dreamer_easy | Entries tagged with refugees and asylum seekers

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.

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)

An article in today's Sydney Morning Herald claims this:

The Home Office in Britain estimates that "over two-thirds" of rejected asylum seekers there disappear into the community.

I can't find the "over two-thirds" estimate anywhere. I've been rummaging through the Home Office site and the British online media and generally flailing about in Google, and in fact I can't find any statistics on how many rejected asylum seekers abscond in the UK.

What I have found out is that in 2003 there was controversy over the lack of figures on how many failed asylum seekers don't leave the country - no-one was actually compiling those figures. The most recent Home Office research, excluding basic quarterly figures, is based on 2003.

The supposed Home Office estimate is given in support of the article's claim that Community release creates the risk that applicants with weak or non-existent cases will abscond. However, in Australia, from 1996-1998, not one asylum seeker released on a bridging visa while they were being processed did a vanishing trick. The article also refers to an INS official's estimate of 90% absconding - which contrasts with a 1992 INS trial which resulted in over 90% not disappearing. (see this HREOC report for references)

In short, I think the figure's a furphy. I think there's no credible evidence that most asylum seekers, if not detained, will try to vanish. I think proper safeguards prevent frightened or dishonest applicants from absconding. I think this whole line of argument in favour of detention is a puff of smoke.

ETA: Some sleight of hand which I've only just spotted - the article's author says asylum seekers being processed would disappear; but the Home Office figure is about asylum seekers who have been processed and didn't succeed in being recognised as refugees. In Australia, the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers do succeed - so he's taking figures about a tiny minority and applying them to everyone. Further, his US figure doesn't seem to be about asylum seekers, but anyone caught by the border patrol. So neither figure is relevant.

Naughty.

Anyway, I've emailed him to ask where the Home Office figure came from.

With several Liberal MPs expressing their support for the private members' bills, I think there's real hope that the end of mandatory detention (at least as we know it) could be nigh. Christian and Islamic leaders also support the bills. Even if the bills don't end up being introduced, or aren't passed, the government will probably need to offer a compromise solution which changes the current system.

Australians can sign an online petition supporting the bills - the signatures will be presented in Parliament.

Email, fax, or phone your local member - whatever party they belong to - and let them know you support the bill. Find your MP's details here.

ETA: Amnesty International gives a good summary of the situation and urges everyone to contact their MP.

Today's SMH has a useful overview of the proposed backbencher bills, which would place limits on mandatory detention. Howard has ruled out a conscience vote on the bill for Liberal MPs, but the Labor party may support them. If about a dozen Liberal MPs break ranks, the bills could pass.

The Herald also has photos of some of the 70 children in immigration detention.

Some good news for a change. Little Naomi Leong and her mum are free, and our PM Mr Howard is royally pissed off with the Liberal backbenchers who are planning private members' bills to free women and children, and to place a time limit on detention. Plus some mercy has been shown to other asylum seekers, including East Timorese refugees and asylum seekers who can't be deported.

"As a party and a government we have always stood for a fair go and a vigorous democracy based on the rule of law and justice for everyone. We have fought in two world wars … to preserve democracy and the rule of law.The policy of detaining people without charge does not uphold that principle. We lock up people who are fleeing regimes which we have fought against." - MP Judi Moylan

Send a letter of support to the Liberal backbenchers! Mr Petro Georgiou MP, Ms Judi Moylan MP, and Mr Bruce Baird MP can all be written to care of House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600. (If you like, cc your letter to The Hon John Howard, Prime Minister at the same address.)

There was a fabulous picture of three year old Naomi on the online Herald's front page today. After spending your entire life in detention, going to the park must be like the bit in The Wizard of Oz where it changes to colour.

Another great letter from a recent SMH:

What excellent value the ABC represents at 8 cents a day. The ABC's Lateline program succeeded in finding Vivian Alvarez in one week, something the Immigration Department had failed to do in two years. How much does the department cost the Australian taxpayer each day?

Susie Waters Willoughby

The scandal over the wrongful imprisonment and deportation of mentally ill Australian citizens has led to the mass fingerprinting of detainees. That's already led to one man being released, but DIMIA refuses to say whether the fingerprints will be shared with oppressive regimes overseas. DIMIA says no-one has been forced to give prints, but the NSW Civil Liberties Council points out that "We're talking about people who in some cases are in desperate need of mental health care, people who may be in a position where they feel there's no choice but to co-operate."

There badly needs to be an open inquiry into this - but will there be? The current government is partly in power because of its illegal treatment of asylum seekers, and they may not want skeletons - some of them literal - falling out of the cupboard.

Immigration isn't the only place where the mentally ill are being mistreated: in maximum security jails in NSW, they're being kept in punitive solitary confinement, despite repeated raps on the knuckles for the jailers.

Great letter in Saturday's SMH:

I could have become one of the Australian citizens and residents being detained and/or deported. Last year I received a letter from the Department of Immigration. The letter started "Dear Ms Sutherland" and referred to "your application" and the department's regret that it had been refused. It informed me that "You are entitled to apply for a review of this decision." The letter concluded: "Should you decide not to seek a review, you should depart Australia within the current validity of your substantive or bridging visa."

I wrote in reply asking what I should do about my Australian passport, which I had by virtue of the fact that I was born in Victoria some 60 years ago of Australian parents. I was also concerned as to who would look after my cat.

What happens when such a letter is received by those with less grasp of their standing?

Emily Sutherland Largs Bay (SA)

Elsewhere in the papers:

More on Naomi Leong, the three year old born in detention. Naomi's mother, like many detainees, is seriously mentally ill. "Every time [Naomi] sees me upset and feeling sad she bangs her head against the wall. But there's nowhere I can hide. I am unstable and screaming all the time. I cannot help it."

More about the seriously mentally ill detainees neglected in Baxter.

In Australia, Immigration detention and mental illness go hand in hand. Indefinite detention is illegal not only because it's unjust, but because it ruins minds. Adults kept in indefinite detention develop severe depression, hurt themselves, and attempt suicide. Detention of children is illegal because it ruins developing minds. Children growing up in indefinite detention develop emotional problems, hurt themselves, and attempt suicide. Indefinite detention of traumatised people, such as refugees fleeing torture, is especially damaging.

As you may know, a mentally ill Australia was recently rescued from immigration detention. (In addition, at least one Australian citizen has been wrongly deported.) Here are some more recent headlines.

Mentally ill detainees sent packing. One with post-traumatic stress disorder, one with schizophrenia, one with severe depression. (The man with PTSD was an Australian resident; authorities are trying to find him.)

I just heard this on the radio and I can hardly bear to relate it. A girl who was born in detention suffers constant anxiety, often won't speak or respond, and smacks her head against the wall and floor. She has been refused permission to attend a playgroup outside detention, crucial to her normal development. She is three years old.

She is not the only toddler to have spent her entire life in Australia immigration detention.

Baxter ruling may spark damages claims. The neglect of two mentally ill detainees (now safe in hospital) may open the door for mistreated asylum seekers to claim damages from the government. The Mental Health Council of Australia has called for the immediate release of all mentally ill detainees. Sadly, I personally find it very hard to feel hopeful as a result of the ruling; the government has long shown it's happy to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a system that literally drives innocent people, including infants, out of their minds.

x-posted to refugeenews

28-day lockup limit in wake of Rau furore. "Senator Vanstone said there would be a 28-day limit for all but exceptional cases on how long detainees could be held in prison, a watch-house or similar state corrections facility. All immigration detainees would be fingerprinted, without their consent if necessary. Detention centre staff would be given clearer and stricter procedures to follow in trying to establish a person's identity."

Rights advocates slam Vanstone plan. Australian Council for Civil Liberties: "What's got to be done is immigration detention centres must be subject to regular court review. There's nothing like having to justify to a court to make people accountable." (The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory, guarantee everyone the right to judicial review of their detention. Australian law denies immigration detainees this right.)

x-posted to refugeenews

More on the Cornelia Rau fiasco: Asylum seekers saved Australian woman from indefinite imprisonment (Australian Democrats press release). It took six guards in riot gear to force her, screaming in terror, into her cell. Had asylum seekers locked up in Baxter not urged their friends on the outside to help, she might still be there, spending up to 20 hours a day in isolation.

Mental illness is, not surprisingly, normal in detention centres, where traumatised people are held indefinitely without charge or trial. (A researcher was paid to try and discredit research into this.)

What a forced deportation looks like: "The man had layers of black gaffer tape around his mouth, bound so tightly that it was cutting into his face. Above the tape, his eyes were wildly panicked. They locked on to mine briefly before he was manhandled into the seat, and a blindfold placed over his eyes."

Perhaps he was being deported to Iran, a nation notorious for human rights abuse, with whom Australia has an Memorandum of Understanding so we can forcibly return asylum seekers.

A slight majority of Australians still support mandatory detention. Some may not be aware of alternatives to mandatory detention, as briefly outlined by Liberal backbencher Petro Georgiou: "If we have determined that asylum seekers are healthy, not a danger to the public and unlikely to abscond, there is no good reason why they cannot be released until their status is determined. Release can be subject to monitoring conditions if necessary." (In other words, brief detention for identity, medical, and criminal checks is perfectly reasonable, and only those likely to vanish need to be kept locked up.)

Meanwhile, the government will spend $336 million of taxpayer's money on a new detention centre on Christmas Island.

x-posted to refugeenews

Immigration detainees at Baxter IDC have released a statement regarding Cornelia Rau.

( Without proper psychological help, detainees may never find their way back. )

From today's SMH. This speaks volumes not just about the issues involved, but the entire media-government complex we're living in.
___

Anne Summers's relief that Australia's reputation has been salvaged by its response to the death and suffering generated by the tsunami ("Relief is for our reputation, too", Herald, January 13) ignores one key factor as to why we responded so generously: the lack of government interference with the images presented of those suffering.

In stark contrast to our tsunami reaction, our nationally demeaning response to the sufferings of asylum seekers was generated by a Howard Government utterly focused on their dehumanisation.

To further ensure the "otherness" of asylum seekers, not only were we denied access to images of their humanity, but they were also effectively criminalised by their being declared as illegal, and by their depiction as some sinister threat to our way of life and our obsession with ordered queues.

We were simply not permitted to engage with asylum seekers as fellow human beings. We could not see the grief of mothers, the confusion and fear of fathers, the bewilderment and need of effectively orphaned children. We were not allowed to know the history of these people, the family members that had been killed by regimes that they were fleeing from.

What our response to the tsunami shows is a nation only too willing to help others if only political self-interest would permit us to do so.

Mark Johnson, Hazelbrook, January 13.

Didya know it cost the taxpayer over a million bucks to keep the Bakhtiyari family imprisoned? Cruelty is expensive.

I am relieved and, I confess, a little shamed to read Bob Ellis' opinion piece on the Bakhtiyari family: The new Australian fair go. A few years ago now I was caught up in online discussion of the Bakhtiyari case, and was embarrassed when information cited in the media seemed to show they were liars after all. Ellis' column explains why those "facts" were wrong. He also outlines the government's flimsy case, and its probable motive: not being able to admit it's wrong. (In a bizarre parallel I'm reminded of the Vatican's reason for not giving up its ban on contraception.)

Today's topic is asylum seekers:

The poor bloody Iranian asylum seekers imprisoned in the desert at Baxter IDC are in a bad way, terrified of being deported to torture or death. Some are turning to desperate measures, such as hunger strikes.

Senate Inquiry - Howard did lie about children overboard. I don't know why Howard bothers to continue denying it, since the voters don't mind!

Things you can do! Donate to help asylum seekers temporarily released on Bridging Visas, who aren't allowed to work and can't use Medicare. Subscribe to the Australian Democrats' email bulletin on asylum seekers by sending an email to refugees@democrats.org.au. Call talkback radio and express your concern about the Iranians at Baxter - this press release has the facts and the numbers to call.

Gah! Look at all the politics I've been posting. It's because of my renewed interest sparked by the election, of course. I must try to cut down, though, it's knackering. Here's some recent info on the refugee situation in Australia. (I maintain a couple of Web pages on this issue if you'd like more info.)

The Law Council of Australia is setting up a working group to explore overhauling Australia's migration laws, in particular the government's right to imprison innocent people indefinitely. (Justice Kirby recently spoke on the role of judges in preventing the government from having uncontrolled power. A lot of Australians don't seem to realise that winning an election does not mean Mr Howard can do anything he likes.)

Baxter Detention Centre reaches boiling point - media release from Project Safecom.

All the info you need - instructions, addresses - is here at ChilOut's Gifts for Kids page.

These bloody lies drive me crazy. From the Liberal Party of Australia's policy on refugees:

Critics of our tough stance ignore two fundamental facts: We oversee one of the most generous migration programs in the world and, according to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) figures, Australia is the third largest recipient of refugees for resettlement worldwide.

This is a deliberately misleading pile of old poo. In 2003 the UNHCR directly resettled only 26,000 refugees out of almost ten million refugees worldwide. Australia took just 15% of that small number, coming third after the US and Canada. In total we accepted about 12,000 refugees. Ireland took about the same total number, but they have only about a fifth of our population. The Netherlands have about the same population as Australia but they took 34,000 refugees. France? Three times our population, eight times as many refugees. And so on. In fact, Australia is one of the least generous nations, particularly given our comparative wealth. Basically, every country has to play the same rules: if a refugee reaches that country, they must be allowed to stay. Because of Australia's isolation, it's difficult for asylum seekers to reach us, and most arrive via the UNHCR's resettlement efforts. Other nations don't have this luxury.

At least the govt is honest about one thing now:

A re-elected Coalition Government will: [...] Retain the policies of excision, offshore processing (the "Pacific Solution") and mandatory detention that have acted as a powerful deterrent to illegal migration

It's illegal to do anything to deter refugees from seeking asylum in your country. In the past the government has been careful not to confess that deterrence is the point of their policies, even though that's obvious to everyone. These days I think they know there's zero danger in admitting their real motives. I'm surprised they bother trotting out the same old lies.

Feel free to copy this message, unedited, to any relevant forum.

You'll recall my request for emails and letters to the Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, asking him to appoint pro-refugee Minister Carmen Lawrence to the shadow immigration portfolio. Alas, the fears of refugee advocates came to pass, and Minister Laurie Ferguson got the job. He immediately displayed his hostility and ignorance, declaring that a "sizeable proportion" of asylum seekers are fakes deliberately trying to rort the system; in fact, the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers are found to be genuine. Even the small proportion who fail in their claim are not automatically con artists - they may simply not have been able to prove their case. Some who have been deported by Australia have disappeared or been killed. Ferguson also accused refugee advocates of wanting no checking of claims whatsoever, which is a startling falsehood. You expect spin from Ministers, but you also expect them to have some sort of grasp on the facts.

More on Ferguson's remarks:

Ferguson sounds harsh note on refugees (The Age, 28 October)

Outdoing the Coalition on refugees? (Green Left Weekly, 3 November)

I'm appealing to anybody reading this to drop Mr Ferguson a polite email or letter, pointing out his errors, and asking him to stand up for refugees and human rights. It only needs to be a few sentences. If you happen to be in his electorate of Reid, it would be especially effective! His details:

Mr Laurie Ferguson MP
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Laurie.Ferguson.MP@aph.gov.au

You can phone his Granville office on (02) 9637 4713.
___

The alternative newspaper Green Left Weekly often runs stories on Australia's refugees - here are a couple of recent ones:

3 November: Cruel policy splits families

13 October: Iraqi TPV-holders demand permanent protection

__

If you would like to let the government know your thoughts on these issues, drop a line to the Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone. (If you write to Mr Ferguson you might like to send a copy to Ms Vanstone.)

The Hon Amanda Vanstone
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
81 Flinders Street, Adelaide SA 5000

minister@immi.gov.au

Phone (08) 8223 1757 (or, within SA, toll free on 1800 018 282).

___

Some quick background - an asylum seeker is someone asking to be recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Australian law permits people to enter Australia to seek asylum without asking official permission first (ie without a visa). A refugee is technically someone who has been found to meet the definition laid out in the convention, ie they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. Australia voluntary agreed to sign the Refugee Convention and other relevant treaties, and is breaking international law by trying to deter refugees from coming here, imprisoning people indefinitely without legal redress, and imprisoning children. Thousands of genuine refugees have been issued with three-year Temporary Protection Visas, leaving them in limbo.

___

x-posted to

refugeenews

Profile

dreamer_easy

May 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 3rd, 2025 10:44 pm

Dreamer Easy

Kate Orman

Entries tagged with refugees and asylum seekers

Refugees

Refugees

Refugees

Refugees

Refugees

Refugees

Madness and immigration

Refugees

Refugees in Australia

Refugees

Refugees

Refugees

All time greatest letter to the editor

(no subject)

(no subject)

Today's unpaid political announcement

Refugees

Send a present to a child in immigration detention!

(no subject)

Asylum Seekers and Refugees

Profile

May 2025

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags