On 26/09/2011 12:07 PM, Jason White wrote:
Mike Mitchell<m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/09/2011 11:39 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
The problem is that the only reason for processing them overseas is to permit treating them worse than could be done in Australia.
The reason, as I said, is as a deterrent.
But if the processing procedure were as just and afforded the same legal rights as that available in Australia, with the same guarantee of resettlement, then it wouldn't function as a deterrent. Put differently, off-shore processing is only a deterrent (in so far as it works as one) to the extent that it offers less protection to the rights of refugees.
I think the rules need to be applied strictly and enforced quickly. If the applicants are not genuine hardship then send them back almost the same day. This nation should be allowed to choose its own migrants. Even those migrants seeking refuge. Then, even if they are legitimate refugees, they need to be of good character before Remember the Sri Lankan spokesman on the customs ship? He was wanted in Canada for immigration offences. Why the hell did he need refuge here if he'd been in Canada? He should be gaoled here then extradited to Canada to be dealt with. Granted, that's an extreme case.
I leave aside the question of whether there ought to be a deterrent in this case - I would argue that there should not be.
How then would stop the process being abused?
That is NOT the point I made. Refuge is a privilege not a right.
No, quite the opposite - it is a right under international law, and there are solid moral grounds for its being so.
I agree that there are moral grounds for it but international law does not have jurisdiction across the the planet. And countries that have accept that law can change their mind on a whim. If you and I needed refuge in China, we'd be hard pressed to get it. Hmm, okay, I might but that's only because my wife was born there. Where are you going, the USA? ;-) Cheers, Mike