
Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
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
The above reflects a misunderstanding of the processes involved in determining refugee claims - the in-depth interviews, the checking and cross-checking of claims, etc. I strongly suspect that it can't be done quicly and fairly - either is possible, but not both. Then there needs to be oversight to ensure that the law is applied correctly, which can itself take time.
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?
By denying claims that are determined not to be well-founded, and by recognizing that in any administrative system there'll be a small proportion of applicants who try to abuse the process.
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.
There is a difference between having a right, on the one hand, and states' acknowledging the right on the other. If there were no difference, there would not be states that systematically and as a matter of policy violate human rights. Thus the fact that some states opt not to acknowledge the rights of refugees is irrelevant to whether such rights exist.