Jumping the queue
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which illegal immigrant policy is the least worst? |
| Abbott's |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Howard's |
|
16% |
[ 3 ] |
| Gillard's |
|
38% |
[ 7 ] |
| Rudd's |
|
11% |
[ 2 ] |
| Brown's |
|
33% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Pied Piper 
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | 1: The contention that these people are arriving here legally, and that we are thus bound to accept them is subject to very significant doubt. The claim that they are directly fleeing from (e.g.) Afganistan is palpably absurd. |
No, Tannin, that's simply wrong. There is no doubt about this whasoever. I will explain again:
Unless this government changes our domestic law, and pulls out of the 1951 Convention, refugees are committing no crime whatsoever in seeking asylum on these shores. They are unauthorised arrivals yes, or irregular if you prefer, BUT they are NOT illegal.
If they were acting against the law, they would be charged with a breach of that law, and sent to trial. The reason they are not charged and sent to trial is because they have broken NO law. That is a cold, hard, inescapable fact. You simply cannot continue to argue this point.
If you want to argue that unauthorised arrivals on our shores really SHOULD be illegal, then that is a separate matter. What you really ought to be debating, if that's the case, is not only whether the government should in fact amend our domestic laws, but also whether or not Australia should pull out of the 1951 Convention.
Now, that is a whole new debate, and I'm sure we would not agree - but at least we'd be starting from the same page!
As far as your argument about "directly" fleeing from Afghanistan goes, pietillidie has given you the UNHCR's take on this earlier in the thread, at the bottom of page two:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3c2b3f844.pdf
| The UNHCR wrote: | | 4. The expression “coming directly” in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept “coming directly” and each case must be judged on its merits. Similarly, given the special situation of asylum-seekers, in particular the effects of trauma, language problems, lack of information, previous experiences which often result in a suspicion of those in authority, feelings of insecurity, and the fact that these and other circumstances may vary enormously from one asylum-seeker to another, there is no time limit which can be mechanically applied or associated with the expression “without delay”. The expression “good cause”, requires a consideration of the circumstances under which the asylum-seeker fled. The term “asylum-seeker” in these guidelines applies to those whose claims are being considered under an admissibility or pre-screening procedure as well as those who are being considered under refugee status determination procedures. It also includes those exercising their right to seek judicial and/or administrative review of their asylum request." |
I would add to that the following: that the countries surrounding Afghanistan are also not signatories to the 1951 Convention (and neither for that matter is Indonesia). This means that in these countries, refugees really genuinely are illegal immigrants, and have no rights whatsoever in that country: they are unable to work legally, access social security, own property, and face the threat of homelessness, destitution and (worst of all) deportation to their country of origin.
This is why refugees in the Asia-Pacific attempt to access the nearest country which is both a signatory to that convention, and which has a well-developed system for refugee determination and placement: Australia.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That oft-quoted passage is a very, VERY fragile foundation on which to build a case. Yes, if you close your eyes and wish hard enough, you can almost make it seem like a hard, cold fact to argue from, but you really have to push it.
In the end, you must interpret complicated and ambiguous rules like this one by, when in doubt, pondering the original intent of the person writing it. The moment you do that, it becomes instantly obvious that if that person had meant the sort of thing you say they meant, then it is impossible to explain the very strong, clear, and unambiguous phrase “coming directly”.
You can reinterpret it until black becomes white, but no matter what you do, the key phrase remains “coming directly”, and it is impossible to “come directly” to Australia on a boat from Afganistan, where there are no beaches or ports.
"Illegal immigrant", in other words, is an appropriate and accurate term, and I will continue to use it. I am damned if I'll be browbeaten into using euphemisms designed more for spin control than for accuracy and honesty.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You are certainly addressing the more difficult part of my previous post: the issue of what constitutes "coming directly".
But that has nothing to do with the question of legality - the earlier part of my post that I had bolded. You can call refugees "illegal immigrants" if you wish, but unless the law changes, and we pull out of the 1951 convention, you will always be factually wrong.
This is not spin; it is an important point, and I'd like you to acknowledge this: if a crime has been committed, why are unauthorised arrivals not charged with that crime?
The fact is, no crime has been committed by someone who seeks asylum. Therefore, there is no charge upon which to try them.
Refugees are not only not "illegals", but under our present laws, and as we are signatories to the convention, they are in fact legally entitled to seek asylum here. Cold, hard fact.
If you want to argue that we should change our laws and pull out of the convention, then we can move on, and debate the how we should instead deal with the problem.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | 1. But what if the total number of legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly is low enough to be considered separate from the quota? |
I already dealt with this furphy. If we simply allow all comers, then they will all come. Countless thousands. The current number is artificially depressed because of a range of rather nasty government policies (such as incarceration and offshore processing and so on) and by other artifacts of the illegal immigration process (such as leaky boats).
No, you haven't dealt with it. You have no evidence whatsoever. Irrespective of Australia's policy, the number of irregular arrivals has always been trivial. And that's the only actual evidence we have. Moreover, accepting irregular arrivals does not preclude working with regional partners to solve root problems.
| pietillidie wrote: |
2, 3, 4, and 5 What if the cost of not abiding by international agreements is greater than the cost of accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly?
|
1: The contention that these people are arriving here legally, and that we are thus bound to accept them is subject to very significant doubt. The claim that they are directly fleeing from (e.g.) Afganistan is palpably absurd.
It seems news to you, but you don't get to interpret international law, so give up on the fantasy that you get to rewrite authoritative international opinion. The claim that laws enacted to stop genocide and mass murder after WW2 would be so idiotic as to assume safety is only one neighbour away is irrational and disingenuous. Gee, the Jews were so lucky they fled "directly" to the countries bordering Germany!
2: Nor is it possible to accept the findings of the numerous (very expensive) legal actions as unbiased evidence of the underlying state of affairs. As always, sad cases make bad law.
Except it is you who invented this straw man; this is only relevant in your imagination.
3: In any case, as Stui says so eloquently, "we decide who comes here; we decide how. There is a pathway to enter the country, some may call it a queue. It's not perfect but it exists which is more than a lot of other countries can say. Enter by the pathway or not at all, try and come in by boat because you can afford to and you get sent back. The way is closed."
Yeah, but I am "we" too, and "we" are also signatories, so that's just chest beating.
4: I have provided powerful arguments to demonstrate that the net humanitarian impact of the welcome-the-boats strategy espoused by several here is negative - i.e., that it does significantly less to benefit those in need than the policy I have outlined, and in particular that it is horribly discriminatory and must be rejected for that reason. Any nation with a shred of moral courage would reject the emotive but (mostly) false arguments put forward by the well-intentioned bleeding heart crowd, and focus on a policy that provides the maximum relief from suffering with the minimum possible discrimination against particular groups (such as the relatively poor). But then Australia hasn't had any moral courage worth speaking of for many, many years, so I suppose we will just blunder along with various assorted tragic variations on the current idiotic mess.
You've done no such thing except in your own very concrete mind. You have not demonstrated that (a) wealth is inversely proportional to human worth, (b) each case should not be assessed on its merits, (c) it is in the interest of a small nation like Australia to disregard international agreements, (d) that accepting the present handful of irregular arrivals will cause a flood, and (e) that the costs outweigh the benefits. You're groping about for a simplification that simply doesn't exist and are struggling to deal with the fact that some dilemmas don't have perfect solutions and have to be played by ear.
Of course it's not your fault we don't have a serious cost-benefit analysis to work with, including the effects on Australia's intangible assets such as our international political and market leverage and our branding. I hope we do get the data, but no one doubts there is an impact, and no one these days doubts national branding - especially for a country heavily dependent on regional tourism arrivals and service industries such as education, as well as a nation in competition for the most skilled immigrants on the planet - has concrete costs attached to it. The likely size of that cost compared to the tiny number of irregular arrivals is likely to be an embarrassment to common sense.
Moreover, no one is saying there is no upper limit on irregular entries. Every single number you can put forward is as arbitrary as the rest, so as a mature nation we simply play it by ear. We don't need to invent imaginary moral symmetries that simply do not exist. The numbers are trivial, and we ought to be thankful we have time to work our way through it and be good international citizens with minimal effort and complexity.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But there is nothing in the earlier part of your post that bears on legality or illegality except the statement that no-one is prosecuted for arriving on a boat (which I cannot verify from my own knowledge but am prepared to take your word for). This proves nothing at all with regard to legality. In fact, it leads us to something very interesting indeed.
How many boat people have been prosecuted for illegal arrival after their claim for asylum was rejected? Let us accept (for the moment) your contention that the illicit arrival of genuine refugees is actually legal because of their refugee status. We know that there are also individuals who arrive informally claiming refugee status, but on examination by the authorities this claim is not upheld. According to the determination made in their case, they are not refugees, and they are sent home.
This leaves us with people who arrive illegally even as assessed under your (highly contestable) claim of "direct" status. They are not refugees, therefore there is no possible defence - they are illegal immigrants even under your interpretation of the rules.
So how many of these people have been prosecuted for illegal entry?
Ans: pretty much none of them. The government just deports them and doesn't worry about a prosecution.
In other words, your claim that the non-prosecution of illegal immigrants for illegal entry to this country demonstrates that they are in fact legal immigrants who entered legally is a nonsense. We can just as easily demonstrate that the non-refugees who even you must agree entered illegally were not prosecuted either, so therefore they too must in fact have been legal ...... In short, it's a nice debating tactic, but if we examine it carefully, it carries no weight whatsoever.
You are still at liberty to argue that your interpretation of the 1951 convention makes boat people legal, of course, but I doubt that we are going to get any further on that front; we seem to have covered all the ground already.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | How many boat people have been prosecuted for illegal arrival after their claim for asylum was rejected? Let us accept (for the moment) your contention that the illicit arrival of genuine refugees is actually legal because of their refugee status. We know that there are also individuals who arrive informally claiming refugee status, but on examination by the authorities this claim is not upheld. According to the determination made in their case, they are not refugees, and they are sent home.
This leaves us with people who arrive illegally even as assessed under your (highly contestable) claim of "direct" status. They are not refugees, therefore there is no possible defence - they are illegal immigrants even under your interpretation of the rules.
So how many of these people have been prosecuted for illegal entry?
Ans: pretty much none of them. The government just deports them and doesn't worry about a prosecution.
In other words, your claim that the non-prosecution of illegal immigrants for illegal entry to this country demonstrates that they are in fact legal immigrants who entered legally is a nonsense. We can just as easily demonstrate that the non-refugees who even you must agree entered illegally were not prosecuted either, so therefore they too must in fact have been legal ...... In short, it's a nice debating tactic, but if we examine it carefully, it carries no weight whatsoever. |
That doesn't follow whatsoever. I'm relying on the chief relevant body of the UN and its legal interpretation, which is the only consensus interpretation we have. The convention would have to make prosecution mandatory for what you say to make any sense; where does it say we have to prosecute illegals under the convention? There are no doubt clear legal and ethical processes for the repatriation even of illegals. Prosecution/penalty could even be optional. But mandatory?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I was responding to PP, not you, Pietilidie. We cross-posted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, responding to your long post a couple up:
I'll let the rest of that wordy arm-waving pass without comment - none seems to be needed, my case is perfectly clear already and can stand as-is. Alas I cannot resist responding to this particular sleazy bit:
| pietillidie wrote: | | You have not demonstrated that (a) wealth is inversely proportional to human worth, (b) each case should not be assessed on its merits |
Quite right. I haven't.
Nor have I attempted to; nor indeed would I ever attempt to - for those are ridiculous contentions for anyone to put forward, and bringing them up as if I had done so is unwarranted. Please try to criticise me for what I actually say, or at least for things that I just might possibly say on a rainy day, not for things like these that are the exact opposite of what I have said.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | ^ I was responding to PP, not you, Pietilidie. We cross-posted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, responding to your long post a couple up:
I'll let the rest of that wordy arm-waving pass without comment - none seems to be needed, my case is perfectly clear already and can stand as-is. Alas I cannot resist responding to this particular sleazy bit:
| pietillidie wrote: | | You have not demonstrated that (a) wealth is inversely proportional to human worth, (b) each case should not be assessed on its merits |
Quite right. I haven't.
Nor have I attempted to; nor indeed would I ever attempt to - for those are ridiculous contentions for anyone to put forward, and bringing them up as if I had done so is unwarranted. Please try to criticise me for what I actually say, or at least for things that I just might possibly say on a rainy day, not for things like these that are the exact opposite of what I have said. |
The point is not that I think you actually believe or directly stated those things, but that they're the logical corollary of your argument below given there is no actual way for most illegals to apply through the standard channels - money or not. This fact is the very raison d'etre of the convention (again, the laws were developed in response to genocide and mass murder prior, during and after WW2 - hardly a milieu in which bureaucratic registration procedures would be deemed a rational solution).
| tannin wrote: | | The illegal arrivals are all wealthy enough to have bought air tickets or passage with a people smuggler - that's some serious dollars. Every other refugee - the ones who do not have that sort of money available - is pushed to the back of the queue. |
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | But there is nothing in the earlier part of your post that bears on legality or illegality except the statement that no-one is prosecuted for arriving on a boat (which I cannot verify from my own knowledge but am prepared to take your word for). This proves nothing at all with regard to legality. In fact, it leads us to something very interesting indeed. |
Come on Tannin, this is getting silly now. Firstly, we are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention. And secondly, we have not made laws against people trying to seek asylum onshore in this country - if we did, our signature to said convention wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. The reality is that, under the convention, people under threat of persecution are legally entitled to seek asylum here and have their claims to be granted refugee status heard.
If we had made laws making onshore arrival illegal, we would have to legally enforce them through the courts. We don't, because no such laws exist: our governments have only tried various means to dissuade onshore arrivals, which is quite different. That's the other reality.
| Tannin wrote: | | How many boat people have been prosecuted for illegal arrival after their claim for asylum was rejected? |
None; Zilch and Zack. They have not arrived illegally; they have committed no crime; there is nothing to charge them with. They have sought asylum, and that is perfectly legal.
| Tannin wrote: | | Let us accept (for the moment) your contention that the illicit arrival of genuine refugees is actually legal because of their refugee status. |
No, I am saying (and I know it to be a fact) that seeking asylum here is legal. The assessment of refugee status is something that takes place later.
| Tannin wrote: | | We know that there are also individuals who arrive informally claiming refugee status, but on examination by the authorities this claim is not upheld. According to the determination made in their case, they are not refugees, and they are sent home. |
Indeed. That is what happens. They have not committed a crime, but their application has not been upheld, and they are deported. It's as simple as that.
| Tannin wrote: | | This leaves us with people who arrive illegally even as assessed under your (highly contestable) claim of "direct" status. |
It's not "my" highly contestable claim; it's international law, as written down in the UN Convention, to which Australia is a signatory.
| Tannin wrote: | | They are not refugees, therefore there is no possible defence - they are illegal immigrants even under your interpretation of the rules. |
They would be illegal immigrants only if they were to stay in the country. In seeking asylum, however, they are committing no crime at all.
While we are on this point, I remind you that the vast majority (well over 85 percent) of boat arrivals ARE found to be genuine refugees. A lesser number of the far larger numbers that arrive by plane are in this category.
| Tannin wrote: | So how many of these people have been prosecuted for illegal entry?
Ans: pretty much none of them. The government just deports them and doesn't worry about a prosecution. |
That is because there is nothing to prosecute them with. They have not breached any law by seeking asylum - however, they WOULD be breaching the law by continuing to stay in the country. Can you see the difference?
| Tannin wrote: | | In other words, your claim that the non-prosecution of illegal immigrants for illegal entry to this country demonstrates that they are in fact legal immigrants who entered legally is a nonsense. |
I will say it again: they are neither legal nor illegal immigrants; they are asylum seekers. Seeking asylum in this country, as a signatory to the 1951 convention, is entirely legal. If you are determined to be a refugee, then you are entitled to asylum here. If your application is unsuccessful, you are deported - only if you were to stay in the country would you be committing a crime.
| Tannin wrote: | | You are still at liberty to argue that your interpretation of the 1951 convention makes boat people legal, of course, but I doubt that we are going to get any further on that front; we seem to have covered all the ground already. |
Stop trying to say that this is only my interpretation of the law. It is not: it is the law as it has been practised here since 1951. Ring any legal aid office, or solicitor firms that specialise in such matters, or the UN if you don't believe me. I've got no interest in rewriting this law to suit myself; it simply is what it is.
I would like to close by asking you two things:
* What is it, exactly, about the current process that disturbs you so much; and
* Do you think Australia should pull out of the 1951 Refugee Convention? I have no problem with you wanting to argue that position, although I would disagree with it. But I'm getting a bit frustrated by your continuing to challenge existing law as just some kind of figment of my fevered imagination. 
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen
Last edited by Pied Piper on Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I wish you the best of luck finding asylum in this country as a signatory to the 1951 convention is legal. |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This argument may well go on forever, especially if Tannin fails to "get" the point that Pied Piper is making which is basic law not simply Piper's opinion.
However it will go on without me. I felt I had to make a statement because I feel strongly about this question and I also thought PP and pietillidie deserved support. However I am overseas (speaking of privilege) and do not want to spend my short time OS on Australian websites. While I will visit Nick's to hear how we beat the Saints (please make it how we beat the Saints rather than the reverse) I am going to keep out of VPT till I get back on July 21.
If you are still discussing asylum seekers by then, then I'll have another sixpence worth!!
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White
Last edited by Dr Pie on Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Do you think Australia should pull out of the 1951 Refugee Convention? Yes, in saying that I am happy for that question to be put to the population and voted on and I will accept the majority vote. |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | there is no actual way for most illegals to apply through the standard channels - money or not. |
Perhaps this, then, is the crux of the issue.
I presume that all posters in this thread can agree on one thing: the fact that so many refugees are forced to rely on unsafe boats and the mercy of people smugglers to escape to safe havens like Australia is an abhorrent situation.
Why is this the case? Is it, as pietillidie suggests, because most refugees don't even have any legitimate method of applying open to them? If so, what is the Australian Government doing about this? Why, as I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread, do some have to go to other countries just to apply for entry?
Although I think we should raise the quota, I think that particular consideration is fairly irrelevant to this discussion. Instead, we need to look at the application process itself and whether it's working.
This would, surely, address the problem at the root. Sure, it wouldn't stop people trying to get through by boat, but at least we'd know that there was some kind of queue in the first place that was being jumped.
This, of course, is all mitigated by the fact that I have little idea about how the quota actually works. Can anyone enlighten me on this?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The problem is David; many people feel that they are not Refugees. The propaganda put out by the Liberal Party and the sensationalism from the media simply enforces that view. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
U don't "fail to get it", I contest it because it is wrong.
Nowhere has PP or any other poster demonstrated that the illegal arrivals are in fact legal; all they have done is cast doubt on the matter and provide sufficient evidence to prvoke debate.
No-one, not PP and not any other poster, has managed to explain away the fact that the gereat majority of informal arrivals are NOT repeat NOT arriving "directly".
You can keep on chanting "L A W LAW" as long as you like, but that will not make it so,
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
