Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act), asylum seekers who arrive on the Australian mainland without a valid visa must be held in immigration detention until they are granted a visa or removed from Australia...Now, because Australia is a signatory (for now) to the Refugees Convention, Immigration can't simply deport people back to countries which might persecute them. The previous conservative Federal Government went to extreme lengths to solve the political problem and discourage boat crossings, and though the current Labor Government has ended the most egregious parts of that system, the basic blocks (mandatory detention, the detention of children, the excision zone where asylum seekers have limited recourse to Australian migration law, Ministerial discretion, etc.) remain.
Sorry - by 'treatment' do you mean their living conditions, or the administrative arrangements for refugees generally? Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'utterly horrific'? Because Treblinka was 'utterly horrific', and casting Christmas Island or a hotel in Darwin in the same light is pretty hysterical.You realize that doesn't make much sense right. Treblinka was also "awful" and "bad", yet things are described with those words all the time. Nor does it mean people are comparing Rebbecca Black to Hitler because there is some overlap in the set of words used.
If decent chow, plenty of outdoor space, quality medical care and a room about on par with many three star hotels I've stayed in throughout rural Australia is 'utterly horrific', what adjectives have you reserved for something truly heinous, like a two and a half star hotel?Because obviously imprisoning children is just like staying at a bad hotel!
decent chow, plenty of outdoor space, quality medical care and a room about on par with many three star hotels I've stayed in throughout rural AustraliaAgreed, obiwanwasabi, the conditions for asylum seekers at the CI detention centre and (these days) at motels in the community *sound* preferable to a lot of other places you could be in Australia—thinking in particular of remand centres for people refused bail in criminal courts, prison, or indeed, most temporary housing for homeless people. Better than Villawood, certainly. If the CI detention centre is anything like it's described, and since it's been built in the last ten years, the housing conditions themselves are almost certainly better than the majority of the Sydney and Melbourne private rental market.
Greek wine is awfulI will happily accept and process rejected applicants from your Retsina Excision Zone.
The Commission is concerned about the limited capacity of the Case Manager and the Independent Observers to meet the needs of such a high number of unaccompanied minors. At the time of the Commission’s visit there was one Case Manager and there were two Independent Observers for 152 unaccompanied minorsIf the Immigration Minister were a State minister for child protection or out of home care, they'd be called upon to resign.
This idea of a 'queue' is further discredited by the fact that the majority of recent unauthorised boat arrivals are from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, countries which do not have an UNHCR presence or an Australian embassy. And they generally transit through countries like Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, none of which have signed the UN Refugee Convention and so are not obliged to offer protection to refugees...posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:18 PM on March 20, 2011 [7 favorites]
Some in Australia have asked why Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka don't just go the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, home to 60 million Tamil speakers. The answer is that more than 100,000 have done just that.posted by vidur at 11:42 PM on March 20, 2011 [3 favorites]
Why do Tamils fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka not go across the strait to the Tamil part of India?I don't know. Why don't you ask 280,000 of them?
People arriving by plane don't go to detentionThat simply isn't true. If a person arrives at Kingsford Smith, and immediately approaches the Australian Immigration officials to demand political or religious asylum in Australia (as is the approved method, identically to people who arrive in the same fashion at Heathrow, or Dulles, or LAX), yes, they are generally detained, most likely at Villawood, until their claim is heard. Asylum seekers are not simply turned back at the gates—that's illegal.
The difference between rules for boats and planes isn't brown vs white - it's a simple matter of documentation and securityThe other—political—factor is deterrence, which was the basis behind the Pacific Solution, and remains the basis for keeping asylum seekers at CI: the idea that to deter people from undertaking a dangerous sea voyage, the conditions for people recovered by sea should be made as difficult, lengthy and arduous as possible. To my mind it's a fair goal, but a morally reprehensible method.
they can leave at any time. They aren't prisonersYou're right, they're not prisoners. They're asylum seekers. If they've claimed asylum from a country which is persecuting them, Australia has a legal obligation not to send them back there (non-refoulement). Indonesia and Malaysia aren't signatories to the Refugee Conventions, and they'd simply refuse them if Australia were to fly them back. If they could find another country willing to take them, they'd leave immediately—the problem is that there aren't any.
So far we've had 'omgodwin, 'everything I've read' and 'no true Scotsman'. Really solid analysis of these complex issues, guys. Big pat on the back. You've won me over.You're the one who brought up the Nazis, dumbass. Specificially to say it was not as bad as a nazi death camp. There are a lot of things that are not as bad as a nazi death camp, but still pretty bad. Since then you've posted a bunch of nonsensical rants about language.
This is what Australian people object to. It's against our sense of fair-play.That's the biggest load of bullshit ever. The idea that people just love rules and red tape so much they're willing to keep people in prison to make sure they are followed properly is just totally absurd. No one cares that much about rules and regulations for their own intrinsic value. They care about what the rules are supposed to prevent. For example, the reason people care about food safety regulations is because they are worried about getting sick.
« Older Today is the 8th Anniversary of the beginning of t... | This listing for my urine-free... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That's sad. Those who refuse to learn from history yadda yadda.
posted by kafziel at 4:36 PM on March 20, 2011 [2 favorites]