exactly how the system works. The requirement is, in part, that the applicant is outside his or her country of nationality. That means being able to apply for asylum in Australlia regardless of the method used to get to Australia. Swim, float, fly, tunnel, it doesn't matter as long as you are on or across the border / territorial waters.

I would be extremely impressed if someone managed to tunnel into Australia.

Me too, actually.

But if you start near Cordoba, Spain, you could tunnel straight through to Hamilton, New Zealand... So somewhere you should be able to make a slight turn and Bob's your uncle!

[DogDoo 7]

I would be extremely impressed if someone managed to tunnel into Australia.

Me too, actually.

But if you start near Cordoba, Spain, you could tunnel straight through to Hamilton, New Zealand... So somewhere you should be able to make a slight turn and Bob's your uncle!

I think the solid spinning iron core would be a bit of a barrier

[Xsyne]

You're wrong, DogDoo 7 is correct: That's exactly how the system works. The requirement is, in part, that the applicant is outside his or her country of nationality. That means being able to apply for asylum in Australlia regardless of the method used to get to Australia. Swim, float, fly, tunnel, it doesn't matter as long as you are on or across the border / territorial waters.

I would be extremely impressed if someone managed to tunnel into Australia.

I'd be more concerned about what the hell they could possibly be looking for asylum from.

[Forster Keys]

Well, this is not a pleasant topic for me to address, but I don't see anyone else doing so.

Australia has been found guilty - for the first time in history - of broad violations of human rights law by the UN Human Rights Council. The Council has particularly condemned Australia's policy of indefinite detention for refugees with adverse security findings, without informing the refugees in question of the causes of the finding or permitting them to appeal it.

I apologise for not providing the primary documentation (it seems hard to find it on the UNHRC website) but this is nothing new. As of 2006, Australian Senate reports were decrying the cruel and inhumane conditions imposed upon refugees in Australia, and we frankly really, really need ot pull our socks up on this matter.

I have on many occasions been told about the time immediately after the Fall of Saigon in 1975, when tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, to be welcomed and provided for by our Liberal (i.e., "conservative") Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and I am frankly ashamed to admit that today, we - the people of Australia - are failing to live up to the example set for us by our parents and grandparents. We are not welcoming these people in the spirit of humanitarianism and tolerance, we are not fulfilling our obligations under international law and we aren't even treating them with basic decency!

What's more, the situation is getting worse, not better. Undeterred by the UNHRC finding, Labor and Liberal and each pledged to excise the entirety of mainland Australia from the "acceptable" zone for refugees to arrive in. Labor has pledged to resettle them in Papua New Guinea (thus far without securing the agreement of Port Moresby) and Liberal wishes to restart the so-called "Nauru solution". We have no plan to take these people in, no plan to provide even basic needs for them, let alone offering them a new homeland, and no plan to actually be anything but racist fuckwads. Nowhere outside the Greens is a voice being heard saying, "Let's do the right thing"; instead, whichever party forms government after the upcoming election will do so on the back of promises to be even harsher - promises prompted by a racist and xenophobic media which treats every new arrival as a purposeful and deliberate affront to Australian sovereignty, not an appeal for help and humanity.

What's happened to my country? I want it back.

NSG, what do you think? Is Australia being too harsh on asylum seekers? Too lenient (ha!)? Something else?

EDIT: Thanks to Gravlen, whose search-fu is apparently stronger than might right now, links to the two decisions are here and here, and the committee's statement is here.

I call this opening statement a complete bias towards the Liberals, next time try to tone down your love for Tony Abbot, lets not forget he's from England, and will completely undermine the people who want a Australia free from England, just like Howard did

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?