Asylum Seekers Part 3 - Tampa anniversary

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the Tampa crisis; a very dark moment in our recent national history. This is a classic example of a number of things:

Firstly, the lines between fact and fiction being blurred by the media - and not just by the shock jocks like Alan Jones, by the mainstream news services as well;.

Secondly, of a government trying on the classic tactic of "conviction without trial" - "we don't know what their story is, and what's more, we don't care. They're not coming here" was John Howard's official stance on the people who were rescued by a Norwegian freighter;

Thirdly, of a government pandering to far-right views on immigration, being overrun by foreigners. There are so many legislative areas that could be improved to alleviate some of these fears, but largely this is just rhetoric and hot air from a bunch of people who should know better.

It is now reported that most Australians want to see Asylum seekers processed here, and I couldn't agree more. If their claims for asylum prove to be fraudulent, by all means send them home. But there is no reason to assume, before being examined, that these people are freeloaders. What are people afraid of immigration?

So the refugee camps are full? Why? Fix it! Other countries take a quota of refugees as part of their annual immigration intake. Would that be a better solution to the current one?

Here is an example of a story that includes some follow up on the people who were caught up in the Tampa crisis, proving how wrong John Howard was to assume these people were "illegal" asylum seekers.

Any other (sensible) ideas would be welcomed!

Asylum Seekers Part 2

Here we go again, banging the drum on the Asylum Seeker issue.

I take umbrage at a few things mentioned in this issue:

"A Lowy Institute poll this year found that 88 per cent of Australians believe they are queue jumpers and 86 per cent believe they "pose a potential security threat to Australia".

Who were these Australians they allegedly surveyed? Did any of those surveyed get the real facts from the people involved in this, for example the ACTUAL asylum seekers? One thing is for sure that NO politician, on either side of political fence, has ever stood up for the people who (I'm assuming) are making their way out of oppression in their home countries. We seem to forget that that is what asylum seeking is all about. I've made the point in these pages that if you have a legitimate claim for asylum from persecution in your home country, it is NOT illegal to ask another country for asylum. Furthermore, if you can't get a plane and a visa, how the hell else are you supposed to get here?

However, if it is found that the people arriving on boats are jumping the immigration queue, by all means deport them. After all, this is an illegal practice and as such, one cannot expect a nation to grant someone clemency or recourse for trying to break that nations laws, right?

Furthermore, is it overly cynical to doubt the integrity of any "studies" done by an independent think tank run by a billionaire shopping centre magnate?

The fact that 88% of respondents claim that these people are a national security threat and are "queue jumpers" proves, if nothing else, the need for a more free and open press, in order to give us the truth. The amount of misinformation on this issue alone proves that we, as a nation of literate media consumers, are not being fed reliable and accurate information.

There is no excuse for Xenophobia, but there is equally no excuse for a nation's media outlets to stoke the fires of xenophobia in the minds of its audience.

Note: I know these links all come from the Sydney Morning Herald, but there is suspiciously little printed about this in the Australian Murdoch press web sites...

Asylum seekers, part 1

Anyone who ventures into debates about immigration policy in this country are heading into very murky waters. Debates can be fierce and the fighting can often be over opinions that are ill-informed.

With the ABC airing an episode of their panel discussion program Q&A specifically on the issue of Asylum Seekers in Australia, I thought it was appropriate to clear up some basic facts that the media and it's coverage of the topic seem to miss.

Sidebar: I also want to direct this straight at the group of people that I like to refer to as the "FOWF Brigade". The FOWF Brigade are typically bogans who drive around in big cars or utes with stickers on the back expressing their narrow-minded views on various topics; their views on immigration are usually summed up in four little words: "F*** OFF WE'RE FULL".

1. It is entirely legal to ask another country for protection if your life is in danger in your own country.

This is one thing that the FOWF Brigade seem to forget. If you are being persecuted by your own government it is entirely legal for you to seek political asylum in another country, if you feel your life is at risk.

2. Arriving on a rickety boat from Indonesia is illegal.

Yes, only if you have not made appropriate clearances to enter into Australian Waters. It is also not illegal to arrive on our shores and ask for asylum either. Given that Australia is an island surrounded by water, aside from taking a plane trip, how the hell else are you going to get here? Besides, if the country you are fleeing from has restricted airspace due to it being part of a war-zone and you can't get a plane, what other option do you have?

3. When asylum seekers arrive, it is imperative and highly appropriate that we find out exactly who they are.

In a lot of cases, people will flee their homes with what little they can scrounge before, say, a bomb hits it. In that situation, there's not a lot of time to grab your birth certificate and your CV. So, by the time they get here, and they no identification, what can you do? You need to find out who they are.

We also need to find out what their story is - where they've come from, what the threat to their lives was/is, and what can be done to help them. Do they have anyone they know here? What do they hope to do once they're here? Can they support themselves and their families?

4. Detention centres are NOT bad (at least in theory).

When asylum seekers get here, we have to house them somewhere. We cannot just expect them to sleep on the street until we work out who they are. We do owe them at least some duty of care until their claims are processed. Secondly, while diseases like cholera and dysentery have been contained and vaccinated against in this country for years, we need to make sure that asylum seekers are healthy and not carrying any infectious diseases as well.

5. Asylum seekers are NOT queue jumpers.

Well, some may be. In the past, some people have been caught out. But, there are a lot of people who are genuinely seeking asylum, so by rights one cannot assume one way or another. The immigration queue is quite long, so I'm told, so I guess it's only natural that people will take an alternative route to get into Australia permanently, if they want to badly enough.

One of the major issues that seems to be the core of this debate is the conditions in which these people are forced to live, and for years at a time. I don't know why the processing of asylum claims takes so long. I don't know on what grounds an application for asylum may be rejected (which was the reason that a few people set fire to the Villawood Detention centre a few months back). However, I'd love to know the answers to some of these questions at some stage...

Xenophobia in this country is nothing new. Most of us didn't know what xenophobia was until v. Spy V. Spy issued an album with that title in 1987. But we shouldn't let the unfounded fears of a bunch of ignorant people impact on the policy decisions of the government.

More on this one later...