Message: 3 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:33:43 +1100 From: "Lev Lafayette" Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela) To: luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au Message-ID: &lt;2df1d8a631f1b032f8386d080bbee7a6.squirrel(a)webmail.levlafayette.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 issues The url does indeed contain the word "policies" but the headings on the page are "Principles" and "Aims" and it is indeed a *very* high level document. Let's map it against my questions that an actual policy would easily answer boat or plane, if any? Not clear, though they state that "mandatory and/or indefinite detention" would be eliminated. [What is non-mandatory detention by the way? Would they retain <voluntary> detention? Or do they really mean automatic?] Not clear if carriers would still be penalized for bring in people without visas. See also Q5 below. Not fully answered. a limit? There would still be a quota, but it would be increased to an *unspecified* number. Not fully answered. they did not get work? " Asylum seekers to have work rights, and access to social security, legal representation, interpreters, health services, case management, and appropriate education for the duration of their assessment." Presumably this is after the initial checks mentioned in Q5 below. No indication what happens to those who are rejected as asylum seekers. Not fully answered. refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process? arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question? "Once initial health, security and identity checks are completed within a maximum of 30 days, asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to be accommodated in the community, unless otherwise ordered by a court, with periodic judicial review thereafter." Note that this seems to contradict (1) above, in that it seems to imply some form of temporary detention, and perhaps permanent detention for those who fail security etc checks. They imply that people can be detained with court approval. But not very clear. Not clearly answered. are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? " fair and appropriate accommodation" would be provided. Not clear if they are allowed to work or not. Not clearly answered. without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer. There is no explicit description of what happens to people whose status is or remains uncertain. Not clearly answered. How would you enforce this? "Greater incentives for rural and regional distribution of refugees and immigrants using successful models for settlement." This is rather mealy-mouthed and it is hard to know whether any restrictions would apply. Not clearly answered. hunger (as suggested above) **as part of the solution**? There is no mention of increased foreign aid within the page referred to. But elsewhere they propose a significant increase in foreign aid. Not clearly answered. So I am giving them 0/9 or 2/9 (Q3 is fairly close and perhaps Q9) and I am saying this is a poor excuse for a policy. --- To be fair, and on the principle of not asking someone to do what you are not prepared to do myself, here are my answers: boat or plane, if any? Significant penalties for carriers who bring in people without visas. Mandatory detention of unsolicited arrivals until a) They are found to be refugees per the UN definition, and b) They reach the top of the refugee queue. While this seems cruel at a first approximation, my argument is that this will reduce unsafe arrivals (eg by boat) to low levels, and, combined with an increase in the quota, is a better solution that what we have. I think that for any given level of intake that we are prepared to accept, taking that number in an orderly way is better than encouraging people to risk their lives on boats. a limit? Increase to 100,000 at the expense of family reunion quota and the lower end of skilled migration. they did not get work? No. They would be provided with subsistence support in custody. Children would receive basic education to year 10. refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process? Applicants would be fully vetted administratively. Legal costs would not be paid for by taxpayers for any appeals. arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question? Yes they would be detained as per (1). Similar to current arrangements including offshore detention. are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? Deport if possible otherwise detain. without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer. Decisions would be made on the balance of probability. If there are indications of deliberate destruction of documentation, or false claims, this would be taken into account. How would you enforce this? No. Once released from detention, once they have reached the top of the queue they would get work permits and a path to citizenship subject to the usual requirements. hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution? I don't believe that any feasible increase in foreign aid by Australia would have any noticeable impact on refugee numbers. But for other reasons I would support an increase in foreign aid to around 1% of GDP and the removal of strings attached (eg must buy Australian products). My assessment of the impact of such a policy is a) A rapid reduction of unsolicited arrivals as happened in the past when word got around that a boat ticket only got you a ride to a detention camp. b) Slightly reduced welfare of the Australian people due to the foreign aid cost and to a certain extent a reduction in the average quality of immigrants. By definition if we are selecting people on the basis of refugee status, then other factors like skills and assets will have lower priority. c) Unhappiness among communities that enjoy family reunion. --- For the avoidance of doubt, I do not claim that the above policy is wonderful, and that it avoids all suffering. I claim that it is probably politically tenable, albeit at or close to the limits of what the electorate will stand. Contrary to what happens in school, the world does not always send us problems that have simple, clean, appealing solutions. The refugee issue is IMHO opinion a problem that does not have such solutions. Tim Josling