M A N D A T O R Y D E T E N T I O N


Do you agree or disagree with mandatory detention in the case of families? - and should there be a limit on the amount of time that people can be detained?
Do you agree or disagree that the current mandatory immigration detention policy should be put to a conscience vote if the bill proceeds to a vote in parliament ?


The following article states that 'Senator Vanstone (said that) Mr Georgiou's Bills would undermine the Migration Act if illegal immigrants knew they would be out of detention after a year.'

Victorian Liberal MP, Petro Georgiou, is yet to decide whether to go ahead with the private member's bills, which would have children and their families placed into community accomodation immediately - and all detainees released after a year in immigration detention.

This will be a hotly-debated issue amongst politicians over the month of June. What are your views?



http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3213937
(The sections in bold were in normal type in the original article.)
[size=1][color=white]

This message was edited by ~Anni~ on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 @ 8:31 PM

I wonder if people can say what they really think without being jumped on and branded a racist because their views are not shared by others? I think if you come here illegally, for any reason you should be detained untill processed, that being said, if the process takes longer than 18months then there should be special living arrangements in place untill processing happens, so they cannot just simply disappear into the community. Now I know a lot of you don't share this view and thats ok becuase these are my thoughts not the whole nations. So lets not get on our soap boxes and keep the topic civil if that is at all possible.

One has to UNDERSTAND a real refugee is not going anywhere ILLEGALLY, it is amazing how so many people can't grasp that concept that is an oxymoran to call someone an illegal refugee. Illegal immigrant - yes but if someone is truly a refugee they are breaking no international laws by seeking refuge.

Onto the mandatory detention issue, I feel very strongly that 'detainees' (who are only illegal immigrants if their refugee status is refused) with families would not attempt to flee safehouses and that what would be best is if the children get to live as part of our communities and if everyone is so scared of having the adults 'free' then perhaps they could be placed in some kind of house arrest or curfewed environment.

It's funny people go on about how the detainees could be potential terrorists yet just days ago a reliable study http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/schuster.column/index.html was released showing the background of most terrorists was middle-class and college educated.

There are faces to the little kids in detention and for those interested it's here: http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/2005/05...7305557373.html


<a href="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500"><img src="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500" border="0"></a>

This message was edited by Rocket on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 @ 7:38 PM

Perhaps if people feel that strongly that there should be no manditory detention that a billet system be set up, so that Australian families who are willing, billet the detainees untill they are processed and some decsion is made. That way they are not locked up, can go out amoung the community and the transition would be easier if they are granted refugee status. The kids could go to school and the adults under go english training and schooling if needed. Be interesting to see how many people would be willing to do this though wouldn't it? That is just one possible answer, I don't know how practical it would actually be.

My partner came in to Australia 30 years ago as a 3 yo fleeing a miltiary regime who overthrew the democratically elected socialist government with the help of the CIA and then proceed to torture and execute anyone who stood out as being a supporter of the previous government. They came to his family home 3 times with machine guns looking for his father who was thankfully off working at the time. His crime had been establishing a system of pooling food so that there was enough for everyone.

Puss, when they came into Australia they were placed in a hostel full of families from similar backgrounds and they made friends for life there and they and their kids intergrated perfectly into the country. I think quite a few people would step up for having detainees are placed into their homes but even so I think hostels run by the right organisations would suffice.

<a href="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500"><img src="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500" border="0"></a>

Note: The term 'illegal immigrant' had single quotation marks around it - as it was in reference to the term being used in the political debate. (In the current political debate - it also encompasses those who overstay their visas.)
I have removed this term as it may cause confusion.

(Rocket - was that Chile, Argentina ... ? )

Anni

I have EXTREMELY strong opinions on this topic and to keep it short, totally agree with the detention centres and the current legislation.


Lisa

<a href="http://www.snugglepie.com"><img border="0" src="http://www.snugglepie.com/cb/19452.png"></a>
<a href="http://www.snugglepie.com"><img border="0" src="http://www.snugglepie.com/ezb/111037.png"></a>
Me - 33
DH - 34
DD1 - 13
DD2 - 2

Yep that was Chile, however the scenario could be a number of countries.

I think the core issue the politicians are trying to raise is the detention of children. You'd have to have a pretty hard heart to feel like there is justification in keeping kids imprisoned.

One could possibly argue that the should be locked up because their parents brought them and to give the kids any compassion would be giving their 'queue-jumping' parents a break and would therefore encourage more people to leave the home countries and drag their kids to Australia so they could use them to 'queue-jump'.

I think if a system was set-up, like mentioned before, which concentrates on allowing the children to grow up in a home (as in family home) there can still be ways (like house arrest) to discourage the adults from feeling like coming Australia is going to be a free-ride. I don't neccessarily agree with punishing people who more likely than not are really refugees but I can see that much of mainstream Australia have bought into the fear of endless foreigners streaming into Australia hook, line and sinker.

My DP grew up being reminded by his peers that he was a 'wog', he told me that when the Vietnamese arrived in the late 70s all the pressure went off him and his South American friends and there was a different band of 'foreigners', it seems 15 years ago everyone was worried about a Japanese 'invasion'....

Children shouldn't be in detention for long if at all but I know that my children wouldn't want to be seperated from me either.

Perhaps mums and their children should have other arrangments.

My 'brother' came over as a refugee, actually two of my brothers but one came over as a 3 year old and lived in a dentention centre first in vietnam then here. He says the ones here are hotel compared to the ones there. Anyway, when inspections took place his bio mum, who is now deceased, use to put him in a box because she was so scared he would be taken away.
he is now 27 and can still smell the box.

The other watched his brother get shot to death in Bosnia. he's settled here quite well now. luckily he didn't spend anytime in a detention centre.

I do however see the safety issue but we still shouldn't keep children inside them.

I agree with Jenni on the last part of her post.

The time is way to long. Surely they can find out who they are and where they came from quicker then years on end. Then they can decide whether to send them back or allow them to stay.

I have mixed views on this actually. I beleive everyone here has valid points - everyone.

..

I disagree with mandatory detention. I think there are many more humane ways of dealing with people - whether they be illegal immigrants or refugees. The current practice of detaining people for years and years as human shields in an effort to deter any others from arriving is revolting in the extreme. Its like cutting off someone's head and sticking it on the front gate of the fort - as some sort of ugly barbaric warning system. Its vile and I am ashamed we have a government that could do it.
Prizzy - happily married to an immigrant who is a great asset to our country.

Strongly Agree!

As I've said before a genuine refugee is not going anywhere illegally, unconventionally maybe but it is not illegal to travel by whatever means possible if you are a genuine refugee.

<a href="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500"><img src="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500" border="0"></a>

That is the exact reason why they need to be processed. To determine whether or not they are in fact a genuine refugee.

There needs to be a time limit on the processing though. Spending years in a detention centre is a disgrace.

Hi people...this is such an important issue. I'm glad that we've been able to keep it civil so far. Like others I have strong feelings about this and do not wish to inflame things...it's just my opinion OK?

I'm strongly aligned with Rocket on this. It's important not to gloss over the insidious use of terms like "Illegal immigrants" when discussing refugees. The govt and unfortunately the media are responsible for embedding this bias in the very language we use. It's powerful stuff and not to be underestimated in changing Australia from a country of compassion and "mateship" into one of fear and suspicion.

I for one would be more than happy to billet a refugee and have worked to assist many through various organisations. I challenge anyone to meet some of these people, hear their stories and then maintain their belief that it is OK for children/families to be treated this way.

Try this website for starters:
http://www.chilout.org/

Since the "children overboard" lie I have been ashamed to be an Australian and wear my "I didn't vote for him" T-shirt with pride.

Rain

When my Mother came to this country, she was 4 years old. Her parents and siblings were fleeing their country as the Russians were invading, and because they were wealthy they would've been killed. They arrived here in 1950 as refugees of war. When they arrived they had a lot of their possessions taken from them - my GM's jewellry, fur coats, money etc. They were then sent to Cooma, where my GF and Uncle worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme. They lived in the Immigrant camps. After they had done their "duty" for the country, they were allowed to live "free".

On the other hand, my Husband and his family immigrated here from Lebanon in 1970, but they did it the "proper" way, with passports and all the relevant paperwork. His Father and eldest Brother came first, a few years before the rest of the family, to pave the way for them, to organise all paperwork etc. It took time but they avoided detention.

I believe that anyone that comes to this country without a passport, visa or relevant documents should be detained. They then should be processed as quickly as possible. To me it makes sense to hire more staff to process their claims quicker, and therefore save money as you'll be detaining them for a lesser amount of time. The length of time they spend there is ridiculous. If they are genuine refugees, then they should be placed in some sort of Immigration Camp like they had in Cooma, my Mother even went to the local primary school. They learnt english etc. It was more like a little community than a detention centre, and from the stories I've heard they were a lot happier. Help them integrate in to society, send the children to school. But I don't believe in giving them handouts. And if they're not a genuine refugee, then I believe they should be sent home. If they really want to come back then tell them the best way to go about it. Educate them, don't just lock them away for infinity.

Ok, now I'm rambling, enough!

Claudine

Me 34
DH 42
DD Lucinn (5/9/00)
DD Lilly (23/5/03)
DD Talyn (23/1/05)

This is an email I have just received from Chilout:

I have just heard legal opinion that the Immigration Minister is the legal guardian of all children in detention even if a parent is detained with them.

Do you remember Ian, the 12 year old boy who was swooped up by DIMIA with his 6 year old sister from school in Stanmore in February? One moment he was living a normal “Australian” childhood like any other kid, the next he is plunged into the toxic environmrnt our detention centres have become.

Since he was imprisoned, Ian has seen many acts of self-harm and even suicide attempts. He has seen blood, and gore, and panic, and ambulances, and doctors… (Think how disturbing and worrying you find the mere sight of an ambulance outside a neighbour’s house?) He is not allowed out of Villawood to go to school. He is serving as interpreter between DIMIA and his mother as DIMIA is not even meeting their obligation to provide one as required. He had a 14 year old friend who has been moved on and now visitors report he is getting more withdrawn and staying in his room.

Ian says: “It’s a crazy place in here. There are crazy people.”

IT IS NO PLACE FOR CHILDREN.

Here we have a normal, very bright boy, visibly changing, experiencing things no child should be exposed to and bearing responsibilities beyond his years towards his mother. How can this possibly be justified as being in his “best interests? And remember, he is innocent. He has done nothing to deserve imprisonment. How much psychological damage are we going to allow him to suffer?

How his guardian is failing him.

How we are ALL failing him.


Me:42 DH:50,SDs aged 17,15 &13. 50/50 shared custody
Failed Vasectomy Reversal March 2004
ICSI #1 March 2005 BFN

Bump

Completely fair enough too if you ask me. I wonder though, if the time factor involved in detaining, relates to trying to establish whether or not they are *genuine* refugees IYKWIM? or whether they are just immigrants wanting to jump the cue? The time frame is despicable though - in this modern era of technological advancement, one would think that it would be *slightly* quicker than YEARS to establish someones identity and whether or not they are genuine refugees.

I like the billet system - and this sounds rather crass, but why couldn't they use the *in house jail* doovers that they *want* to use on the criminals here? That way they could freely move about the community and still be *found* should it be required IYKWIM? I'd rather detainees be given more access to our community than criminals IYKWIM?

But Prizzy, your *head on a stake* thing is certainly food for thought....

I'd just like to interject something here. A number of people have spoken of people "jumping the queue". Let's be clear here. For the vast majority of people in mandatory detention, they did no such thing. There is simply NO SUCH THING as a queue to jump. It is one of the great myths perpetuated by our govt, in the media and pervading the community.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/480/480rbp1.htm Just needed to say it (rather quote it; this extract says it better than I could), as I believe there is a disturbing number of people that honestly buy into the whole queue jumping nonsense.

Needless to say I strenuously object to mandatory detention. The article I have cited pretty much sums up the many reasons why, better than I could (see the link for full article). Makes interesting reading and food for thought I think...

P34 +1 It's a girl!!!


This message was edited by P34 on Sunday, 5 June 2005 @ 11:06 PM

I'm another against mandatory detention - well maybe detention for a week or so while something is sorted out. But we shouldn't be locking most of these people up. And it horrifies me that we do it to children, to families, to the mentally ill, to the old. To our fellow human beings.

I think there is a failure of the imagination or a lack of empathy that someone can happily lock up an asylum seeker. Most of us really cannot imagine what a genuine refugee has experienced.

Regarding the fear that asylum seekers will disappear into the community: there was a piece on ABC radio the other day of studies that showed nil to negligable levels. It was really nothing compared to illegal immigrants and overstayers. So should we stop handing out visa's to people from the UK because they are far more likely to abscond?

In the case of a load of "boatpeople" coming to our country without the correct authority, yes they should be put into detention, quickly determine whether they should stay in this country or not, and if not, they should be sent back to the country which they came from. I don't agree with keeping these people locked up for years.

i'm quite curious, for those of you who see it this way, what is the REASON you support the current legislation and why do you think the current system works? i don't think anyone has made that clear yet.

Bump

Allright,let me clarify what I meant in my previous post and why MY opinion is what it is.

I was not referring to refugees, these people are an entirely different kettle of fish and I do feel for their situation/predicament and agree that they should be able to remain in Australia, that was never an issue with me.

I was referring to the "boat people" who come over illegally and try to be given Australian Citizenship (and expect it) this is where I agree with the current legislation. Why should the people who are applying to live here and have been waiting for God knows how long miss out because of others. This is what I meant.

Lisa



<a href="http://www.tickercentral.com"><img border="0" src="http://www.tickercentral.com/view/1yic/2"></a>

ME (33)
DH (34) Jamie
DD (13 going on 30) Jammi
DD (2) Alexandra

This message was edited by luvourgirls on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 @ 12:30 PM

Luvourgirls
You do realise that the 'boat people' you speak of ARE refugees?? How do you think refugees get here? I have worked with one of the organsiations that assist refugees (from Afghanistan & Iraq) with obtaining their permanent protection visas, having being granted their temporary ones. And I can tell you that an extremely high proportion of them came here by boat.

Believe you me, once you hear the stories of the journies people have taken to get here, you quickly realise that no person who had ANY other option to get here would get on one of those boats. These people are refugees, desperate enough and persecuted enough to risk their lives and the lives of their families to get on one of these boats to come here.

I am curious to know why you seem to be under the impression that 'boat people' are not refugees?

P34 +1 It's a girl!!!

I think like Peacemaker

I think if you come here illegally, for any reason you should be detained untill processed, that being said, if the process takes longer than 18months then there should be special living arrangements in place untill processing happens, so they cannot just simply disappear into the community.

That's all.



Loretta(29) Chris(30)
M/C March 01
DD Brianna Anne 01/03/02
DD Alanna Caitlyn 16/07/03
M/C Dec 03
DD Caileigh Paige 28/09/04
EDD BG#4 24/09/05

Refugees are not coming here illegally. Hopefully if I repeat this LEGAL FACT enough it might actually get through to those without any understanding.

<a href="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500"><img src="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500" border="0"></a>

Rocket
It's people like you (and me!) against a sea of misinformation fed to people in the media, not to mention the old "the govt says it's so, so it must be" mentality. It's an uphill battle! *sigh*

Take heart, there are others out there that understand. But we are long way from moving the understanding and conscience of the nation unfortunately. Keep fighting!

P34 +1 It's a girl!!!

Do I support Mandatory Detention? YES

As far as I am concerned if they come into this country illegally, they should be sent straight back, on the first plane available.
There is a RIGHT way to come to Australia and these people are trying to jump the queue.
Yes, I agree it is not fair for the kids that are locked up in the detention centres, but maybe their parents should have thought about that before they did it.


This message was edited by skye_marie on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 @ 6:43 PM

Firstly, they are NOT coming to the country illegally if they are refugees (and almost all those in mandatory detention come here as refugees).

Secondly, would you please explain to me what the "right" way to come to Australia is, where these refugees are concerned (predominantly peoples of Iraq & Afghanistan)? I'd be fascinated to know what that is. I'm sure they would be too!!

And while you're at it, please enlighten us on this so-called "queue". As far as anyone with any knowledge and experience of the plights of refugees in detention knows, this queue does not exist. IT IS A MYTH. But I'd love to hear some actual facts that support the idea it exists....
I'll think you'll find only thing their parents were thinking about at the time was saving the lives of their children. Not the consequences of coming to Australia as refugees where are laws are in the dark ages. *sigh* I realise I am probably wasting my time here, but oh well.....

P34 +1 It's a girl!!!


This message was edited by P34 on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 @ 6:49 PM

i'm pretty sure that the refugees who come to australia don't sit around in their home countries watching telly and thinking 'gee those australian detention centres look pretty rough, i don't think i'll go there!'

there is no Australian Embassy in Afghanistan. there is no 'correct way' for an Afghani refugee to apply for Australian citizenship. and IMO it's a little cold to think it acceptable to herd these people into prisons while our government takes its sweet time sorting them out.

What makes you right and everyone else who support mandatory sentencing wrong?

How about the fact you can't support your reasons with any actual facts? You give your reasons for support as being that these people come here illegally and are jumping the queue. Both of these things are factually WRONG.

It's not about any individual personally believing you are wrong supporting mandatory detention. It's about the factual evidence that proves your reasons for supporting it are wrong.

Maybe if you could support your view with something that is actually true....I notice you have chosen to ignore the questions I posed (which challenged the facts, not your personal opinion). You throw around terms like "illegal" and "queue jumping", as do many many others. You say there is a "right" way to come to Australia (but have given no indication you actually know what that is; could it be that you just assume there is a 'right' way because that's what you've heard in the media?). But neither you nor anyone else I have heard so far can actually back up these claims with actual facts. Other than the media and govt says it is so.

So, educate me. Why should mandatory detention be supported? I don't think it is wrong to support anything, if your basis to do it is sound. But if your reasons for supporting something can be proven to be factually incorrect, isn't it worth re-thinking your position?

P34 +1 It's a girl!!!

I don't usually get involved in these debates, but here goes:

I support mandatory detention because IT WORKS! The numbers of asylum seekers/boat people/whatever you want to call them arriving in Australia has decreased since mandatory detention was introduced.

It works because it is a deterrent to people: they don't want to come to a country where they may be detained indefinitely. So they try and go somewhere else (I guess).

I feel for these people. I really do. Many of them lead terrible, terrible lives in their countries of origin and do deserve better. BUT Australia cannot afford to accept all the people who would want to come here, if we opened the gates. We in Australia should do our part, but this is a global problem, and needs a global solution.

Just my opinion. I hope I won't regret posting it.

Narelle



Narelle 30
DH 31
DD1 Kelsey 19/9/04
DD2 Jenna 19/9/04

can i assume i haven't missed a nuance in the discussion and we're still talking about mandatory DETENTION, not SENTENCING?

i can only say ditto to what P34 said. my original post was asking WHY, and it was with genuine interest i did so.

Hi Guys,

I'm just new to EB and this is a topic that is dear to my heart. I believe that it is a very emotional issue and appreciate any forum that allows discussion: in many countries around the world this is actually forbidden.

I just wanted to make a point about the following:



In my own opinion, a lower number of refuggess coming into Australia doesn't mean our policy is working, it just means that it is someone else's problem and we don't have to worry about it. Our current policy only forces refugees to our poorer neighbours shores (e.g. PNG).

In reality the number of refugees around the world is not decreasing and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

So where can these people fleeing persecution go? Currently the majoirty of refugees are been looked after by the poorest third world countries. For example, Pakisant looks after millions of afghan refugees after the war, Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people, whilst Australia only hosts one refugee for every 1583 people (one of the lowest ratios in the world). In addition, Australia is the ONLY first world country in the world to detain all asylum seekers without documentation while their claims are been heard.

I also have very grave concerns for the emotional well-beign and mental health of people in indefinite detention. As a psychologist, I deal with these issues on a daily basis and cannot emphasise enough the damage we are doing to these people, especially the children whose intellectual, social, and emotional development are been stunted by this restrivitve environment, the self-harm and abuse they see daily and the uncertainity of their future . Would you wish this situation for upon any of your worst enemies, let alone your family?

Australia does need to stand up and play a role in a global solution: but our current policy of mandatory detention does nothing but pass the buck and further emotionally abuse those who are escaping persecution.

We are in a unique position to actually help refugess: Australia has the infrastructure, the economy and the land to house refugees. Yet we still let fear dictate our foreign policy.

I only hope that with more education and awareness of these issues, we can come to realise the real damage we are inflicting.



Amaly

Me 27 (almost 28)
DH 37
TTC #1 since July 2004

<a href="http://lilypie.com"><img src="http://lilypie.com/TTC/050515/26/3/8/1/+10" alt="Lilypie Baby Ticker" border="0" /></a>

Narelle
It is not at all surprising that you have formed the opinion you have, based on all the misinformation in the media, but the truth is that Australia is not doing its part at all and the 'floodgates' argument is purely inaccurate. I agree the problem needs a global solution, but we need to be part of it, not passing the buck.

FYI:http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/480/480rbp1.htm

And if you want to talk about costs, mandatory detention costs far more than the alternatives:(same link as above)

It’s not accepting refugees that we can’t afford, it’s keeping them in mandatory detention that is financially crippling.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I would be interested to know how you formed it. Is it based on what you've heard in the media and believed to be true, or do you know based on facts you have found that Australia can't afford to accept the refugees that come here and that we are doing our part in forming a global solution? I would be interested to hear what you back up your statements with.

It seems to me that there is yet to be anyone who supports mandatory detention who is able to give sound reasons for it. All they do is quote the sound bytes they have heard in the media and they can’t back up those statements with any facts.

The worst part for me is that you say that mandatory detention should be supported because it works in deterring people from seeking asylum here – like that is a good thing and we should be proud of it. That is the saddest thing I’ve every heard. As an Australian I feel nothing but shame for the way we have treated these people and even greater shame that the govt and media have done such a powerful job of convincing so many people otherwise.

I can only hope like Amaly that one day this nation can come to realise what a terrible thing it is we are doing.

P34 +1 It's a girl!!!


This message was edited by P34 on Thursday, 9 June 2005 @ 2:08 PM

I do believe in the detaining of people whom the government decide have arrived here illegally.

I do also believe that the time taken to process these individuals is far too long.

WHY - I would like these individuals processed prior to being released into the community.

Nic

OK, I'd like to make a couple of points (that are peripheral to the real debate) and then ask a question that I think is absolutely central to the debate.

First point: I find it rather insulting that some of you seem to feel that I have been manipulated by the government and the media into thinking mandatory detention is OK. I read widely, both left and right wing publications, and my pov is based on much consideration and deliberation over many years. Please do not assume that I am ill-informed just because my pov happens to be different to yours!

Second point: Amaly, I too am a psychologist and share your concern about the emotional wellbeing of detainees and agree that detention is certainly not likely to improve their mental and emotional state. However, I also think it's worth pointing out that detainees are likely to already be under significant emotional strain and suffering diagnosable mental illness BEFORE they arrive in Australia. It is impossible to tease out the true affect of mandatory detention on their mental state. Anyway, even if 100% of detainees were 100% emotionally healthy (impossible to achieve) we would still be having a debate about whether mandatory detention is right, so I'll say no more about this particular issue.

OK, onto the central question, that I would genuinely love to have answered: If Australia is not yet 'pulling it's weight' globally and not accepting enough asylum seekers into our society, how many asylum seekers would we have to take before it would be 'enough'? Would 500,000 more be enough? 1 million? 5 million? 20 million? I believe we would not be able to support the numbers that would seek asylum here, no matter how much compassion we have for their situation.

You see, I am completely willing to be convinced that we should abolish mandatory detention. Nobody 'likes' mandatory detention, it's not a 'nice' thing to have in our world. But if Australia were to abolish mandatory detention, I would like to know what the alternative is, ie, I would like to know how many asylum seekers we would take and would like to know that this has been properly thought through and balanced against the resources we have. Yes, we take in fewer asylum seekers than other 1st world countries, but we also have fewer people, a smaller GDP and a fragile environment.

If someone can answer my question, I would be truly grateful!

Narelle

Narelle 30
DH 31
DD1 Kelsey 19/9/04
DD2 Jenna 19/9/04

This message was edited by NarelleR on Thursday, 9 June 2005 @ 9:29 PM

hi narelle,

The fact is, according to the UN, it's actually legal for a person seeking assylum to enter a country by whatever means are necessary. these people aren't actually doing anything wrong! so WHY should they be locked away?

as for your question regarding numbers, i'd like to see Australia allow at least 3 times the amount of refugees they allow now, to bring us more in line with world standards. statistically, refugees around the world have shown a vested interest in learning a host country's language when granted assylum. The Society for the Protection of Science and Learning lists 17 Nobel Laureates, 71 Fellows or Foreign Members of the Royal Society, and 50 Fellows or corresponding Fellows of the British Academy as refugees. so it's not like allowing more refugees would be a drain on our system; in fact allowing them into the community would cost taxpayers far less than it does to keep them in detention (as has already been pointed out).

as for us having a 'smaller GDP and a fragile environment' how is it that our government could afford to budget over $800 million to build a detention centre and support detainees in Nairu, wouldn't the money be much better spent elsewhere?

OK, just a quick clarifying question before I feed my little girls and go to bed.

Binkygirl, are you saying that if Australia accepted 3 x (the current intake of refugees) that mandatory detention of any arrivals over and above that number would be OK? And if 3 x is a little on the light side, what about if we took 5 x (the current intake)? Or 10 x??

The thing is, there has to be a limit to the number of people we take in. Maybe, as many of you seem to be saying, we are a long way from that number, but there is a point at which we cannot accept any further refugees. If we reach that point, what happens to further arrivals? Does mandatory detention/compulsory return to country of origin become an option in that scenario?

Narelle

Narelle 30
DH 31
DD1 Kelsey 19/9/04
DD2 Jenna 19/9/04

I am completly agains Mandatory Detention. Something like 80% of the people who are in detention centres are EVENTUALLY found to be genuine refugees. Why torture them further? And I strongly believe that being locked up without any word of WHEN they will be freed, if ever, is torture.

There are very few things that make me as ashamed of my country as this policy.

I don't believe it works. Studies in other countries have shown it doesn't actually prevent people coming in.

I think at the very least we should try to establish some towns or suburbs where refugees can start to live together and learn English and find out about Australian society. Where their children can both play and go to school. Where they can EARN money.

Australia shouldn't be constantly being named by Amnesty as an abuser of human rights. This has to end.

Cheers

Di

narelle, i totally understand what you're saying, of course there has to be a limit of the amount of people allowed to immigrate into australia. it's just that, to me, the limit is directed at the wrong people.

what about the 50,000 people who are currently in this country, overstaying their visas? these aren't people with a legitimate need for assylum. they aren't locked up, either. and for the most part they aren't doing anything to become productive members of our society, because they can't work legally.

so in regards to assylum seekers, i haven't seen any evidence that letting them become productive members of our society straight away, rather than imprisoning them for years, will 'open the floodgates' so to speak, since this category of people is tiny in comparison to the overall immigration numbers into australia.

I agree 100% with P34, Rocket and Di on this matter.

I am completely against mandatory detention and, like others, am deeply ashamed of how the Howard Govt is acting in this matter. It is inhumane and abusive.

There should be a limit, an extremely short one too, for any sort of involuntary detention without charge. To put children into this situation is completely deplorable and untenable. I cannot believe that as human beings we sit by and let this happen.

In matters such as this, I truly believe it should be put to a conscience vote.

<font color="purple"><b>Amoir, <br>Aurora's Mum. </b></font>
<a href="http://www.amygray.com/aurora"><img src="http://www.amygray.com/eb/aurore.jpg"> <img src="http://lilypie.com/baby2/040527/1/0/1/+10" border="0" /></a>

Are these people actually reading any of the previous posts?

<a href="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500"><img src="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500" border="0"></a>

No. No matter how many times you say it, explain it, detail it and describe it, to some it will remain as an illegal entry.

Senator Vanstone - didn't you know there is no such people as illegal immigrants ????

Nic

Of course Vanstone's going to perpetuate a myth that suits her scaremongering policies. It doesn't make right it just ensures that those without enough nouse to think for themselves follow her 'illegal immigrant' mantra.

'People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents or with false documents, are not illegal and they are not
criminals. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under Australian and international law. (www.rac-vic.org)

Also see http://www.refugeeaction.org/policy/myths.htm
http://www.nswnurses.asn.au/refugee.htm
http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~pinvic/asylum%20seekers.htm
http://www.refugeesaustralia.org/quickfacts.htm


<a href="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500"><img src="http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=9558pQXbW&i=260500" border="0"></a>