jayr

Another thought provoking story, 61% of voters think some or all of the boat people should be allowed into Australia..

Asylum makes a comeback

Quinkana

Those who come without proof - make 'em build their own gaols, water and food supplies and pay for proof or deportation with their labour or wages.

Those with proof - set them to work - like the WWII refos on the Snowy Mountain Scheme.

jayr

Well I'm glad that I've never been in a situation where I had to think "Oh, I must remember my passport before fleeing this country and risking my life to get safe harbour elsewhere"

Quinkana

.. after passing through or by several other neutral countries where the UNHCR is active and remembering to grab thousands of dinero to pay the snake heads.

renth

Hang on, you've not got it quite right, it's "Oh, I must remember my passport berore paying a people smuggler loads of money, probably borrowed from my family, to take me to the other side of the world, via plenty of other countries where I could have claimed assylum and would have been safe"

UN Refugee program, fine.
Paying people smugglers = economic migration, not fine.

bondipom

If you were a refo what would you do to maximise your hopes for your yourself and your family?
Paying for people smugglers does not = economic migration. Paying for people smugglers = desperation.

Quinkana

If I knew I had no legal claim, I'd weigh my chances and aim for the the choicest spot.

Boulder-dash. UNHCR in Indonesia.

To UNHCR - Afghan Refugees - Mataram Lombok Indonesia

Don

The rule on first neutral country is obviously wrong in ethics.

jayr

Don, please expand

Don

OK I probably need to check the exact rule but it goes something along the lines that refugees should claim asylum at the first country they physically get to where they won't suffer persecution.

Ie if travelling overland from (say) Iraq, you have to cross a lot of countries before you get to UK - officially the UK could turn the refugees around (eg back to France) because the rule has not been observed. (The UK doesn't apply the letter of the law.)

Australia: it takes a lot of determination to get that far, but most claiming refugee status will not have (say) sailed without landfall between Afghanistan and Darwin, ie they should theoretically have claimed asylum elsewhere first when they crossed a neutral country.

In ethics I think this rule is plain wrong partly because most rich countries, being located where they are, could easily shirk their moral responsibility to accept refugees. The rule is interpreted on a political whim. It also leads to some countries being seen as a soft touch, therefore meaning they attract a disproportionate number of refugees compared to a 'hard' place like Australia.

MikeStanton

Good to see the general approach hasn't evolved after 200 years

MikeStanton

On the refugee front, it's interesting to compare UK, Oz and Canada - for each refugee, how many non-refugees in each country:

UK ~1:330 (ie one refugee per 330 non-refugees in the UK pop'n) - and UK has one of the lowest intakes in Europe - contrary to what the Daily Mail claims

Canada ~1:400

and yes, you guessed it, in the land of the 'fair go' it's one of the lowest: 1:800* (*from Refugee Council of Oz)

And I thought that 'heaven' had its doors open to everyone...

Quinkana

Port Arthur needs restoration.

Quinkana

Let you out.

Peter

You thought wrong. Australia has never had its doors open to everyone.

Though, in saying so, you might want to view Australia's refugee intake in the 70's and the 80's. It was quite high.