Migrants heading to Australia

[ruby59]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/australia-immigration/480189/


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/18/australias-refugee-policies-a-global-inspiration-for-all-the-wrong-reasons



I know we have some Australians here so I wanted to see how they handle migrants.

Any comments?

 

[arkieb1]

I wrote about this in my other post. There has been a big furore in our media in Australia over it because Obama signed a deal to take a certain number of these refugees and Trump now doesn't want to take them.

Saying we are anti immigration is a simplistic statement, we are a big Island, and what was occurring which was a political minefield is that large numbers at a time of men but also women and children were getting on heavily crowded unsafe boats and attempting often without adequate food or water to come here via counties like Indonesia and other places in Asia. Many of them didn't make it and drowned. As a result of this people on the right side called for much tougher laws on illegal immigration and people on the left and indeed those in the middle side of Australian politics cause it to become a major issue here, due to humanitarian reasons - we were seeing images live on TV, and in our newspapers of women and children literally drowning or setting themselves on fire on boats in order to be rescued by Australian boarder control and brought here, and so it cause a huge political crisis in our country.

Our liberal party which unlike their namesake are actually the conservatives in this country adopted a zero tolerance stand on illegal immigrants they granted more immigration visas to legal immigrants to demonstrate those who fill in the proper paperwork and take their turn in the immigration queue might be lucky and get here, and for those who come here illegally we put them on planes and detain them on two Islands not in Australia, Manis and Nauru. And basically after they have been detained there for an often lengthy period of time they are then either sent back home or if they have a legitimate reason to have fled their countries they are relocated somewhere else which often is to frequently less desirable places than Australia or the US. What this has done quite literally is it has stopped most people who want to risk their lives getting into boats from coming here.

Again if you read my other post, I have a whole set of views on the humanitarian issues surrounding these detention centres which would take up a page or two but the gist of it is I personally believe they are a violation of human rights and some of those people do deserve to be granted Australian citizenship on a case by case basis.

 

[AprilBaby]

If they headed to Australia, why Should the US promise to take them. Take them in there. Fair question with no malice intended.

 

[ruby59]

If they headed to Australia, why Should the US promise to take them. Take them in there. Fair question with no malice intended.

I asked the question about Healthcare as well as to how other countries handle it. No one mentioned anything that sounded better, imo.

One Australian poster often mentions that she is asked if she is American as we are not liked.

Their way of handling migrants leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[arkieb1]

If they headed to Australia, why Should the US promise to take them. Take them in there. Fair question with no malice intended.

People headed here a not going to be promised citizenship in the US. This was a one off deal that Obama made to accept some people currently already in our detention centres. They will be screened and they have to be classed as legitimate refugees for you to take them. I don't know why Obama made the deal. I know that we have a zero policy stance on ever accepting them back in Australia not because we are cruel heartless people, but to deter them from getting into over crowded non sea worthy boats with women and children on board and either drowning on the way here, or when they are turned back by our water police they were doing things like setting themselves on fire or jumping into dangerous waters to be saved. People smugglers (the people that own or run the boats that carry them) charge them a large amount of money and promise them a better life here, it's an illegal people smuggling trade that our current government has been forced into having arguably a knee jerk reaction to, in order to stop that trade.

The issue is more complex than just us taking them in, it's not that we don't take in immigrants, we do, it's just we have a zero tolerance to illegal immigrants brought here on boats by people smugglers. I personally don't agree with sending them to other places, I think we should take them in here, but our current conservative government feels this is the only way to stop/deter men, women and children dying in large numbers at sea. And statistically when people know they will never ever have the chance of becoming an Australian citizen or live here if they come via boats, and they could end up somewhere where they don't want to live they did in fact stop trying to come here via that method. We like you also have a number of illegal immigrants that come here via planes, and over stay visas or simply disappear and never go home again. However we have a complex system for catching and deporting them as well.

 

[arkieb1]

If they headed to Australia, why Should the US promise to take them. Take them in there. Fair question with no malice intended.

I asked the question about Healthcare as well as to how other countries handle it. No one mentioned anything that sounded better, imo.

I've seen the US system in action and I think our system works better but people in remote rural areas of Australia would no doubt agree with you and disagree with me.

One Australian poster often mentions that she is asked if she is American as we are not liked.

Yep that was me, I have no idea what relevance that has to this discussion other than baiting for some sort of reactive answer, I used to travel a lot, and a lot of the time that is what happened, they asked my husband and I are you American and as soon as we said no they either relaxed around us or said good. It might be irksome to you that occurred but it was the truth. And to be honest in places like Mexico, the Middle East, and Vietnam, it probably isn't that surprising. I can also recall this occurring a lot in Asia. In places like England and Europe and New Zealand no one ever asked because they automatically recognise us as Aussies, people that seemed to have this negative reaction to Americans or set of negative stereotypes in regards to Americans predominantly lived in countries where they have either a real or a perceived negative history with your country. I don't think having Trump as your leader is going to do anything to help dispel those negative stereotypes. We ourselves, generally as a people don't come from a negative place when we meet Americans travelling to Australia.

Their way of handling migrants leaves a lot to be desired.

Our way of dealing with "migrants" is fine, yes our way of dealing with illegal immigrants does leave a lot to be desired.

 

[GliderPoss]

Firstly- it's a complex situation and I'm certainly no expert but Arkieb1 explains very well. Our boat policy is about deterring people trafficking via extremely unsafe boats from SE Asia. Hundreds of men, women & children were dying at sea and people smugglers were getting rich! By introducing this "no exceptions" policy - it's has stopped & not a single immigrant has died this way since so there is no doubt it worked. Yes, I agree it is horrible for the immigrants in detention centres but also it is necessary for them to be vetted before being granted visas & relocated/released. Unfortunately many immigrants deliberately burn any identification papers when they arrive so therefore it make the (ridiculously slow) vetting process even slower. I think conditions could & should be improved but mainly that the processing should not take years!!!

NB: We do in fact take many refugees/immigrants each year - in 2015/2016 it was 189,770 people via skilled/family/special eligibility/child visas.

 

[arkieb1]

Before someone else says why on earth would Obama want to take our detained illegal citizens, there have been a number of news reports which no one seems willing to confirm that the deal was actually an exchange deal a swap not that we were dumping illegal immigrants on you. It is thought that we were in turn supposed to take a number of illegal immigrants from Puerto Rico in exchange for you taking ours, which sees to make more sense to me than you would simply take our detainees.

 

[AprilBaby]

Thank you for your well thought answer!

 

[nomissjane]

I've just seen footage of Trump saying " 'President Obama said we could take probably well over 1000 illegal immigrants who are in prisons, and then we are going to take them into this country and I just said, ‘Why' "
These refugees are being held in centers that can only be described as horrific, in limbo if you like waiting and hoping to be taken in by one of our countries, but they are not prisoners in the sense that they are criminals. I find his use of 'alternative facts' outrageous and scary for someone in his position. To imply that the deal involves the USA taking in criminals from prisons rather than people who have made the terrible choice to put their families, including children, into crammed, unseaworthy boats is dishonest at best and shows just
how little humanity he has.
I don't pretend to have all the political solutions but it must be heartbreaking when you feel that taking your chances putting your family onto a boat, when so many can't even swim, is safer than than facing what's behind them on land.

 

[mrs-b]

Before someone else says why on earth would Obama want to take our detained illegal citizens, there have been a number of news reports which no one seems willing to confirm that the deal was actually an exchange deal a swap not that we were dumping illegal immigrants on you. It is thought that we were in turn supposed to take a number of illegal immigrants from Puerto Rico in exchange for you taking ours, which sees to make more sense to me than you would simply take our detainees.

Just to add to this -

It was a swap, as Arkieb said - not the US doing Australia a big favor. Australia was taking equal number of refugees who had tried to enter the US from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

In sending refugees to a different country, the general idea is to discourage people who might simply be trying to relocate to the country of their choice, as opposed to being genuine refugees. As in - those people will be offered safe haven, but they don't get to pick their own country. In other words - it was one more level of deterrent for people just trying to work the system. This is mainly in an attempt to weed out people trying to join family members already in either country who are simply trying to jump the queue.

As for the illegal immigrant / refugee detention centers - they're a poor alternative, and people can end up there for years waiting for their status to be processed. Why? Underfunding, understaffing, political quandary or disinterest, and so on. For perspective, keep in mind that the US has 15 times the population Australia has, yet Australia has double the coastal border. It's almost impossible to police - both in manpower and financially. So illegal immigration remains a major problem.

But Australia has a responsibility - and has made a commitment - to take refugees (number unspecified). They're doing a poor job of it. Given that it has a negative birth rate, Australia relies on immigrants for its productivity and economic growth. In my opinion, it needs to stop dragging its feet and either admit or deny people applying for entry because Nauru is fast becoming (has become) Australia's Guantanamo. Here's an article about the affect that Trump's turn-around on the deal with Australia is having on refugees on Nauru. Their interviews with US immigration officials have been cancelled indefinitely. The comment that breaks my heart is from the person who says that Trumps tweet about the refugee deal with Australia was better in some ways - because now they know it definitely won't happen, and there's no longer any uncertainty. Which is to say - he knows to abandon hope.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-us-officials-postpone-interviews-with-asylum-seekers-held-in-australian-camps-2017-2