The week in review: momentous change read more
Election blog: Spin and reality read more
Blog: Where to for Pakistan? read more
Super Bowl blog: Patriots v Giants read more
Road to Beijing: Is that an elephant or a Tibetan antelope in the room? read more
Is using the internet or a mobile phone in exams cheating?
"And this is the revolution is it??more like some kind of joke if you ask me !so what happens when..."
What's been your favourite Olympic moment?
"My high points were Steve Hooker's and Matthew Mitcham's Golds. Both against the odds. One low po..."
Did the Beijing Games live up to its expectations?
"The opening and closing shows performed by people's liberation army was superb! Beyong this, the ..."
LABOR UNVEILS IMMIGRATION DETENTION POLICY
Tuesday, 29 July, 2008RELATED CONTENT
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Do you support the government's changes to immigration detention? The majority of asylum seekers will no longer be detained under major immigration reforms described by Immigration Minister Chris Evans as a more compassionate approach.
COMMENTS
First [1][2] LastYvette's overflowing empathy (although well intentioned) should not be mistaken for integrity or doing what is "right". I agree that Australia has humanitarian obligations. I agree that it was right to change the government's policy so that it reduced the detention time for those claiming protection. What I can't understand, Yvette, is how you've failed to acknowledge that there is a considerable number of people intending to come to Australia to claim asylum who are not genuine refugees but, indeed, opportunists. Furthermore, you just can't seem to comprehend that such opportunists (and they are opportunists) pose a threat to Australian interests. A genuine refugee will make their way to Australia regardless of the likelihood that they will be detained upon arrival. Yet, the past policy which had excised parts of the migration zone and denied illegal arrivals access to legal representation had the effect of reducing the number of arrivals drastically. Again, a genuine refugee would not be deterred from spending time in detention. The significant reduction in their arrival numbers shows that there were considerable numbers of people coming who were not genuinely fleeing persection. Simply allowing anyone with a boat to come to Australia and claim to be a refugee (as Yvette appears to demand it), is extremely irresponsible and, in the long run, would prove both unsustainable and detrimental to Australian interests.
Just for claification - YVETTE - since at least 2003, Australia has matched its quota for refugees and continues to have one of the world's highest intakes.
YVETTE FROM MELBOURNE, you might be interested to learn that a large proportion of people in detention as of June 2007 (83 per cent) arrived in Australia lawfully and were detained after they breached the conditions of their visa or overstayed their visa - are these the same British and Americans about whom you claim "We don't see many of them in detention centres"? Yvette, I think you also miss the point that PAUL FROM CANBERRA is making: fortunately (or unfortunately), not every illegal arrival by boat is a genuine refugee.
yvette.... .the governments identification of the opportunistic elements taking part in illigeal and iregular movements to australia is not ractist in any way, shape or form. it is a reality that a responsible government is prepared to address. Accoridng to your third point, you have either chosen to ignore this phenomenon or dont really seem to understand it.
Whether we like it or not, and at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, this country is short of arable land, and water. This may not have been the case in the 50s and 60s when the bulk of our immirants came here. This continent simply can't handle too many more people. I fail to see why we MUST take refugees? Who says so?
Oh dear here we go again with the fears that we are going to overrun by hordes of illegal newcomers.. Last time I looked around , most people seemed from somewhere else already( myself included ).Get sick also of comments, like there is not enough land available,water, blah, blah.Tell me, where things better in the 30's ,50's or 40's, did you have enough water, were houses cheaper?, no droughts I presume ? All the environmental damage is the legacy of short sighted water policies, avaricious landowners clearing land which is now useless due to salt levels. Don't seek scapegoats in the newcomers to this country, they will be working bloody hard for their money and contributing to this country. As for immigrants making houses unaffordable in WA, that's true, they are mostly Eastern Staters riding the mining boom over here ( blasted immigrants......)
1. It is a mistake to mix up the terms illegal immigrants and refugees. An illegal immigrant is one who overstays their visa. The majority of illegal immigrants in Australia are from the USA and UK- Usually having arrived on a tourist, working holiday or student visa. We don't see many of them in detention centres. If caught they are usually deported. A refugee is an individual fleeing persecution in their home country - threat of serious harm. An asylum seeker (or in Howard's propaganda 'boat person' or 'queue jumper') only differs from a refugee in regards to the place where an individual asks for protection. A refugee is granted protection at a diplomatic post before they arrive in Australia. An asylum seeker asks for protection after arriving in Australia - why? Because it impossible for those people to reach a diplomatic post in their nation of origin without being in risk of serious harm. Are we really so inhumane that we would say- please risk your life by trying to get to an Australian embassy which the group who have tortured you and killed your friends or family members may have under surveillance? 2. Asylum seekers arrive in Australia are seeking status as refugees. Under international law there is no such thing as a "legal" and "illegal" way to claim asylum. This is an invention of racist governments who seek to demonise those already persecuted in their nation of origin. 3.To characterise people fleeing from persecution and fearful enough to see the risk to their life and their family's lives by trying to escape on an unseaworthy vessel as 'opportunistic' is the propaganda of a racist government. Just imagine leaving behind everything and everyone you know and paying your life savings to get on a boat that looks like it might sink. How fearful of would you have to be, to think this is an 'opportunity'? 4. It is an international human rights requirement that refugees be afforded the same treatment as the nationals of the receiving country. We are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention saying that we will grant refugees protection. We have betrayed our promise by denying asylum seekers their basic human rights to legal representation, health care and education. We have detained and tortured children. We denied children human rights. We have placed people fleeing trauma into a correctional facility and treated them worse than how we treat murderers. Even murderers in Australia have basic human rights and must be treated in a humane way. 5. The largest number of refugees Australia ever received was after the Vietnam war- this caused us no economic problems. The number of asylum seekers arriving by boat each year is far fewer than that. Their numbers do not exceed the quota of refugees Australia has agreed to accept. We regularly fall short of accepting that number. Developing nations with less social and economic resources accept more refugees than Australia does- we have the resources to easily support the our quota.
How about "Labor has an immigration policy" or rather a "population policy because they don't have one at present. They didn't say diddley-squat about massively ramping up immigration (already at historically high levels under the Conservatives) at the last election. Why exactly do we need high immigration levels at a time when the economy is going downhill fast and young Australians can't afford to buy a house? Nor can they rent one for a reasonable price in some cities, like Perth and Sydney, due to demand from, you guessed, it, immigrants. We don't have the water or the arable land to carry any more people than we already have.
I welcome the changes to the policy for their humanitarian effect and logic. However, illegal immigration to Australia is not only comprised of refugees but, also contains significant numbers of opportunists. Unfortunately, the new policy is shortsighted when we consider how it renews old incentives for opportunists. My first concern is that this will lead to people putting money into the hands of people smugglers and once again risking their lives on illegal,rickety crafts in an attempt to come to Australia. My second concern is that illegal arrivals, under the new policy, will begranted legal assistance. The entire reason for excising our NorthernMaritime region was to prevent boat people from setting foot on distant Australian islands and then tying up the legal system by making legal appeal after appeal. My Third and final concern (and it’s a pretty obvious one) is that underthe new policy, once boat people arrive, after security and health checks,they now have the ability to simply go walkabout. Australia has one of the most extensive skilled migration programs in theworld. Allowing illegal opportunists to simply wander out into society andblatantly undermine this system is unfair not only to Australia, but alsothose people trying to come to Australia the legal way.
Off course, now we now that the bout rout (which mainly attracts the poorer people) is shut and those who over stay their visas are increasingly of the "first world countries" we have to give them first class treatment, right? If China did this, no one would have ever considered watching the olympics on TV!!!! thats favouring by race to say the least..... (I think)