![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 3rd, 2005 09:11 amI'm a mystic, I think, but here's an idea about evolution that made my brain bump against the top of my skull.
( Bump )
( Bump )
Jun. 3rd, 2005
A letter in today's Herald makes an incredibly obvious point I should have thought of: most asylum seekers in Australia are not locked up indefinitely, but live in the community while their claims are processed. That's because they arrived by plane, not boat - they had some kind of visa, perhaps a tourist visa, then applied for refugee status on arrival.
I think that's the last nail in the coffin of the lock-em-up-or-they'll-run argument.
___
Someone needs to tell Alan Anderson, who says the Georgiou plan to limit detention would allow failed asylum seekers to abscond, that there are already 8000 asylum seekers living in the community ("Honest debate exposes a mockery of Australia's border security", Herald, June 2). There are less than 200 asylum seekers in detention, many for up to six years. The fact is asylum seekers do not abscond because their desired object is a legal status. They have fled their homes because of persecution and insecurity. They don't want more of the same.
At the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre we have hundreds of clients going through the process while living in the community. Anyone listening to their stories and reading the documents supporting their cases would understand the reasons they fled and their need for refuge.
Pamela Curr Brunswick (Vic)
I think that's the last nail in the coffin of the lock-em-up-or-they'll-run argument.
___
Someone needs to tell Alan Anderson, who says the Georgiou plan to limit detention would allow failed asylum seekers to abscond, that there are already 8000 asylum seekers living in the community ("Honest debate exposes a mockery of Australia's border security", Herald, June 2). There are less than 200 asylum seekers in detention, many for up to six years. The fact is asylum seekers do not abscond because their desired object is a legal status. They have fled their homes because of persecution and insecurity. They don't want more of the same.
At the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre we have hundreds of clients going through the process while living in the community. Anyone listening to their stories and reading the documents supporting their cases would understand the reasons they fled and their need for refuge.
Pamela Curr Brunswick (Vic)
(no subject)
Jun. 3rd, 2005 09:42 amA moment of confusion as I read a letter to the editor referring to ibis in the botanic gardens. "What's an ibi?", I thought.
ETA: The plural is ibises according to Ask Oxford. Maybe there really is such a thing as an ibi!
ETA: The plural is ibises according to Ask Oxford. Maybe there really is such a thing as an ibi!
My last remarks on the spurious Home Office figure.
As you'll recall, the article in the Herald, Honest debate exposes a mockery of Australia's border security, stated:
The Home Office in Britain estimates that "over two-thirds" of rejected asylum seekers there disappear into the community.
I heard back from the author, Alan Anderson. Now, the quotes around "over two-thirds" suggest that he's quoting the Home Office. He isn't; he's referring to a research report done for Parliament, which states:
The UK Home Office has acknowledged that up to two-thirds of those refused asylum simply 'vanish'.
In Anderson's article, "up to two-thirds" has become "over two-thirds"; "vanish" has become "disappear into the community" - and the two are not synonymous.
The research report gives no reference for the supposed Home Office estimate. It goes on to cite a Guardian article which stated that less than a third of asylum seekers refused permission to stay in 1999 had not left the country - the exact opposite! (The word "vanishing" appears in the newspaper article, and I think that's where the research report got the word "vanish". If so, that's twice the Home Office has had words put into its mouth.)
Anderson told me it was also possible to derive a figure by comparing applications for asylum with the number of asylum seekers leaving the country, but these figures would be distorted by those who are waiting for the outcome of an appeal, those given extraordinary leave to stay, and those who leave the country without notifying authorities.
Whoever wrote the headline is right: we need an honest debate on detention, not one based on irrelevant or misleading figures.
As you'll recall, the article in the Herald, Honest debate exposes a mockery of Australia's border security, stated:
The Home Office in Britain estimates that "over two-thirds" of rejected asylum seekers there disappear into the community.
I heard back from the author, Alan Anderson. Now, the quotes around "over two-thirds" suggest that he's quoting the Home Office. He isn't; he's referring to a research report done for Parliament, which states:
The UK Home Office has acknowledged that up to two-thirds of those refused asylum simply 'vanish'.
In Anderson's article, "up to two-thirds" has become "over two-thirds"; "vanish" has become "disappear into the community" - and the two are not synonymous.
The research report gives no reference for the supposed Home Office estimate. It goes on to cite a Guardian article which stated that less than a third of asylum seekers refused permission to stay in 1999 had not left the country - the exact opposite! (The word "vanishing" appears in the newspaper article, and I think that's where the research report got the word "vanish". If so, that's twice the Home Office has had words put into its mouth.)
Anderson told me it was also possible to derive a figure by comparing applications for asylum with the number of asylum seekers leaving the country, but these figures would be distorted by those who are waiting for the outcome of an appeal, those given extraordinary leave to stay, and those who leave the country without notifying authorities.
Whoever wrote the headline is right: we need an honest debate on detention, not one based on irrelevant or misleading figures.
(no subject)
Jun. 3rd, 2005 05:02 pmJust been peeking at the delightful Fear Forecasters stuff on the BBC's Web site. Doctor Who belongs to these kids, not to the fans or to aged hacks like me.
(no subject)
Jun. 3rd, 2005 09:15 pmName a famous woman whom the Doctor has met on his travels. (On TV, not in the books, audios, etc.)
Number one with a bullet
Jun. 3rd, 2005 10:52 pmThe Choanoflagettes, "Let's Stick Together"/
No more cider for me he he he eh ehe hehehe
No more cider for me he he he eh ehe hehehe