This article is full of bias-pushing, including the idea that what happens to the people on Nauru is mysterious or that they are in limbo, or that they are in some type of concentration camp.
The families on Nauru are free to leave and return to their country of origin any time they choose. They are free to participate in the local community and are not behind barbed wire.
The people who have self-harmed have been in contact with the legal industry inside Australia that prospers from their continued presence. These refugee advocates, in full knowledge of the state of the people in Nauru, don't seek to help them but seek to play them as pawns in their deadly game.
The undeniable facts of the matter was that when Australia temporarily relaxed the border protection laws, by the governments own statistics, at least 1,500 men, women and children drowned at sea. Most well known was when a timber fishing boat smashed into rocks in front of news cameras as people drowned.
Since the reinstatement of the laws, the only people who have been harmed are those that have self-harmed.
There is zero doubt that the laws save lives, and crucially, also provide the ability for people to support genuine refugee settlement, such as the processing of 12,000 Syrian refugees, more than the USA is doing, despite the USA having 14x the population of Australia.
The laws have broad support amongst Australian voters, including this voter. The advocates for open borders and a 'let them in' attitude are a small but noisy minority.
Australia still maintains a sizeable immigrant intake every year, drawing on people from around the world.
Frankly, the rest of the world can call me and fellow citizens as many names as they like but border protection is an important task for a Federal government, and I'm totally comfortable with it.
Can we take more? probably.
Should we let people that can afford to migrate to Indonesia and pay a people smugger to jump the queue get preference? Hell no.
The families on Nauru are free to leave and return to their countries of origin any time they choose. But all of the members of those families claim to have fled their countries of origin because they face a real risk of persecution or significant harm in those countries, and they claim not to wish to return because of that risk. It is not possible to assert whether the members of those families are or are not refugees until their claims have been processed. Papua New Guinea found at least 56% of claimants to be refugees in need of protection[1], and is still processing some claims. As at 8 October 2015, Nauru had found 75% of claimants to be refugees in need of protection.[2] Nauru has not finished processing the balance of the claims.
While those on Nauru are technically free to participate in the Nauruan community (and the article does not assert otherwise)—in the sense that they can now leave the detention compound and wander around the island—they have no rights other than those granted to them by virtue of their "regional processing centre" visas (which are granted upon being transferred to Nauru from Australia). Nauruan law requires that asylum seekers be provided with, amongst other things, adequate food, clean and sufficient clothing, and access to medical facilities,[3] all of which in practice can only be obtained at the regional processing centre (funded by Australia). They are not allowed to take food or water with them and they are subject to searches upon entry and exit. Until 5 October 2015, it was a condition of the RPC visa that the visa holder reside at the centre and not leave the centre without approval. Most of the asylum seekers on Nauru never consented to being taken to Nauru or being detained in those circumstances. The condition was lifted when the High Court of Australia heard a challenge to the legality of Australia's participation in the detention of those at the centre.[4] (Some retrospective laws were passed and the challenge failed.)
It is true that the measures taken by the Australian government to provide for offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea have deterred people from taking a perilous voyage to Australia by boat, whether to claim protection or otherwise. It is true that deaths at sea have reduced from several hundred a few years ago to almost nil.
The controversy behind these laws is whether that end is sufficient to justify the means, namely, Australia's involvement in bringing about the circumstances in which asylum seekers now find themselves on Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
It is not correct to say that "the only people who have been harmed are those that have self-harmed". Independent bodies have conducted their own investigations and found that many asylum seekers who have not self-harmed are suffering from inhuman and degrading treatment in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.[5] There are many other credible and significant reports of harm.
It is an oversimplification to say that "[t]he laws have broad support amongst Australian voters". The policy is divisive, complicated, and there are many different views about its merits.
Many refugee advocates who are qualified as Australian lawyers choose to act for some of these people on a pro bono basis and do not "prosper" from it. In some instances, where an Australian court finds that the Australian government has engaged in unlawful conduct in relation to a particular matter, the court may order the Australian government to pay costs. There are vanishingly few other instances in which any lawyer for a refugee would receive any money or material benefit.
While it is true that Australia "maintains a sizeable immigrant intake", that has nothing to do with Australia's humanitarian or refugee intake, which is treated separately to its migration program. The intake for the migration program has been at about 190,000 for the past few years, whereas the humanitarian intake is typically about 12,000 (or about 6% of the migration program).[6] The refuge offered to an additional 12,000 Syrian refugees last year is commendable.[7] The fact that the United States may not have done the same is not to the point.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/08/png-of...
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-08/nauru-backtracks-on-vo...
[3] Asylum Seekers (Regional Processing Centre) Act 2012 (Nauru), s 6(1).
[4] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2016/1.html
[5] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/09/un-rep...
[6] http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm...
[7] https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Refu/response-syrian-humanita...
>including the idea that what happens to the people on Nauru is mysterious or that they are in limbo
not true
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/legal-fight...
>The families on Nauru are free to leave and return to their country of origin any time they choose. They are free to participate in the local community and are not behind barbed wire.
some choice
https://theconversation.com/australias-folly-returns-afghan-...
>The people who have self-harmed have been in contact with the legal industry inside Australia that prospers from their continued presence.
not true, and pretty bloody stupid to believe imho. not to mention that most legal aid to refugees is donated. the only people making money off this are transfield and serco.
https://news.vice.com/article/australia-admits-wrongfully-ac...
>The undeniable facts of the matter was that when Australia temporarily relaxed the border protection laws, by the governments own statistics, at least 1,500 men, women and children drowned at sea. Most well known was when a timber fishing boat smashed into rocks in front of news cameras as people drowned.
well, 1200 anyway, and there is a very good argument presented in this article that we are simply pushing the problem elsewhere. but yes the previous policy had to change.
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-did-1200-refugees-die-...
>Since the reinstatement of the laws, the only people who have been harmed are those that have self-harmed.
not true, and not to mention the many reports of daily violence from these detention centres, staff against detainees and vice versa
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-26/scott-morrison-release...
>There is zero doubt that the laws save lives, and crucially, also provide the ability for people to support genuine refugee settlement, such as the processing of 12,000 Syrian refugees, more than the USA is doing, despite the USA having 14x the population of Australia.
well, 30 anyway
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-17/29-refugees-resettled-...
>The laws have broad support amongst Australian voters, including this voter. The advocates for open borders and a 'let them in' attitude are a small but noisy minority.
not exactly true, while most australians are against migrantion generally, and against higher refugee immigration, they are also considerably more compassionate than you might think with regard to the treatment of the refugees under the current laws
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/19/austra...
>Australia still maintains a sizeable immigrant intake every year, drawing on people from around the world.
though much reduced since even the previous administration, and for no apparent reason
>Frankly, the rest of the world can call me and fellow citizens as many names as they like but border protection is an important task for a Federal government, and I'm totally comfortable with it.
Frankly, you are a lucky bastard who, like myself, had the good fortune to be born or let into this country. Blindness to others suffering is at the root cause of the refugee issue.
And during the current federal election campaign, the Labor opposition can't be seen as soft compared to the government (and is even claiming some credit for setting up elements of the "offshore processing").
But, I cannot condone restarting the people smuggling trade that puts so many in danger at sea (also in the Med). The bottom line is that we should be targeting the people smugglers, not the people.
The basic problem is that they must be stopped. This is not negotiable; Australia has a valuable culture that would be devastated by mass immigration.
So, how do you propose to stop them?
Well?
I will be very surprised if you can come up with anything which does not ultimately require resorting to violence.
I am torn trying to find a humane solution that does not cause further traffic, however.
"refugee" is a rather well defined legal term.
I believe that even those granted refugee status are trapped on Nauru or Manis Island until they agree to resettlement in a third country like Cambodia.
The Government has refused to resettle refugees to New Zealand under an agreement brokered by an earlier Government, presumably on the grounds that humane treatment in a third country would further encourage maritime immigration.
The attitude and actions against East Timor are especially egregious.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/18/australias-indefi...
http://refugeeaction.org/information/how-australia-violates-...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/australias-immigration...
Lets all get on the same page as well, this is how the United Nation defines an asylum seeker:
The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the defoulé refugee) is a person who is outside their own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
Fleeing poor living conditions or a civil war, do not fall under this description.
