Australia's detention regime sets out to make asylum seekers suffer

[flag of convenience]

Perhaps if they are all sent to country areas, but most just want to come to Sydney and Melbourne.

 

I noticed that some of the people who advocate an unlimited refugee intake, think that the 457 visa intake is too high, though those people always come in with money and skills.

 

I have never read of anyone wanting an unlimited intake. Who are these mysterious people? Know treating asylum folk with humanity and compassion is something else. As would be closing the off shore detention centres.

[MARYROSE02]

I have never read of anyone wanting an unlimited intake. Who are these mysterious people? Know treating asylum folk with humanity and compassion is something else. As would be closing the off shore detention centres.

 

Well, if you want every person on every boat that makes it to Australia to be granted asylum, then that is an unlimited intake, because the boats will keep on coming, as proved by the Rudd/Gillard Government's policy.

[MARYROSE02]

And why shouldn't detention centre be located off shore, anyway? Christmas Island is Australian territory isn't it? It would be like Britain operating detention centres on the Isle of Wight and being condemned for locating them 'off shore.'

[MARYROSE02]

The Territory of Christmas Island is a territory of Australia in the Indian Ocean. It has a population of 2,072 residents who live in a number of "settlement areas" on the northern tip of the island: Flying Fish Cove (also known as Kampong), Silver City, Poon Saan, and Drumsite. The majority of the population is Chinese Australian. It is called "Christmas Island" because it was discovered on Christmas Day (25th December)

[flag of convenience]

Well, if you want every person on every boat that makes it to Australia to be granted asylum, then that is an unlimited intake, because the boats will keep on coming, as proved by the Rudd/Gillard Government's policy.

 

I do attempt to indulge you really I do, but in return have the courtesy to actually pass comment on what was actually written. It has never been said that every person that makes it to Australia in search of asylum should gain permanent leave of stay in Australia.

[flag of convenience]

And why shouldn't detention centre be located off shore, anyway? Christmas Island is Australian territory isn't it? It would be like Britain operating detention centres on the Isle of Wight and being condemned for locating them 'off shore.'

 

What is more the question is the bribing of failed states like Nauru and/or highly corrupted semi failed states such as PNG and extremely corrupt Cambodia, which looks like coming into contention very soon in the taking of Nauru's over flow.

[flag of convenience]

Of course, anybody who has the least 'anti-asylum seeker' view, is immediately labelled a racist, which is the standard way for 'the left' to stamp out discussion of a viewpoint they disagree with. (pace 'Climate Change', 'Any pro-Western, pro-capitalist view.')

 

Perhaps because it is actually appealing to the racist element. Take a look at the standard position of the right here who are in doubt if they themselves believe half of what is being done,before constantly slagging the left. Inform yourself. As thus one becomes a more rounded human being.

[flag of convenience]

There's stacks willing to put their head above the parapet, as you call it. Problem is if they don't have the same view on the situation as you then they are wrong and nothing id going to change your way of thinking or theirs.

 

Whether you continue on the forum or not doesn't really matter. Forum's come and go, people get fed up with them and they disappear. Because this one has a lot of people check it out who are after information on emigration then it's got a good chance of carrying on. All the political, money issues, law, property, asylum seeker posts are just extra entertainment and might give people a bit of an idea of how people already living here think.

 

I would think many thinking folk would be totally put off by the constant tea party approach to any matters political, regardless of topic, and those that are not just further the unholy alliance of not caring or becoming part of the bigoted or at the very least the ill informed brigade.

[Xenon4017]

Perhaps because it is actually appealing to the racist element.

 

But to claim that you'd have to believe that there'd be no objections if the boats came from somewhere else, filled with people of another race. Or that people of the same race who arrive by other means would also provoke the same objections. Otherwise it isn't racism. You can't be "half-racist". Either your bigotry is based upon skin colour/ethnic background or it isn't. You can be racist against "people who arrive by boats" because they don't constitute a race.

[flag of convenience]

The fact that they work pro bono indicates that they are committed to the cause. But it might lead to some cognitive bias. Their default position is that refugees should be accommodated in the community; and they're prepared to gather data that supports this. And highlight any incidents that show other treatments in a bad light. Governments have an agenda too of course. I don't believe they _really_ care how many refugees get settled here. They're more concerned with what effect the adoption will have on their support at the next election.

 

It is far from only lawyers expressing the bad treatment within detention centres. Those that work there are in danger of sanctions for the release of any incriminating evidence. Still countless brave and committed folk, working within agencies have revealed a constant tirade of conditions within those camps.

It is all political as you rightly say. One of the few policies the present government runs with on populist support and one of the most unfortunate.

[flag of convenience]

But to claim that you'd have to believe that there'd be no objections if the boats came from somewhere else, filled with people of another race. Or that people of the same race who arrive by other means would also provoke the same objections. Otherwise it isn't racism. You can't be "half-racist". Either your bigotry is based upon skin colour/ethnic background or it isn't. You can be racist against "people who arrive by boats" because they don't constitute a race.

 

Well there are no white asylum seekers from the Home Counties as of yet seeking a way out of Cameroon's Britain, to actually compare with but the onus is rather heavily displayed within the media of folk very different to average immigrant and a large number clearly stated to be Muslim, hence aimed at a pacific base. If on the other hand the media was in favour it would be safe to say the matter would be handled more diligently.

 

But you are right as no white asylum seekers one can't say with evidence that the outcome in wanting harsher sanctions and tougher conditions wouldn't be as forceful. I am just one who happens to believe that it wouldn't arouse the same response.

[Xenon4017]

Well there are no white asylum seekers from the Home Counties as of yet seeking a way out of Cameroon's Britain, to actually compare with but the onus is rather heavily displayed within the media of folk very different to average immigrant and a large number clearly stated to be Muslim, hence aimed at a pacific base. If on the other hand the media was in favour it would be safe to say the matter would be handled more diligently.

 

But you are right as no white asylum seekers one can't say with evidence that the outcome in wanting harsher sanctions and tougher conditions wouldn't be as forceful. I am just one who happens to believe that it wouldn't arouse the same response.

 

So, I'll interpret that as an apology to MaryRose02 for incorrectly using the racist label. There we are, you see, the debate moves onwards...........

[Sammy1]

Well there are no white asylum seekers from the Home Counties as of yet seeking a way out of Cameroon's Britain, to actually compare with but the onus is rather heavily displayed within the media of folk very different to average immigrant and a large number clearly stated to be Muslim, hence aimed at a pacific base. If on the other hand the media was in favour it would be safe to say the matter would be handled more diligently.

 

But you are right as no white asylum seekers one can't say with evidence that the outcome in wanting harsher sanctions and tougher conditions wouldn't be as forceful. I am just one who happens to believe that it wouldn't arouse the same response.

 

 

You are correct. In another context, there is a whole different attitude to white Europeans that overstay their visas in Australia and non Europeans that do the same.

 

We have seen on this forum a number times an outpouring of sympathy and support for British over-stayers. British illegal immigrants that come from a developed comfortable country who are of course not fleeing anything, They are economic migrants - sorry, just had to put that in as it is another term that is thrown unnecessarily and wildly around at asylum seekers on here..

 

It makes one wonder and it certainly goes to prove your point.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Sammy1

[Paul1Perth]

I would think many thinking folk would be totally put off by the constant tea party approach to any matters political, regardless of topic, and those that are not just further the unholy alliance of not caring or becoming part of the bigoted or at the very least the ill informed brigade.

 

I would think there are at least an equal number of people thinking I quite like how Aus is handling asylum seekers and I wouldn't mind living there.

[Paul1Perth]

You are correct. In another context, there is a whole different attitude to white Europeans that overstay their visas in Australia and non Europeans that do the same.

 

We have seen on this forum a number times an outpouring of sympathy and support for British over-stayers. British illegal immigrants that come from a developed comfortable country who are of course not fleeing anything, They are economic migrants - sorry, just had to put that in as it is another term that is thrown unnecessarily and wildly around at asylum seekers on here..

 

It makes one wonder and it certainly goes to prove your point.

 

I've not come across any posts that have an outpouring of sympathy and support for British or any other over stayer. All the ones I've seen where people have been looking for a bit of sympathy or support the posts I've seen have been along the lines of follow the rules like everyone else has to. If you overstay your visa or expect any sympathy or favouritism just because of where you are coming from then you are going to be disappointed.

[MARYROSE02]

What is more the question is the bribing of failed states like Nauru and/or highly corrupted semi failed states such as PNG and extremely corrupt Cambodia, which looks like coming into contention very soon in the taking of Nauru's over flow.

 

So long as they country they are being offered asylum in, is better than their home countries, I can't see the problem.

[MARYROSE02]

I've not come across any posts that have an outpouring of sympathy and support for British or any other over stayer. All the ones I've seen where people have been looking for a bit of sympathy or support the posts I've seen have been along the lines of follow the rules like everyone else has to. If you overstay your visa or expect any sympathy or favouritism just because of where you are coming from then you are going to be disappointed.

 

I'm biased and proud of it! I expect Brits to get preferential treatment!

[Sammy1]

I'm biased and proud of it! I expect Brits to get preferential treatment!

 

I hope that is a joke. If not, then why?

[Raul Senise]

The reality of the situation is that Australia has a small population and limited resources to attend to the refugee issue.

 

As such we are in the situation that we either help a certain number of refugees properly or ultimately we will not have the resources to help any at all.

 

The current policy is tough, but is an effort to bring the situation back under control, as the spending on the refugee issue under the previous Government was unsustainable.

 

In my opinion neither the current or previous Governments have attained the right balance.

 

Australia in not in the same boat (no pun intended) as Europe as we do not have the same population which can sustain large refugee numbers both economically and socially.

 

Australia is a highly sought after destination and it is not possible to accommodate all of the refugees (both genuine and economic) who want to make Australia home.

 

To call Australians racist is disingenuous. As a whole Australians are some of the most accommodating people in the world, which is reflected by our multicultural society.

 

Unfortunately this topic is very emotive with polarising views from both camps.

 

There is some truth from both sides, however, ultimately most will be blinded by emotive political statements and half-truths from refugee advocates pushing an agenda. It is a pity as progress cannot be made if no one is willing to concede any ground on their views.

[flag of convenience]

So long as they country they are being offered asylum in, is better than their home countries, I can't see the problem.

 

Clearly none the countries bribed are suitable for permanent stays so yes there is a problem. Both for the refugee and the country involved.

[flag of convenience]

The reality of the situation is that Australia has a small population and limited resources to attend to the refugee issue.

 

As such we are in the situation that we either help a certain number of refugees properly or ultimately we will not have the resources to help any at all.

 

The current policy is tough, but is an effort to bring the situation back under control, as the spending on the refugee issue under the previous Government was unsustainable.

 

In my opinion neither the current or previous Governments have attained the right balance.

 

Australia in not in the same boat (no pun intended) as Europe as we do not have the same population which can sustain large refugee numbers both economically and socially.

 

Australia is a highly sought after destination and it is not possible to accommodate all of the refugees (both genuine and economic) who want to make Australia home.

 

To call Australians racist is disingenuous. As a whole Australians are some of the most accommodating people in the world, which is reflected by our multicultural society.

 

Unfortunately this topic is very emotive with polarising views from both camps.

 

There is some truth from both sides, however, ultimately most will be blinded by emotive political statements and half-truths from refugee advocates pushing an agenda. It is a pity as progress cannot be made if no one is willing to concede any ground on their views.

 

You don't detect an omission in your opening statement with regards to population? Working in the industry (business) as it would appear, the fact that one million migrants have landed on these shores inside three years rather than the small numbers of asylum seekers seems to warrant a comment on the latter rather than the former.

 

We certainly have the resources to do more. This government has reduced intake while furthering a harder line policy for mainly political reasons, being the only policy that wins over an element of the population. No one has said all must be given permanent residence as many poorer nations have hundreds of thousands within their territory. Uganda was an interesting one a Sudanese refugee was telling me some months ago of his stay there.

He could work and start a small business without issues from the local population.

 

The current policy is populist rather devoid of policy besides harshness and learnt from Howard days of talking tough to win over the Pauline Hanson supporters and appease the right of the So termed Liberal Party.

Obviously the right balance hasn't been obtained. At least with ALP harsh policy came with increased numbers. Opposite with the tea party we now have in place.

 

Australia is not in the same boat as you say as Europe, but in many ways better able to absorb the same numbers than Europe being a long standing settler country. Outside of certain European capitals these folk are highly visible and no more welcomed than to Australia. In fact race plays more an issue than here outside the cosmopolitan centres.

Regardless of public sentiment governments do not create the faux panic found in Australian politics and are far more statesman like in the main, not drumming for the lowest common denominator votes.

 

Australia is a highly sought after destination but hardly alone. AS for asylum seekers some 200,000 + are again likely to seek asylum in Germany this year. Not all will succeed but their right to be heard is recognised.

 

Australians have had little say with regards the multi cultural society that has been established over the past few decades. Do you really think a vote would have agreed with doing away with the White Australia Policy at the time? As is commonly noted Australia is still one of the most casually racist countries in the world.

 

Of course good luck and fortune over the past twenty plus years has kept social cohesion largely intact as most benefited one way or another from the economic conditions prevailing. The rise of Hanson still witnessed about a quarter of the population agreeing with her philosophy. I doubt if it would be too much less today if push came to shove.

 

It is polarising and not a little class/education based.

 

The harsh realities are not just fragments from refuge advocates with an agenda. That is very wrong. Charges of inhuman conditions akin to torture of varying degrees have been released by medical health professionals, Salvation Army and other on the ground NGO staff that witnessed too much to remain quiet. Even under duress to do so.

 

I do recognise asylum seekers would of course be of little interest to anyone in the "migrant business" though.

[flag of convenience]

I hope that is a joke. If not, then why?

 

I somehow doubt it. A lot of the old school feel by virtue of being British they have/had entitlement. I know it well as had a family member that way inclined.

[flag of convenience]

I'm biased and proud of it! I expect Brits to get preferential treatment!

 

Rather obvious where your bias lays. Afraid the rest is hog wash relevant to a time passed thank goodness.

[tea4too]

Well, if you want every person on every boat that makes it to Australia to be granted asylum, then that is an unlimited intake, because the boats will keep on coming, as proved by the Rudd/Gillard Government's policy.

 

I don’t think anyone has suggested an open door policy. However, Australia has signed up to the UN Convention to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how they arrive and whether they arrive with a visa or not.

 

The ‘process’ decides whether individuals are genuine and in the case of Australia, government statistics confirm that having been processed the vast majority are ultimately deemed to be genuine asylum seekers.

 

Per 1000 population, Australia takes 1.4 refugees, compared to 2.4 for the UK, 3.3 France and 4.7 Canada. As an affluent, civilised first world country it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect Australia to honour its commitment to the UN Convention. Either that or publicly acknowledge an intention to withdraw which might at least inject some honesty in the process, although I suspect as an affluent, democratic first world country that may be a political step too far.

 

In the meantime vulnerable people, including children, are held for indefinite periods of time in centres that are described as “toxic” by credible eyewitness testimony (see link n OP for example). I do not understand how any one can condone that. Arguments about numbers, genuine claims, false claims, etc etc do not justify the systematic mental torture of people deemed to be inconvenient.Tx

Edited August 11, 2014 by tea4too

[Harpodom]

Arguments about numbers, genuine claims, false claims, etc etc do not justify the systematic mental torture of people deemed to be inconvenient.Tx

 

This is the bottom line. Human rights should be sacred, regardless of the circumstances, for EVERYONE. We cannot (or at least SHOULD NOT) pick and choose who deserves the most basic human rights.

 

So many people appear more than happy to ditch the human rights of one group to deter the hordes of others.

 

What is the motivation for this disconnect? Racism? Possibly. Drawbridge mentality? Probably.

 

The 'trouble' with doctors working in these places is that doctors are trained to uphold medical ethics above all else. Doctors cannot refuse treatment to anyone. They must cause no harm to anyone first and foremost. Paedophiles, murderers, even Liberal government ministers, they are all entitled to the best available treatment. The AMA, RACGP and RACP et al fiercely criticise mandatory detention and fully endorse Dr Young for standing up against it, because it actively causes harm.

 

State sanctioned harm to people who have committed no crime.

 

Crap on all you like with excuses like 'we cannot possibly take all the world's refugees' or false claims like 'they're all economic migrants anyway' but if YOU endorse indefinite imprisonment of already traumatised children in Nauru or Xmas Island, then I'd love to see how you'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was YOUR kids.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Harpodom