Australia plans to ban asylum seekers from ever visiting

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Australia plans to ban asylum seekers from ever visiting
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d418...tralia-plans-ban-asylum-seekers-ever-visiting

Under legislation to be introduced to Parliament next week, thousands of asylum seekers who have returned to their homelands in the Middle East, Africa and Asia would be banned for life from ever traveling to Australia as tourists, to do business or as an Australian's spouse, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said.

Looks like Australia is addressing their illegal immigration issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy

Glass*Soul

Senior Veteran
May 14, 2005
6,394
927
✟31,902.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Australia plans to ban asylum seekers from ever visiting
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d418...tralia-plans-ban-asylum-seekers-ever-visiting

Under legislation to be introduced to Parliament next week, thousands of asylum seekers who have returned to their homelands in the Middle East, Africa and Asia would be banned for life from ever traveling to Australia as tourists, to do business or as an Australian's spouse, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said.

Looks like Australia is addressing their illegal immigration issues.

Well, we all know from history what happens when a bunch of undesirables descend upon the Australian landscape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oafman
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The headline, of course, is blatantly misleading. Australia happily and frequently accepts asylum seeking refugees. IIRC, we have one of the highest per capita rates in the world.

The point, however, is to stop illegal boat arrivals, which are problematic for several reasons, but the two big ones being; claims of asylum are meant to be made in the first signatory country reached, and that thousands of assylum seekers die en route using people smugglers' shoddy boats.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The headline, of course, is blatantly misleading. Australia happily and frequently accepts asylum seeking refugees. IIRC, we have one of the highest per capita rates in the world.

The point, however, is to stop illegal boat arrivals, which are problematic for several reasons, but the two big ones being; claims of asylum are meant to be made in the first signatory country reached, and that thousands of assylum seekers die en route using people smugglers' shoddy boats.

Understand. This law was to stave off illegal immigration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The problem isn't illegal immigrants. The problem is that we have genuine refugees (70-odd% of those coming by boat are found to be genuine refugees - source here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...um-seekers-to-be-banned-turnbull-says/7978228), to whom we have obligations that we are not meeting.

This is not a good thing that the government is doing. It is playing on the fears of the Australian population in order to seem "strong on illegal immigrants," in order to boost the government's popularity, while not addressing major issues in Australia and diverting attention away from the fact that most of these people have a right, under international law, to be here.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
most of these people have a right, under international law, to be here.
If that were the case, why didn't they claim asylum in the first UNRC signatory country they entered?

Further, what's your proposal to stop the deaths at sea?
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I don't know why they choose one country over another, but that doesn't change the fact that they do actually have a right to do so.

As for stopping deaths at sea - let's go to the point of origin of the boats and open processing centres there, then transport them safely ourselves. Then nobody need die. (The only reason not to do this would be if people really just didn't want them to come, and the "deaths at sea" were a convenient excuse).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oafman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know why they choose one country over another, but that doesn't change the fact that they do actually have a right to do so.
I don't believe that's the case. http://www.unhcr.org/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/background-note-safe-country-concept-refugee-status.html
As for stopping deaths at sea - let's go to the point of origin of the boats and open processing centres there, then transport them safely ourselves. Then nobody need die. (The only reason not to do this would be if people really just didn't want them to come, and the "deaths at sea" were a convenient excuse).
If that were true, we wouldn't accept refugees at all. But we do. And there are "processing centres" as such, at the points of origin. The people using people smugglers simply want to bypass them so as to chose their destination country.

Look, I fully accept that the conditions in detention centres are needlessly unpleasant, and that the whole process takes a needlessly long time. But I object most strenuously to the OP's, and similar, articles that try to imply that Australia doesn't meet it's refugee obligations.

Also, as last time we found ourselves in a thread about this subject, I point out that offshore detention and mandatory detention were both Labor policies, and I find it... curious... let's say, that it only seems to be an issue when the Coalition is in power.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
From your link: "It was, recognized though, that asylum should not be refused solely on the grounds that it could have been sought elsewhere." A refugee has the right, when arriving in a country which is a signatory to the convention to ask for, and be granted, asylum. (Note that it is not "unlawful" to arrive in such a country, no matter how you got there). It does not matter how the refugee arrived or how many other countries they passed through to get there. Your link also acknowledges that in practice there are many problems with the idea that a refugee should be forcibly kept in or returned to the first "safe" country they arrive in or pass through, and that a lot of work needs to be done in establishing international standards etc.

Yes, there is a need for countries to share the burden of protecting refugees, and work needs to be done on setting up those agreements and ensuring that "the concept is accompanied by appropriate safeguards." We don't have that in place, so instead we terrorise people and compound their trauma in the hope that they'll give up and agree to go elsewhere.

Australia doesn't meet its refugee obligations. As long as we hold a single refugee in detention, or deport a single refugee to an unsafe situation, that will be true.

These policies are an issue whoever's in power. I was no more sanguine about it when Labor was in power, but I do believe I hadn't joined CF to post about it yet. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oafman
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
Australia's treatment of refugees is horrifying, and should be a national source of shame. It is so bad that Amnesty recently accused the Australian govt of deliberate and systematic torture of refugees on Nauru, and suggested criminal charges.

"The offshore processing regime was "explicitly designed to inflict incalculable damage on hundreds of women, men and children" as an act of deterrence, by isolating them "on a remote place from which they cannot leave, with the specific intention that these people should suffer harm", Amnesty said. "

'Island of despair'

To now attempt to impose life bans on anyone from visiting legally, if they have failed to previously obtain asylum, simply seems vindictive and petty. And surely open to legal challenge; if one of these people marries an Australian, are they really going to be turned back at immigration, and unable to live with their spouse?

@Armoured , in answer to the point about why refugees do not always seek asylum in the first safe territory they enter, many countries do not even attempt to fulfil their responsibilities to refugees, and some are not even signatories to the conventions. For example:
The Christians held in Thailand after fleeing Pakistan
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Australia's treatment of refugees is horrifying, and should be a national source of shame. It is so bad that Amnesty recently accused the Australian govt of deliberate and systematic torture of refugees on Nauru, and suggested criminal charges.

"The offshore processing regime was "explicitly designed to inflict incalculable damage on hundreds of women, men and children" as an act of deterrence, by isolating them "on a remote place from which they cannot leave, with the specific intention that these people should suffer harm", Amnesty said. "

'Island of despair'

To now attempt to impose life bans on anyone from visiting legally, if they have failed to previously obtain asylum, simply seems vindictive and petty. And surely open to legal challenge; if one of these people marries an Australian, are they really going to be turned back at immigration, and unable to live with their spouse?

@Armoured , in answer to the point about why refugees do not always seek asylum in the first safe territory they enter, many countries do not even attempt to fulfil their responsibilities to refugees, and some are not even signatories to the conventions. For example:
The Christians held in Thailand after fleeing Pakistan
I don't see how WE'RE the problem, honestly. Sure, Australia is treating them in questionable ways, but what about the various countries they passed through on the way here? Why isn't Amnesty having a go at them?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, that's already US standard policy, as I learned several years ago.

I have an acquaintance, a Christian pastor from Mali. After the US deposed Qaddafi, Muslim radicals in Mali were able to strengthen and arm themselves through Libya to the point that they nearly overran all of Mali. They put a bounty on that pastor's head and he fled to the US seeking asylum. While he was in the US waiting for it to be approved, the French went in to Mali and rolled back the Muslims...which made it less likely his asylum would be approved. But it also made asylum less necessary, and he actually preferred to return to Mali to continue his ministry.

But he learned that he could not cancel the application. Moreover, if it were rejected he'd never be allowed to visit the US again under any kind of visa.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well, that's already US standard policy, as I learned several years ago.

But he learned that he could not cancel the application. Moreover, if it were rejected he'd never be allowed to visit the US again under any kind of visa.
Seems like Amnesty et al are punching down. Target Australia, while the US and China and others get a free pass.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
let's go to the point of origin of the boats and open processing centres there, then transport them safely ourselves.

That's what Australian policy used to be. That's how Sudanese refugees arrived in Australia, for example. Because it worked so smoothly, Australia was able to accept quite a large number of refugees from UN refugee camps under that system.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
I don't see how WE'E the problem, honestly. Sure, Australia is treating them in questionable ways, but what about the various countries they passed through on the way here? Why isn't Amnesty having a go at them?
Firstly, not all of them are signatories to the Refugee Convention, so they don't have the legal obligations that Australia has, although they do have moral obligations.

Secondly, they are critical of other countries in the region. But argue that much of what they do is on the basis of copying Australia, or at least is validated by Australian policies.

Australia among 30 countries illegally forcing return of refugees, Amnesty says

Amnesty’s Australia national director, Claire Mallinson, said Australia’s policy of boat-turnbacks – forcibly returning asylum seekers in boats to their countries of transit or origin – was providing an example, and a justification, for other countries to do the same. Boat-borne asylum seekers have been forced back by Australian officials to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.

“Last year we saw Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia refusing to allow boats to land, or towing boats back to sea,” Mallinson said.

“In essence, what these countries are doing are copying Australia’s bad practice, and this raises real concerns for the region and the world. If you take that policy to its full conclusion, where boats are being stopped from landing, or where countries are closing their borders, then nobody would be safe, nobody could seek protection anywhere.”
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums