Asylum seekers – an update

As ABC 7:30 highlighted last night, it appears that the Gillard government is about to formally sign the deal with Malaysia that will see boat-arriving asylum seekers returned to the back of the queue in that country without processing.  Assuming that UNHCR accepts it (apparently the price of acceptance of the deal by Labor’s Left faction) it will represent a huge step towards resolving one of the major causes of Labor’s plummeting popularity.  It’s also a sound policy response, as I’ve argued previously.  I explore additional arguments in this post.

In fact the so-called Malaysia Solution has already been extremely successful in “stopping the boats”, even before it actually comes into effect.  Asylum seekers are arriving by boat at less than half the rate of last year, and a major reason for that must surely be the Gillard government’s pre-emptive announcement of the Malaysia Solution in late April.

However, as 7:30 observed:

But the deal takes effect from when it’s signed, so that means the 407 asylum seekers who’ve arrived here since May, when it was first flagged, are in legal limbo.

That makes it all the more important to conclude a deal with PNG for a permanent offshore detention facility there.  We haven’t heard much about progress on that front recently, probably because of Sir Michael Somare’s illness and retirement from public life.  Now Kevin07 is crook with heart trouble too.   Maybe Julia should just bite the bullet, swallow her pride and do a deal with Nauru now they’ve signed the Refugee Convention.

On a related front, detained asylum seekers continue to demonstrate both on Christmas Island and in DarwinAn earlier story about the Darwin situation raises an issue I’ve been meaning to discuss for some time:

Detainees say the group of Iranians and Iraqis have held the protest and hunger strike because they are dismayed that three other detainees who had faked their nationalities were given refugee visas to stay in Australia.

In fact Minister Bowen admitted not long ago that more than 80 per cent of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat dumped their passports before landing.  On first blush this strongly suggests that most of them are fraudulently claiming refugee status, in that that’s the most obvious explanation for deliberately disposing of one’s passport.  Clearly just about all of them had passports when they arrived in Malaysia or Indonesia by air, because otherwise they would not have been allowed through customs and immigration there.

Perhaps Australian authorities should consider mandatory statutory application of the evidentiary rule in Jones v Dunkel:

The unexplained failure by a party to give evidence, to call witnesses, or to tender documents or other evidence may, not must, in appropriate circumstances lead to an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted that party’s case.

However, as with most things in the asylum seeker debate, it isn’t that simple.  As a recent SMH article noted:

People smugglers insist that all asylum seeker identity documents, including passports, be destroyed before embarking on boats to Australia to ensure people cannot be connected to relatives and family members living in Australia. Use of false names also means that Afghan authorities cannot trace them.

In fact a more plausible reason why people smugglers may force all passengers to destroy their ID is that it makes it equally attractive for fraudulent asylum seekers to utilise the people smugglers’ services.  Genuine and fake applicants are on a “level playing field” and that gives Australian authorities an almost insoluble dilemma given their Refugee Convention obligation not to “refoule” genuine refugees.  It may mean that fake applicants have just as good a chance of acceptance as real ones, as long as they can spin a plausible story that cannot be disproved.  As Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison commented:

“To travel by air you must have documentation. The decision to discard documentation is an act of defiance and non-cooperation with Australian authorities,” he was quoted as saying.

“The absence of documentation also leads to significant delays in processing and security assessment that detainees now complain about.

“The practice of discarding documentation is routine among asylum seekers using people smugglers and is designed to frustrate Australian authorities trying to determine whether a person has a legitimate asylum claim.”

“They are clearly counting on being given the benefit of the doubt,” he added.

However, it may not be quite that bad.  Many detainees are able to establish their identities to the satisfaction of Australian authorities despite the people smugglers’ confiscation of their passports.  Quite a few have members of their extended families already in Australia who can vouch for their identities, or others in overseas countries who can be accessed relatively easily by Australian diplomatic or other personnel.

As for those whose identities cannot readily be verified, it isn’t reasonable to blame Australian authorities for keeping them in detention.  Australia’s security interests require it, and the Refugee Convention does not prohibit such action.  In fact it appears that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers remaining in detention at present are either ones whose identities cannot be verified (and who therefore cannot receive security clearances), or whose applications have been rejected and are simply awaiting deportation or their final appeal stage, as well as the 407 post-Malaysia Solution announcement arrivals.  A PNG or Nauru-based detention centre for these applicants would be entirely appropriate.

Moreover, given the extreme difficulty of verifying identities of a significant number of boat arrivals, the extreme danger of the sea voyage, and the desirability of a much more orderly system where Australia can choose those offshore applicants most deserving of our humanitarian protection (instead of those who have enough money to take pre-emptive self-help measures with the people smugglers, and who may not be refugees at all), it’s difficult to see why even the most passionate refugee advocates are so vehemently opposed to the Malaysia Solution.  Of course, that argument only applies if Australia has been able to negotiate safeguards satisfactory to UNHCR to ensure that returnees are not harassed or refouled by Malaysia.

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law), civil procedure and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 20 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in the early 1990s.
This entry was posted in Immigration and refugees, Politics - national. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
conrad
conrad
12 years ago

“Asylum seekers are arriving by boat at less than half the rate of last year, and a major reason for that must surely be the Gillard government’s pre-emptive announcement of the Malaysia Solution in late April.”

Not that I want to side-track things, but whilst I quite like the idea of the Malaysian solution also, I’m not especially convinced by this (indeed, I also think it’s very hard to find convincing evidence that policy is to blame when the number goes up). I assume that the situation in Iraq, for example, must be getting better and hopefully the same would be true of Sri Lanka. Perhaps the most convincing evidence for this will be if Afghanistan gets worse when foreign troops leave and the number of Afghani asylum seekers doesn’t go up. I guess we’ll find out the answer to that in the not too distant future.

“so that means the 407 asylum seekers who’ve arrived here since May, when it was first flagged, are in legal limbo.”

Is this really a big issue (obviously excluding to the actual asylum seekers)? Either they get stuck in a detention centre based on the old rules, which won’t be so bad if they are not over-crowded if the Malaysian solution really does end up reducing numbers (in which case I’ll admit the above statement is correct), or they get sent to Malaysia and a greater number of Burmese get to come here.

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

Presumably Ken you don’t *always* accept the means justify the ends? Even if mandatory detention was shown to be 90% effective, from the admittedly limited amount I’ve read on the conditions asylum seekers have to ensure in them, I still couldn’t bring myself to support it without a vast improvement in the way they’re treated (which of couse may well reduce the effectiveness), especially considering the tiny numbers of people we’re talking about. What problem are we trying to solve anyway?

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

Ugh…”endure” obviously.

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

“Would you really argue that we should allow people at large and unsupervised in the community when we have no idea who they are?”

Most of people in this country (and any free country) are essentially “at large and unsupervised in the community” and I have no idea who they are. That they just arrived via a treacherous boat-ride in order to escape unthinkable conditions where they came from strangely enough makes me less worried about them than people that have been born here.
Yes, a few crooks and terrorists will slip through, but they’re such a tiny threat in comparison with hundreds of other far bigger problems I really just don’t see it’s worth worrying about.

The likelihood of convincing a substantial number of Australians of that? Zero, sure. But I’m less convinced there aren’t ways the majority of Australians can’t be convinced that asylum seekers just aren’t a big enough problem to be worth spending the sort of money we do on it.

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

(in fact as I’ve said before, I’d prefer we try to *make* money out of them – it’s surely better than they can buy residence directly from the Australian Government than by paying off people smugglers).

Richard Tsukamasa Green

the Gillard government is about to formally sign the deal with Malaysia that will see boat-arriving asylum seekers returned to the back of the queue in that country without processing.

One of the most heartening features of the plan might be highlighted if that was rephrased as

the Gillard government is about to formally sign the deal with Malaysia that will see the creation of a queue in that country to which boat-arriving asylum seekers will be returned to the back of without processing.

The public sentiment about “queue jumpers” is a sincere one, and is why I’ve never attributed the entirety of anti-boat sentiment to raw xenophobia. Unfortunately there never was a queue in the sense of an orderly process by which those who have waited the longest have priority. This plan goes a long way to making reality fit the perception.

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

My initial reaction to the idea when I read it was much the same Ken.
But it does seem the more I think about it the less ‘obnoxious’ it’s likely to be in practice, if not in principle.
The migrants that do make it here are the ones that have been able to pay people smugglers to make it. My question would only be “is it possible to get them here at a similar cost by safer means”. If the answer is yes, then why not allow them to pay the that sort of amount for a refugee visa (and note, I’m not suggesting they’re granted no questions asked – you’d still need a mechanism of showing at least some form of eligibility) which includes paying for their travel. Maybe it’s not practical in the end, but it seems to be an idea not worth more than just out-of-hand dismissal.

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

Ugh, delete ‘not’ before worth. I really need a preview feature…

Glen
Glen
12 years ago

A very good post, Ken. I agree the Malaysia solution has the makings of a very good policy. Because the prospect of living in Australia is so much better than in much of the region (for both refugees and economic migrants), its often worth spending a year in detention, which might be the best of two horrible options. And we have deterred people by making the processing regime quite harsh, which i think is both necessary and deeply regrettable.

If this Malaysia solution works and we can bed down a permanent program on the same principles, then that strong deterrent will allow us to relax the way we treat asylum seekers, such as by putting those we can verify in community care. Its probably the only way we could do that in a politically sustainable way. And i don’t mind taking more refugees from Malaysia, particularly if we are confident a higher percentage are genuine refugees than those in our detention centres.

Patrick
Patrick
12 years ago

wizofaus, I interpret your #10 as a completely and totally different proposal to your #6.

I agree, consistent with your #10, that we should auction a fixed number of supplementary places off each year. I also think that this should be supplementary to our humanitarian intake.

But I don’t think that has any impact on our policy towards boat people, somewhat at odds with your #6?

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

I suppose my thinking is that if the “auctioning off” proposal works well enough, there would no longer be sufficient demand for the services of boat smugglers for them to be able to bring any significant number of asylum seekers to our shore.

#6 wasn’t a proposal – just an expression of annoyance that we agonize and spend so much money on inhumane ‘solutions’ to what is really a pretty tiny problem in the scheme of things.

Yobbo
Yobbo
12 years ago

In fact, although there certainly are some of the current boat arrivals who are mere economic migrants, there’s a fair proportion who are real refugees

Unless they are refugees from Indonesia, they are economic migrants. Otherwise why leave Indonesia to come to Australia?

conrad
conrad
12 years ago

Yobbo:”Unless they are refugees from Indonesia, they are economic migrants. Otherwise why leave Indonesia to come to Australia?”

Indonesia doesn’t resettle refugees (which is not to say many arn’t there), and nor is it under any obligation to (it isn’t a signatory to the refugee convetion — not that it seems to get taken too seriously by many countries that are).

Wiz:”I suppose my thinking is that if the “auctioning off” proposal works well enough, there would no longer be sufficient demand for the services of boat smugglers for them to be able to bring any significant number of asylum seekers to our shore.”

I doubt it would work — presumably there are enough refugees that could bid the price up far higher than people smugglers cost.

KP:”why have a lot more Iraqi asylum seekers been aiming at Australia in the last couple of years and a lot less at Europe? Pull factors (Labor’s relaxation of sanctions) are the most likely explanation.”

I would think that it is also because Europe is getting tougher also.

wizofaus
wizofaus
12 years ago

conrad, possible, but I wasn’t actually assuming it would be a bidding auction – some sort of lottery system would arguably be fairer. However even if it were I’m not so sure the bids would get *that* high – presumably people smugglers attempt to exhort the biggest fees they possible can as it is, and while the fact that a guaranteed visa/safe passage is obviously significantly more inherently valuable than trip in a leaky boat with the prospect of spending months in detention only to be sent home again, there is a significant limit to just how much funds these refugees are likely to be able to pull together.
The good thing about the idea is that you can introduce it at any time “experimentally” just to see if it does actually make a noticeable difference to the number of attempted boat-crossings.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

There is a small problem Parrish is ignoring, it is fucking illegal.

WE don’t get to choose an arbitrary date to destroy the lives of 800 random human beings because we have been breaking the law for a few thousand others.

Bowen also knows that it is illegal, it’s just a stinking dirty $300 million deal with a dirty nation what sells humans.

It’s no secret why Malaysia would agree to illegal human trading, they have been the worst human traders for years.

10,000 people per week are arriving in Kenya but we whine on and on about a couple of thousand.

Parrish, you are a brainless moron if you only bothered to discover that.

http://www.chrisbowen.net/media-centre/speeches.do?newsId=2061

Posted August 10, 2006

Mr BOWEN (Prospect) (10.17 a.m.)?In 1951 the United Nations convention for the protection of refugees came into force. The world realised the mistakes of the 1930s, when many Western nations turned their backs on Jews fleeing persecution in Germany. Collectively, we said, ?Never again.? I am sure that all of us involved in public life would like to think that we would have done the right thing in those circumstances and stood up for those facing the worst of circumstances, regardless of whether it was popular or unpopular. If the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 passes the parliament today, it will be the day that Australia turned its back on the refugee convention and on refugees escaping circumstances that most of us can only imagine. This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia.

And there is no right for Australia to decide how many to ‘accept” for protection, we protect absolutely every person who applies and needs it.

Good lord we make a mockery of this with only 0.0001% of the world’s refugees ever getting here don’t we?

Resettlement though has nothing to do with the refugee convention and as Bowen notes in this speech we don’t get to push people away for any reason.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

And there are no fucking people amugglers, it is legal to pay for transport and we ratified several conventions and protocols that make it legal.

How do some of you people get to be so damned stupid?

Paul Frijters
Paul Frijters
12 years ago

good post Ken.

Marilyn is out of line with the ad hominems.

Patrick
Patrick
12 years ago

Well Marilyn, I don’t know much about this area, but your main complaint appears to be that you believe the proposed solution to be illegal.

Now Ken notes this (its around about the first paragraph):

Assuming that UNHCR accepts it (apparently the price of acceptance of the deal by Labor’s Left faction)

So, if I’m right that you realise that there is no comprehensible use of the ‘illegal’ which applies to purely Australian domestic law, you must mean illegal under various conventions…so does this mean that the plan will go ahead if it is legal (by your lights) and won’t if it isn’t??

In which case what are you so upset about, about from Ken’s mental deficiencies?

Benjamin @ Debt Consolidation Nation
Benjamin @ Debt Consolidation Nation
12 years ago

a well balance article, certainly better than most I’ve read on the subject. My personal point of view was that the “illegal” component of our immigration was 2 small to be off concern and that the discrimination between boat and plane seem arbitrary.

conrad
conrad
12 years ago

Actually, I think there are really 3 confounded issues in the abuse:
1) The legality of the matter (In my ignorant books, this doesn’t make much difference especially after Ken’s comment #2, but it’s interesting to know about).
2) The morality of the matter, where I think the abuse was unfair because the discussion was really mainly a discussion about particular aspects of the Malaysian solution and dumping passports vs. the way refugees are treated in general. I could dislike the latter (I do) but have an entirely civil discussion about how to evaluate the former. Until people can deconfound these issues in their own heads, there will just be screaming.
3) Why Australians hold such strong attitudes to refugees despite tiny numbers of them turning up. I think this is an entirely separate question — I always find this strange too, since I often work in place teeming with illegal migrants and the last thing people worry about is whether they are illegal or not (parts of the legal population are enough to annoy many people). The fact that people are willing to change their votes based on this (say vs. economic performance etc.) is surprising. Perhaps we just don’t have enough to worry about, but in any case the issue itself is essentially independent of the one being talked about and hence doesn’t warrant abuse.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

It is illegal and Parrish has been writing his ill informed bunkum for a decade.

Under Article 32 of the refugee convention no signatory state shall expel any refugee in their territory for any reason other than they are a threat to national security.

And that is all there is.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

Bullshit, there is no durable solution and expulsion is forbidden for any reason.

do grow up Ken, you have been publishing this crap for years and have been wrong for years.

Articles 3, 16, 31, 32 and 33 of the convention have force in Australian law.

And our own courts found that third country was illegal under our law in a case called NAGV and NAGW so learn some facts before drivelling.

10,000 refugees per week arriving in Kenya, we are whining about 50.

As for ad hominme, Ken you have been writing the same ignorant drivel without thought of Australian law for the past decade.

The law in Australia is simply stated by Ron Merkel in the Al Masri case.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20masri
“60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an “unlawful” entrant and an “unlawful non-citizen” that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as “unlawful non-citizens” because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.
61 The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called “unlawful non-citizens” in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950’s (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are “unlawfully” in the country in which the asylum application is made.
62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”
Now those four paragraphs make the law pretty clear and that was upheld by three more judges in the Full Court of the Federal court in April 2003 after Akram had been deported.

So far so good on the “unlawful” = “illegal” story.

So let’s wander off to the High Court appeal which became Behrooz, Al Kateb and Al Khafaji and have a look at the meaning of “unlawful”.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/456.html?query=behrooz

GUMMOW J: What is the baggage of the word “unlawful”?

MR BENNETT: Your Honour, none. It is a word used in a definition provision, it is simply a defined phrase. It is not a phrase which necessarily involves the commission of a criminal offence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/458.html?query=behrooz

“GUMMOW J: What is the force of the word “unlawful”?

MR BENNETT: It is merely a word which is used in a definition section, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: Does it mean without lawful permission?

MR BENNETT: Yes, that is perhaps the best way of paraphrasing – – –

GUMMOW J: But in the Austinian sense that is meaningless, is it not?

MR BENNETT: Yes, your Honour. The draftsperson of the Act is not necessarily taken to be familiar with the – – –

GUMMOW J: Well, perhaps they ought to be.”

Wow, so the word unlawful is legally meaningless.

Now if we choose to be the only signatory nation to be moronic over the arrival of just a few thousand people while 9 million kids per year starve do not expect me to do or say a single thing that will support that law breaking.

In fact the High Court last November found that Bowen had been breaking the law on Christmas Island so he is using the drownings he does not care about as an excuse to illegally expel 800 other completely random human beings to some place they cannot be protected.

So grow up, learn the law and stop writing this sort of misleading nonsense.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

And as for the “huge” problem? Half of the world’s refugees for the past decade have been from Iraq and Afghanistan and who started those wars?

15 million refugees in a population of nearly 7 billion is a drop that could be solved tomorrow.

conrad
conrad
12 years ago

Marilyn,

you might want to look at it another way. Let’s say that the UN starts trying to enforce really strict definitions of what it expects countries to do with refugees. Now let’s also imagine what would happen if the Australian government keeps on losing refugee claims based on this. Just to pick a random figure — let’s say 1000 refugees get in based on the Australian government constantly losing various appeals.

Now consider what the outcome of all this would be likely to be from a parliamentary system with two parties happy to appeal to populist views — it seems to that the obvious things that will happen is that someone will suggest that Australia cross its name off this convention, and which ever party does it will get a mountain of votes.

I don’t think this likely to lead to a better outcome than the current situation.

“15 million refugees in a population of nearly 7 billion is a drop that could be solved tomorrow.”

This is obviously apriori false otherwise the problem would be solved.

“Half of the world’s refugees for the past decade have been from Iraq and Afghanistan and who started those wars?”

There were tons of refugees leaving Afghanistan at least well before Western forces got there. When was the last time Afghanistan wasn’t at war?

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

So Ken, what if all 147 nations decided to skive off the people who applied in their countries to some other safe third country? What would that mean.

And that diatribe about illegal or unlawful is a direct quote from our courts.

You deliberately misread NAGV and NAGW, the government were wrong. The eminent justice Kirby said that if they were correct to deny asylum because the jews could have gone to Israel that would mean that not one person would be able to seek or gain protection from persecution.

If you want to write nonsense go right ahead but the entire notion of safe third country is a furphy, that is simply about the movement of people through transit countries not being stopped.

Good heavens you are Philip Ruddock par excellence with the way you distort and twist.

In our region we are the safe third country, full stop.

Indonesia will not protect, Malaysia, Cambodia, nowhere are refugees protected by the law in our region except here and we are whining about a mere 0.0001 % of them while 2.3 million children have died of starvation and preventable disease in countries of supposed first asylum.

The law is simple. Anyone who applies for asylum in signatory countries has to have their case heard.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

I don't care what the Australian government think they believe, they are wrong.

The people they think they can push away do not have protection in any other country and have not applied in any other country.

This whine is pointless.

Kevin Rennie
12 years ago

One of the strangest attacks on the Malaysian ‘solution’ comes from Scott Morrison. He wants to stop asylum seekers getting here from Malaysia but objects to sending them there because it would be inhumane. Where is he happy for them to be? They won’t all fit on Nauru. Should we take all those with refugees status currently in Malaysia?

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

Morrison is playing dirty grubby politics with Bowen.

I would suggest the two racist cowards get into a boxing ring and beat each other to a pulp and leave the refugees alone.

If they can’t be bothered doing that perhaps they could read Australian law.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

(Moderator) Ad hom comment deleted

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

(Moderator) Ad hom comment deleted

Yobbo
Yobbo
12 years ago

3) Why Australians hold such strong attitudes to refugees despite tiny numbers of them turning up

It’s really pretty simple Conrad. Australians like to give a sucker an even break, and they see refugees as Queue Jumpers who are taking the spot of other people who did it by the book.

There’s not really any argument that they are wrong, either. Australia takes around 12,000 offshore refugees (that is, refugees who apply for asylum before setting off for Australia) every year – usually.

In 2009-2010, when there was a massive increase in boat arrivals, they only took 9300 offshore refugees. The 5000 boat arrivals, in effect, took the spots of around 3,000 of the refugees who otherwise would have been admitted to Australia.

Source: http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/boat-people-and-australia/

Queue Jumpers who break the law, who pay money to criminals to assist them in getting here at the expense of others, and cost us money rescuing them when their boats sink.

Australia is a very egalitarian country, and they don’t like people who think themselves important enough to ignore the queue and stroll straight to the front.

Yobbo
Yobbo
12 years ago

The funny thing is that by all rights, Gillard’s “Malaysian Solution” directly addresses this: Send the cheating boat people back to Malaysia where they can suck it up, and take 4000 of the patient refugees instead.

I think the problem is that nobody has any confidence in anything the Gillard government does at this point, which is why the policy hasn’t really got any supporters at all.

Yobbo
Yobbo
12 years ago

And the big winners out of this Malaysian policy will be the Burmese refugees, who typically make up the largest % of offshore refugee applicants, and – unlike some other refugee groups – are a model minority in Australia.

Marilyn
Marilyn
12 years ago

Yobbo, there is no queue for asylum seekers, those refugees in other countries have been asylum seekers in other countries and are not entitled to come here.

The lousy resettlement scheme is voluntary, there is no treaty or convention to cover them, it is another pathetic scheme for 0.0001% of the world’s refugees used as a fig leaf to pretend we are doing our bit.

Each refugee we import this way costs taxpayers $60,000 while those asylum seekers who have the right to come here pay their own way.

The only way asylum seekers can be queue jumpers is a mystery that not one other country has ever heard of.

Offshore? Everyone is offshore except Australians, so what is the point of your silly whining.

Yobbo
Yobbo
12 years ago

Yobbo, there is no queue for asylum seekers, those refugees in other countries have been asylum seekers in other countries and are not entitled to come here.

There is a queue for total refugees, as evidenced by the fact that Australia takes in around the same number every year – around 13,000. In years with high numbers of boat arrivals we accept less offshore refugees.

Just to clarify, according to the government website I linked to earlier:

Offshore = Refugees taken from camps overseas according to recommendations from the UN.
Onshore = Asylum Seekers who apply for asylum after landing (either by boat or plane).

The more Onshore arrivals we have, the less offshore get allowed in. Therefore there is a queue – or, more accurately, a quota – and you can get to the front of it by coming here in a boat.

Stop ignoring the facts please.

.
.
12 years ago

Government immigration numbers are consistently wrong. If there is a queue it is because the Government has created it.

Yobbo
Yobbo
12 years ago

Quite so, and the Malaysia Solution addresses that by putting them to the back of the queue/quota.

Yep, as I said in post 41.

At least, that’s the way it will work the first time we do it. The 2nd time around we’ll just get those 800 back along with 3200 burmese.