One of my kids sent me this.
Despite all the hype, the figures haven't changed much for 2012.
It puts this non-issue into perspective, and holds our politicians and media up to the ridicule they so thoroughly deserve.
Stats are from UNHCR.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rewriting history
Apart from being priceless viewing, gentle reader, this grab illustrates pretty clearly the consequences of a ham fisted attempt to rewrite ...
-
Fascism as a political movement exhibits four basic criteria. First, fascism it is not an ideology, but an activity. Secondly, it... -
Pic courtesy Fraser Coast Chronicle I’ve blogged before about history rhyming, rather than repeating itself. Having said that, f... -
Pic courtesy The Atlantic The media is having a field day with its coverage of the pandem...
20 comments:
Irrespective of which political party you support I think we are all disappointed that the politicians can't work together to fix the problem
I doubt that any or all of the strategies put forward will fix the "problem". The Vietnamese boat people issue was never seen as a problem to fix because it wasn't hyped up and used as a political wedge.
Refugees became a divisive issue when Howard used them (in conjunction with fear generated by 9/11) to win in 2001.
We settled thousands of Vietnamese, the vast majority from transit camps in Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Hong Kong, and Indonesia with little fuss or bother because they weren't used as political collateral. We could do the same again.
Perhaps the diference is pre arrival checks and identity matters that become a little compounded by destruction of identity papers as adopted by the "boat people" of today. If you wish to check identities of people you would like to welcome into the country it becomes very time consuming if they choose to destroy papers prior to arrival.
Recent figures for 2011 indicate there were 11800 applications for asylum for Australia. There were 370,000 or so for Europe and 120,000 or so for the rest of the globe.
These numbers are quoted in a manner meant to belittle the efforts of Australians.
If we take a closer look though and compare the per capita responsiblity for each asylum seeker you will find that Australia has a higher proportion of asylum seekers per capita than Europe during 2011. 11,800 for a population of 22,000,000 as compared to Europes 370,000 for a population of 733,000,000. Aren't numbers fascinating 1735099.
I don't know where you derived your figures, but they're dodgy to say the least. You need to cite sources.
Below is an extract from Australia’s Response to Asylum Seekers by Dean Lusher, Nikola Balvin and Jo Tropea - (Monograph)
"An examination of the asylum applications received by 37 industrialised countries between 2001 and the first half of 2006 is informative of Australia’s intake of refugees [add ref]. In the five year period between 2001 and 2005, Australia received a total of 28,940 applications for asylum. This constitutes 1.4 applications per 1,000 inhabitants and on a per capita basis ranks Australia 23rd in the world. The country that received the most applications per 1,000 inhabitants between 2001 and 2005 was Cyprus (29.6 applications per 1,000 inhabitants), followed by Austria (18.2 applications per 1,000 inhabitants), and Sweden (14.2 applications per 1,000 inhabitants). The industrialised country that received the most applications in the period between 2001 and mid 2006 was USA (396,838), followed by United Kingdom (339,720), and France (298,004). Most industrialised countries, for example the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Slovakia, or Liechtenstein receive more applications for asylum than Australia on a per capita basis. In conclusion, Australia has made an international commitment to asylum seekers which is now seems keen to avoid. Further, compared with numbers of migrants to Australia, asylum seeker numbers arriving by boat or plane and applying are very small. Compared with other countries, Australia takes in relatively few refugees. Finally, Australia has and should continue to conduct identity, security and health checks on people who arrive without documentation, but locking them up for years while we decide whether their claim to be a refugee is no way to treat people who are fleeing their homes, their own country, for fear of their lives."
You could also go to -
http://wopared.parl.net/Library/pubs/BN/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf
(Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts? - Janet Philips - Australian Parliamentary Library).
The graph on page 12 is instructive.
!735099.....there you go again. If you wish to to blow the figures out of the water you should firstly look to the date of the figures compilation and then the method of comparison.
2011 not 2006 and comparison by continent, not country. These figures were pulled from a news item the origin of which I cannot remember, but no older than two weeks ago.
My actual point was that stats/figures can be manipulated in a way that on the face of the presentation appear startling, but when tested indicate other than that which is intended to draw emotive responses.
"fleeing their homes, their own country, for fear of their lives."
Once it can be ascertained that these people who have destroyed personal records in order to make it difficult to actually process them with regard to security and background checks, then is the time to consider releasing them into society, not before. I can't understand how you fail to understand that.
Suggest you rewrite the paragraph starting with Once it can.....
It doesn't make sense.
You are absolutely correct....brain fade.
Once it can be ascertained that these people, who have destroyed personal records, are who they purport to be and security checks done, then is the time to consider releasing them into society, not before. Can you explain why decent, fearful refugees destroy papers that can assist in the process that can ensure their refugee status. I am unable to think of a single good reason. Any person of intelligence should realise that destroyingidentity docs/records increases the difficulties encountered and time required trying to trace personal history. I can't understand how you fail to understand that.
Now that we have the comprehension lesson sorted.....what about a comment on the numbers game we were playing.
Destroying personal records is a way of staying alive if you belong to a persecuted minority. It was a very common practice amongst European Jews escaping the Nazis.
Hazaras from Afghanistan are in exactly the same predicament. In many cases, once their papers identify them, they're as good as dead.
So, you're on a boat expecting the next stop to be into the hands of the Navy or shore patrol boats of a safe haven, and you are suddenly in more danger than where you started (back in the land of persecution and threat of death), or during the flights to the starting point of the boat trip, is that your answer, truthfully?
WWII was a long time ago and you can bet the identity papers were destroyed whilst in the country of origin. How did we get there? Oh your historical memories.
Hazaras from Afghanistan.....I would imagine that if you travelled around Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel without papers you would have a terrible headache if detected. Try travelling around Sth Africa without papers....tends to raise a few eyebrows if you are asked to produce them. Claims that carrying papers can get you killed, when you are expecting to be picked up by friendlies, is an absurdity. These travellers have papers up to the point that they board the leaky boat....they are a long way from persecutors/executioners when they destroy identity papers.....why?
There are holes you could drive a truck through in the excuse you have indicated. I thought you had a miniscule sense of logic, now I'm not sure. Luckily the Authorities have inquisitive minds and that could be a reason the acceptances from the previous Nauru system only meant accepting 60 to 70 percent of applicants as refugees.
You have once again gone off on a tangent or failed to address the numbers game.
suddenly in more danger....,,
No, you were in danger back in your country of origin - which was precisely why you destroyed your ID. Refugees typically travel through many countries seeking safety. Once ID is destroyed, it stays destroyed.
Can't you understand that - truthfully?
These travellers have papers....
One of the many myths confected by the likes of Bolt and Jones.
60 to 70 percent....
Yep - most were genuine - kind of makes your argument look a bit silly, doesn't it?
"Yep - most were genuine - kind of makes your argument look a bit silly, doesn't it?"
What arguement?
Yep and nearly one in three were not bona fide refugees, but we don't know until the checks have been done.
Without papers that takes time to sort out.
You can't fly from your country of persecution or any where else for that matter without proof of identity/papers. Strangely, even those who who fly (to the point of embarkation on the final leg by boat) with papers, destroy them en route by boat. Why?
You suggest that we turn refugee applicants loose into Australia before the checks are done and risk 30 percent of them not even having had their bona fides checked even to the point of a visa over stayer. What is actually between your ears?
"One of the many myths confected by the likes of Bolt and Jones."
You like that inference don't you.
You can of course prove the "myth" status....or is it just another of your deviations?
I know for a fact (first hand) that once established in Australia many Iraqi and Afghan refugees (without papers) obtain docs from "home" to enable them access to Government agencies here. Puts a bit of a hole in your theory that the docs were destroyed in the "home" country because they were in fear of their lives being lost.
And the numbers game ignored again????
Read this; you might learn something - http://www.ajustaustralia.com/info/mythsfacts.php
I have learnt that many of the irrefutable statements on your link have generalisations that indicate they are not being completely honest in the handling of "the facts", but at the same time cannot be called dishonest. It is a bit like saying 60 to 70 percent is most but it is in fact only two from three. Things like there are only 20+ thousand refugees in Australia doesn't state that those who have joined mainstream Australia are no longer classed as refugees. It is an attempt to minimalise the numbers in the readers mind. I think you quote 137,000 Vietnamese alone immigrated.
I have learnt that you are selective in your reading and quotes and once again ignore the numbers.....your link quotes 2009 figures not 2011 and is designed to minimalise Australia's input in the area of refugee care, and attempts to shame Australian readers into believing we do not do enough by world standards. Not that one would expect any different from a site whose originators are seeking to influence peoples thinking in a way that may benefit them.
I don't see Bolt or Jones quoted as misrepresenting the situation.
generalisations that indicate they are not being completely honest
Let’s analyse a few of your “generalisations” –
A Just Australiaquotes figures sourced from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Minister for Human Services. I guess you must think they are part of some vast conspiracy.
Figures for 2011- 2012 are 7983 so far*. Let’s compare that with international figures - The numbers in Australia are very small. In 2009, there were 2497 successful visa applications, mostly families. In Europe, there were 286 680 applications (114 times as many). In North America, there were 82 270 (32 times as many). without allowing for increases related to recent push factors (instability in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq) and the figures for Australia bear no comparison. If you’re trying to argue that we are being “flooded” with refugees, the maths of it all are a bugger, aren’t they?
You may also want to look at People arriving by boat as a proportion of Total Asylum Applications -
http://www.safecom.org.au/pdfs/boat-arrivals-stats.pdf
*http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals#AppendB
It is a bit like saying 60 to 70 percent is most but it is in fact only two from three.
60 to 70 percent is most and is also 2 out of 3.
Things like there are only 20+ thousand refugees in Australia doesn't state that those who have joined mainstream Australia are no longer classed as refugees
Those who have joined mainstream Australia include everyone who migrated here since 1776.
Whether you like it or not, we are all either boat people or descended from boat people. My ancestors were, to all intents and purposes, refugees. They escaped Ireland in the 1860s because they were starving as a result of the potato famine. They indeed were classed as refugees by the landed gentry of the time, but back then they were called “dirty tykes”.
The rich strain of xenophobia that runs through our history is manifest again, harnessed by unscrupulous politicians as a wedge, and whipped up by shock jocks. You can trace it down through the years simply by noting the epithets used - tykes, chinks, reffos, dagoes.
You can participate in this if you want, but do it in the clear understanding that you are doing so in the face of reality and history.
"The A Just Australia campaign is managed by the Refugee Council of Australia" who are set up to lobby for improved conditions for refugees. Information from the site is designed to be proactive for refugees and their backers.
Now numbers.....let's use your 2009 figures.....Australia has a population in the vicinity of 22,000,000 and has 7983 successful apps for refugee status.....1 refugee for every 2756 citizens.
Europe has a population of 733,000,000 and refugee numbers of
286,680.....1 refugee for every 2557 citizens.
North America has a population of 528,720,000 and refugee numbers of 82,270.....1 refugee for every 6427citizens. "
"The numbers in Australia are very small. In 2009, there were 2497 successful visa applications, mostly families."
You can pretend the numbers are very small, but per capita of the host continent we are not far behind Europe and North America has more than twice the numbers to be able to care for the additional numbers. I think we do our share on the basis of your figures, considering the proximity of Australia and Europe to the places of origin of those in need of assistance.
"Those who have joined mainstream Australia include everyone who migrated here since 1776."
Now that is the truth.
"Whether you like it or not, we are all either boat people or descended from boat people"
Now that is a generalisation. Firstly not everyone even refugees have come by boat.
Secondly there is a vast difference from immigrating and turning up claiming asylum. If in fact your ancestors came here as the result of poor conditions at home, in order to better their existence, ou will find their names on the manifest of the ships used and they had to produce papers to make the voyage. That makes them migrants with papers and although there were obvious class distinctions(as there still are) they were not treated as refugees, although their treatment may have bee abominable. If they turned up in a boat with no papers thay are in deed no better than current boat people(your words) who come here to better their lot rather than in fear of their lives or persecution in their homeland. Get over it and don't claim some bogus link to the plight of current refugees.
Aren't numbers fun?
We should still incarcerate people who present on our shores without papers until such time as we are able to ascertain identity and possible risk factors of releasing them into our society. The production of identity and travel papers would ensure faster processing.
Didn't like my last attempt at posting on your site, simply too difficult to refute?.....and no pointed personal details and I didn't use your secret real details. You claim one thing an do another.....courageous stuff.
Last comment received was on 7th Sept - anything since (except for comment above) has got lost. Try again.
Don't believe your reply and now I can't be tossed playing your one sided game.
I can't be tossed
You were tossed a very long time ago....
Post a Comment