Want child abuse? Night raids? Summary justice? Just ask your Immigration official

Actions taken against people suspected of violating migration legislation are decided and applied by decision of the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

These ‘compliance’ actions are mostly taken against ‘aliens’ who have no resident status, but as we have seen in recent years, the Australian Immigration Department has also acted against Australian citizens such as Cornelia Rau.

Residents and citizens of Australia are protected by the Rule of Law, and so, once her status was discovered, Rau had to be released immediately and had recourse to compensation.

(Notice that protection against summary actions of the immigration department depends on those actions coming to light.)

When migration officials decide to take action, however, it seems that residency or any other status have little deterrent effect. This blog has reported about the child in immigration detention who was separated from her father and flown to Iran without his permission, Australian immigration officials investigated over child abduction, and overseas students who have been subject to compliance raids in the middle of the night and had their homes searched by immigration officials.  Failed your exam? Go to jail!

It is not only in Australia where immigration is a law unto itself. Human Rights Watch reports that, in 2008, airport police deported or removed one third of the 1,000 unaccompanied migrant children who arrived at Roissy Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris and who were denied entry into France.

“Airport border police place detained children in the same facilities as adults, putting the children at risk of abuse. They routinely threaten children as young as age six with deportation, subject children to strip searches, handcuff them during rides to hospitals, and order intrusive age examinations even when there is no doubt the child is under 18.” France: Abolish Airport Limbo for Migrant Children

There are of course international treaties that proclaim guidelines for the treatment of aliens. Some people refer to these as ‘laws’, but a law is not a law unless it can be enforced, and there is no body that can sanction nations for their treatment of people who are not official residents or citizens.

The wonderful Hannah Arendt more than half a century ago saw that the concept of human rights ‘collapses in ruins’ in the face of the stateless, the refugee, and the asylum seeker. To these we may add ‘those in the hands of immigration departments’.

Racism is not inevitable: even public opinion on boatpeople is ‘soft’

Joseph Chamie, research director at the Center for Migration Studies and former director of the United Nations Population Division, in an article for Online Opinion, brings attention to broader migration issues than just numbers of asylum seekers.  Mind the gap: public and government views on migration diverge

Chamie argues that governments overlook  public opinion in favour of powerful interest groups, such as business communities, political elites, ethnic associations and labour-exporting nations, in forming immigration policies.

“The consequences of this neglect are likely to become even more serious over time, giving rise, among other things, to increased xenophobia, vigilantism, violence and political extremism as well as the strengthening of radical factions on both the left and right.

“Some of these troubling developments, e.g., rising xenophobia and the success of nationalist parties, have recently become markedly more visible in such countries as Italy, Greece and Switzerland”, Chamie says.

Ian McAllister, in Mary Crock’s book Protection or Punishment: The Detention of Asylum Seekers in Australia claims that Australian politicians have tried to control the ‘dark underbelly’ of Australian opinion by imposing fairly severe immigration provisions. But this ‘strictness’ has been confined to restricting refugees, especially under the Howard government, which substantially increased opportunities for study, work and business visas.

Chamie cites a global study of public attitudes that found that the majority of the people in 44 of the 47 countries surveyed agree with the statement: “We should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now”

It is dangerous to draw conclusions from this, however, because whenever these questions are asked people in all nations indicated that they want less immigration than they presently have, including in nations where integration was proceeding smoothly.

And public opinion surveys are notoriously unreliable predictors of behaviour, especially in relation to migration. Public opinion of rates of migration is, as Goot says, “not only ‘soft’, it is created in the very attempt to measure it.”

Racism is easily aroused, however, but is just as easily ameliorated. People learn racist attitudes from their milieu and once the milieu changes, for example through new laws, people are shocked by behaviours that they themselves once exhibited, and not only repudiate them but also forget that they ever held them.

Sudanese stabbed and media skewered

A young Sudanese man was murdered in an Adelaide suburb a couple of days ago.

There’s a PhD waiting for someone in analysing the news reports.

First I heard of it was through ABC radio news:

“A group of Sudanese men were sitting on an oval on Eastern Parade at about 4:30pm when they were attacked by about half a dozen other young men armed with knives and baseball bats.” Fatal brawl treated as murder

I assumed that the ‘other young men’ were Sudanese too. (Me! I thought that I was too sensitive to racial reporting in the media to be sucked in!!)

The next reports were through the Adelaide Advertiser. The first report I read excluded all mention of race – perpetrator, victim or otherwise.

Later that day in the Advertiser the victim became ‘African’ and the attackers ‘white’.

The latest reports have the victims (now 2) as Sudanese, and the perpetrators stripped of any descriptors. Six people to face court over Ottoway killing of Akol Akok

I reckon that this is going to lodge in the public consciousness as ‘another’ Sudanese murder, like the killing of Daniel Awak. Never mind the hundreds of murders that have taken place in the meantime that have not involved Sudanese.

And I dread the slow news summer months, and return of the so-called ‘experts’ who try to make their names through misinformed and misleading comments about Sudanese youth. A stab in the dark

‘Indonesian solution’ for asylum seekers should be ‘Pakistan solution’

Andrew Bartlett notes that we are on the cusp of changes in asylum policy in Australia and regionally. Future asylum policies in the balance

He reminds us that the ‘accommodation’ for many asylum seekers in Indonesia ranges from adequate to appalling.

“The Australian government, having gone on at length about the increasing cooperation with the Indonesian government, cannot now simply sidestep their responsibilities by saying the conditions are the responsibility of the UNHCR and IOM”.

I absolutely agree.

But the asylum seeker question will not be answered by improving conditions in Indonesia, or any other of Australia’s ‘Fortress Pacific’ neighbours. Asylum seeker crowd control: Australia and Europe hire 3rd world bouncers

If conditions in countries like Indonesia are improved then those nations may become magnets in themselves, and they will be forced to take increasingly severe deterrent measures.

There are suggestions that more aid to source nations would reduce refugee and asylum seeker flows, but there is no guarantee that this would reduce the numbers of people leaving to seek a better life, and indeed improvement in conditions is associated with increases in emigration, at least initially.

Economic assistance has reduced flows only when the sending country has the means to stop the flows by preventing refugees from leaving, as in the case of Haiti. The major sending nations of Afghanistan and most African nations are not able to do so, however.

And preventing people from fleeing persecution is a gross violation of human rights.

The bulk of the world’s refugees exist in developing countries without adequate financial resources for their care and maintenance. Perhaps we should instead invest in those nations who have always borne the brunt of flight: neighbours of the major source nations, like Pakistan and Kenya.

Asylum seekers given massive Centrelink payments drawn from the bank accounts of pensioners and disabled war veterans

Last week I wrote in outrage about the ‘news’ item about refugees and Centrelink benefits on Channel Nine, in which they claimed that three quarters of refugees are claiming Centrelink benefits.

Media Watch examined the claims last night on ABC TV, and showed that any figures that Nine could have obtained from Centrelink would related to all persons in the Australian population who are from a refugee background – and that means as far back as the 1950s.

Nine is ‘standing by’ its story. Howard Sattler said that Nine must be ‘innumerate’.

Or deliberately beating up refugee and asylum seeker hatred?

Or perhaps Nine executives have been innocently taken in by the spam emails that periodically do the rounds. Immigrant facts and furphies

If Nine believes its figures, perhaps they will even take Ben Pobjie seriously:

“The Rudd Government’s border protection laws, passed in 2008, state specifically that any foreign national can live in Australia rent-free and with full dental cover if they:

a) make landfall on any shore within an 800 mile radius of Broome;
b) have comprehensive identifying documents, or an entertaining story as to how they lost them;
c) promise under oath to sew their lips together or give a convincing impression of psychological distress if not allowed in, and;
d) are not actually carrying an improvised explosive device at the time of interview.

“The laws also state that any asylum seeker shall be granted access to massive Centrelink payments drawn directly from the bank accounts of pensioners and disabled war veterans, and that they have the right to force local primary schools to tear down Christmas decorations at any time.” Asylum Seekers: A User’s Guide

And it’s not even a Sunday Funday! “Stop treating us so equally!” they cry. “It’s creeping us out!”

Who should we let in? The immigration dilemma :-)

It’s not just refugees who know how to flood!

This talk-back caller knows many more groups that we should be worried about.

But remember – it’s Sunday so it’s Funday –  don’t take it seriously!

more about “Who should we let in? The immigration…“, posted with vodpod

Win the asylum seeeker war of words Part 4: turn off the tap

What is the most pervasive metaphor we use about any migration, but especially about forced migration?

David Turton, in a lecture to the Oxford Refugee Studies centre, identified it as a ‘substance’ metaphor. The substance is water.

Flows, streams, trickles, floods, sluice gates, inundations, dams.

It sounds like a natural event, something that is not man-made, but somehow inevitable, that we must be on guard about.

And it turns migrants into an undifferentiated mass. Of molecules of liquid that need processing.

Studies of Australian media during the asylum seeker panic of early this century showed that while ‘asylum seekers’ were referred to as ‘illegal’s’ ‘floods’ and ‘criminals’, whenever there was a story about individual asylum seekers or TPV holders, or even of a particular identified group, stories became sympathetic.

Don’t mention the flood!

Winning the asylum seeker war of words part 3: Honesty

Here’s a novel idea to battle to asylum seeker war of words: honesty.

Keane Shum, previously an asylum officer with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that when he interviewed asylum seekers who had used people smugglers and asked them how much they paid, they would inevitably say “Everything, everything I had.” Only honesty will produce the best asylum seeker policy

Keane asks us to imagine if these people he interviewed were Caucasian women and children, fleeing Zimbabwe.

“Imagine hundreds of white faces behind bars on Christmas Island who had done nothing wrong but for being born white and fleeing the people who hated them because of it. Ask yourself if you would feel comfortable about that.”

‘Be honest with yourself”, Keane says.

A very useful thought experiment.

(I remember enjoying the scene in the Day After Tomorrow where Mexicans were building fences and turning white Americans away at the border. Memorable, because it was such a new twist on an old problem.)

I also believe, however, that we need to be honest about our own negative reactions.

The local paper, the Adelaide Advertiser, published this yesterday:

“A man harassed by anti-war mail after his son was killed in Afghanistan says immigrants who can’t adapt to Australian life and values should live elsewhere.” Immigrants ‘who can’t adapt should leave’

My honest reaction? I was exasperated because this item is contributing to the anti-immigrant lobby. And immediately recalled statistics about how many immigrants are an overwhelming positive for the Australian economy and culture- not to mention food.

And? Well, a whole lot of me agrees that ‘people like this’ should go home.  And doesn’t give 2 cents for the argument that this is their home.

This is honesty of emotion. We are being honest when we quote correct statistics, (see Invaded by boat people: Let’s build barricades with statistics!) but the honesty of emotion always counts for more.

What was your reaction to Wilson Tuckey’s stupid remarks about terrorists coming by boat to Australia?

Kevin Rudd gave an emotionally honest reaction:

“To go out there and to smear asylum seekers in the way in which Mr Tuckey has done I say again is divisive. I think (it) is disgusting,” Mr Rudd said. Wilson Tuckey rocks boat on border protection debate

See all posts on the asylum seeker war of words How to win the war of words about asylum seekers and Winning the asylum-seeker war of words, part 2

All asylum seeker advocates have left is Andrew Bolt

Why is Rudd falling in with the opposition’s ‘tough’ line on asylum seekers, especially when for the third consecutive week Labor’s lead is widening still further despite the boat arrivals?  The Poll Bludger

I find it hard to forgive. ( And how will I ever forgive him for making me agree with Andrew Bolt?)

Andrew Bolt calls Rudd a hypocrite for ‘replacing’ John Howard’s “Pacific Solution” with his “Indonesian Solution”.

Andrew quite rightly wonders whether we will see ‘the furious damnation of Rudd by the Left that we saw of Howard? Where is Oxfam? Amnesty? Julian Burnside? Phillip Adams? World Vision?’ Confirmed: Kevin Rudd replace’s John Howard’s “Pacific Solution” with his “Indonesian Solution”

Damnation is starting to come, and from Rudd’s ‘side’.

Two of the most powerful unions, the Australian Workers Union and the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union have warned Rudd against demonising refugees. The Australian quotes AWU national secretary Paul Howes:

“It’s really important for Labor to have a compassionate line on this to demonstrate leadership. This is an issue about leadership. It won’t be popular in the electorate, but this is the right thing to do.”

CFMEU’s national secretary for construction, David Noonan, warned politicians against revisiting the “dark days” of Tampa. Unions warn PM over boatpeople

Labor MP Michael Danby has rebuked Rudd over his use of the term “illegal immigration”. ‘Humanitarian’ boatpeople deal breaks deadlock

The Herald reports Heather Ridout, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Association, said the shrill politics surrounding asylum seekers was ”causing the worst possible outcome”.

”The whole community is completely confused; they want to be compassionate,” she said. Call for compassion before politics

Like John Pasquarelli says, we need a flag bearer. (That’s it. Agreeing with Andrew Bolt and Hansonists. I have gone over to the dark side)

Mass media try con tricks in asylum seeker war of words

In the asylum seeker war of words, how do con artists win hearts and minds?  The Murdoch empire is providing lessons in a breathtakingly blatant way.

On Monday evening Channel Nine aired a ‘news’ item about refugees and Centrelink benefits.

I didn’t see it, but an outraged friend called me afterwards and said it looked like an election ad, nothing like ‘news’.

In the transcript:

The information about numbers of refugees on New Start etc was the ‘result of a Nine investigation’. I don’t think that getting statistics from government departments rates as an ‘investigation’ – but this one ‘needed’ a ‘Freedom of Information request’ – so that proves that ‘they’ must have been trying to hide it.

‘Refugees are creating a soaring welfare headache for taxpayers’ – Centrelink benefits + refugees = welfare headache.

Centrelink benefits + the rest of us = ?.

By implication, refugees are not taxpayers. Nor are they really Australians.

‘Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce said he believed Australia was entitled to wonder whether at least some refugees were actually “economic migrants” wanting a more comfortable life.’

Meaning: this channel will not say straight out that refugees are just economic bludgers, but if we quote an ‘authority’ you’ll get the drift.

Then another Murdoch outlet, the Australian, printed an article from John Pasquarelli, former senior adviser to One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.

John did not pussy-foot around. The people on boats are the ‘illegals and their criminal co-conspirators, the people-smugglers’.

 ‘A new Australia is in the making, where our ethnic minorities will become majorities’. And there will be more ‘unrest in Sydney’s west’.

Who is responsible for the ‘unrest in Sydney’s west’?

‘56,000 Vietnamese refugees’. And Malcolm Fraser for allowing them in because he felt guilty about the Vietnam war.

Thousands of Lebanese Muslims let in because of a ‘suspension of normal eligibility standards’

But wait, it is ‘not just multiculturalism that is fuelling anger’.

Huh? John hadn’t mentioned multicuturalism hadn’t mentioned before this, just ‘unrest in Sydney’s west’.

So, ‘unrest in Sydney’s west’ = ‘multiculturalism’. Easy.

John: ‘Sadly, these mainstream Australians have no one with the courage to become their flag-bearer in these challenging times’.

Assumption- people taken in by this crap are ‘mainstream Australians’.

Good point though. I must agree.

We mainstream Australians have no flag bearer.

Kevin, where is your ticker?