Funny and Insightful post on Asylum Seekers

[ElectricImages]

http://www.mamamia.com.au/weblog/2010/12/10-things-you-need-to-understand-about-asylum-seekers.html

A few laughs, and a lot of good points. Check it out. :)

[I @ M]

A few laughs, and a lot of good points.

I failed to laugh and I also missed the good points.

Seemingly the author thinks that all "refugees" or "asylum seekers" have fled their country due to persecution or fear for their life and have headed to Australia in order to simply keep on breathing.

I don't give any credence to his thoughts on that when overwhelmingly the people that are attempting to settle in Australia have been out of their country for quite some time ( years in some cases ) and quite often spending large ( by even Australian standards ) amounts of money making their way to the shores of this country.
They escaped from their "home country" with their lives and cash, they have travelled through parts of the world where they aren't persecuted or in danger of being killed but are still hell bent on moving to Australia presumably because they simply want to live here.

[Kym]

Point 1 is wrong. You can be both an Asylum Seeker and an Illegal Immigrant at the same time.
Illegal Immigrant = someone who is either undocumented and/or did not follow Australian immigration processes; and that is why they are detained until assessed.

There are other glaring errors in the article, but we get the idea anyway.
To me the best solution is to speed up the assessment process so they are either repatriated or allowed to stay and not kept in detention for more than 12 months.

If we want a stable population (given water, CO2 and other issues) then we should also cut immigration by about two thirds or more.

[ElectricImages]

I failed to laugh and I also missed the good points.

Seemingly the author thinks that all "refugees" or "asylum seekers" have fled their country due to persecution or fear for their life and have headed to Australia in order to simply keep on breathing.

I don't give any credence to his thoughts on that when overwhelmingly the people that are attempting to settle in Australia have been out of their country for quite some time ( years in some cases ) and quite often spending large ( by even Australian standards ) amounts of money making their way to the shores of this country.
They escaped from their "home country" with their lives and cash, they have travelled through parts of the world where they aren't persecuted or in danger of being killed but are still hell bent on moving to Australia presumably because they simply want to live here.

Your issues are answered here: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/asylum/appeal/appeal.html - a statement written BY a refugee. You'll find that few of our neighbouring countries are signatories to the appropriate UN conventions - have a look at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees. This means that they have no obligation, or means, of processing refugees.

For people who have travelled via these countries, Australia may well be the ONLY country they get to that accepts refugees.

[ElectricImages]

If we want a stable population (given water, CO2 and other issues) then we should also cut immigration by about two thirds or more.

Maybe get ruthless with the Visa overstayers - send the bloody backpackers, packing back. ;) After all, there are tens to hundreds of times more of those than there are people arriving by boat... XD http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/stats-02.html

[I @ M]

Your issues are answered here

Firstly, I have NO issues that need answering. I merely made an observation based on what I see as very flawed perceptions by the author of the article.




You'll find that few of our neighbouring countries are signatories to the appropriate UN conventions - have a look at the map: This means that they have no obligation, or means, of processing refugees.

Does that mean that they WON'T accept newcomers to their land?

As for the UN conventions and particularly ---- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml --- if any single one of those points relating to the way people are treated is broken even in the smallest degree by any member country signatory to that convention then the UN has far bigger issues to address than worrying about the legal way in which Australia is processing refugees seeking to enter this country. Unfortunately it seems that Australia has had to adopt a stance that Australia purely acts towards the refugees in a lawful manner, a moral stance has been denied, destroyed particularly by those seeking to enter this country under false pretences. There have been far too many accounts of people claiming to be from a country / region / religion etc. and who are subsequently found out to be falsifying their claims.


For people who have travelled via these countries, Australia may well be the ONLY country they get to that accepts refugees.

I think if you look into it, the countries that do accept refugees and asylum seekers are taking in people from the same countries / regions / religions etc. as those who travel to Australia.

Some refugees choose the USA, others Britain, France etc etc and others choose Australia.