MORE HYSTERIA and selective statistics will be splashed over the tabloids today [and the broadsheets (sic)]. Here care of Refugee Council are the real facts.
They will give you comfort and also help argue the case for a reality check on Asylum Seeker issue.
IN case you are wondering about 40% drop in arrivals to Italy on the front page of THE AUSTRALIAN today. It comes at a human cost which no Australian should support.
Berlusconi and Gaddafi have done a deal which involves stopping boats at sea, without checking whether the people have a refugee claim, they are brutally and forcibly pushed off the boats into the hands of the Libyan Navy. Then they are transported to hellholes in Libya.
There woman are raped, men are beaten, some die and and survivors are taken into the desert in trucks and dumped.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090620/local/detention-in-guantanamo-libya
http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/media/newsdesk/2009-07-10.html
The Opposition might think this a good solution but they forget that Indonesia is not Libya.
The Indonesian government does not have the stomach for this sort of brutality even if some Australians do.
Pamela Curr
March 2010
*****************************
March 24, 2010
AUSTRALIA MAKES MODEST CONTRIBUTION
TO PROTECTING VICTIMS OF PERSECUTION
Last nights release by UNHCR of 2009 statistics on asylum applications in industrialised countries emphasises that Australia’s share of global asylum applications remains very small, the Refugee Council of Australia says.
In 2009, Australia received 6170 asylum applications, just 1.6% of the 377,160 applications received across 44 industrialised nations, Refugee Council CEO, Paul Power, said. Of the 44 nations, Australia was ranked 16th overall and was 21st on a per capita basis.
No doubt some politicians will try to make political capital out of an increase in asylum applications in Australia of 1400 on the previous year. However, the applications received in Australia must be viewed in light of the numbers of the 286,680 applications received in Europe and the 82,270 applications received in North America.
The industrialised countries with the largest number of asylum applications in 2009 were the United States (49,020), France (41,980), Canada (33,250), United Kingdom (29,840), Germany (27,650) and Sweden (24,190).
Afghanistan was the single largest source country of people making asylum applications in industrialised countries. The 940 applications lodged in Australia by Afghans made up only 3.5% of the international total of 26,803. Afghans were four times more likely to lodge an application in Norway than in Australia.
These figures should put to rest any claims that Australia is being flooded by asylum seekers. The only flood we are seeing is of self-serving political rhetoric.
“It is clear that refugees continue to seek protection in stable democracies which respect international law and human rights. Even though Australia’s share of asylum seekers is small, Australia should still be proud to be included among those receiving countries.
Our country is making a modest but valuable contribution to protecting people from persecution, a practical demonstration of Australians strong opposition to oppression.
Media enquiries:
Kate Gauthier
Communications Manager
p: 02 9211 9333
m: 0414 876 139
e: media
ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 44 INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES 2009
1. United States 49,020
2. France 41,980
3. Canada 33,250
4. United Kingdom 29,840
5. Germany 27,650
6. Sweden 24,190
7. Italy 17,600
8. Norway 17,230
9. Belgium 17,190
10. Greece 15,930
11. Austria 15,830
12. Netherlands 14,910
13. Switzerland 14,490
14. Poland 10,590
15. Turkey 7,830
16. Australia 6,170
17. Finland 5,910
18. Hungary 4,670
19. Denmark 3,750
20. Cyprus 3,200
SOURCE COUNTRIES OF PEOPLE MAKING ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES, 2009
1. Afghanistan 26,803
2. Iraq 24,341
3. Somalia 22,558
4. Russian Federation 20,367
5. China 20,100
6. Serbia 18,597
7. Nigeria 13,310
8. Iran 11,479
9. Pakistan 11,184
10. Georgia 10,994
11. Eritrea 10,164
12. Mexico 9,987
13. Sri Lanka 9,979
14. Zimbabwe 8,527
15. Bangladesh 6,189
16. Armenia 6,226
17. Bangladesh 6,189
18. Dem. Rep. of Congo 5,189
19. Syria 5,029
20. Guinea 4,969
WHERE AFGHAN ASYLUM SEEKERS SOUGHT PROTECTION IN 2009
1. Norway 3,871
2. United Kingdom 3,535
3. Germany 3,302
4. Austria 2,233
5. Sweden 1,694
6. Belgium 1,659
7. Greece 1,510
8. Netherlands 1,281
9. Hungary 1,194
10. Turkey 1,009
11. Australia 940
COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN OF PEOPLE SEEKING ASYLUM IN AUSTRALIA IN 2009
1. China 1,186
2. Afghanistan 940
3. Sri Lanka 553
4. Zimbabwe 344
5. Iran 303
6. Iraq 288
7. Pakistan 256
Figures drawn from Asylum Levels in Industrialized Countries 2009, UNHCR, March 2010
Steve, the goings on in other parts of the world can be directly traced back to Australian Government decisions, both Liberal and Labor. It was a Liberal Party decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and it has been Labor’s choice to support it and maintain it. And please don’t include me in your “vast majority” (by the way, how do you know what the vast majority of Australia’s population is thinking?).
As for asylum seekers leaving their country and travelling “on their own identity documents” – again, on what knowledge or evidence are you basing this? You make a range of sweeping generalisations without the slightest bit of evidence to back up your argument. How do you know asylum seekers are impeding with efforts to verify their claims and identities? How do you know they were refused asylum in other safe countries? Did the media tell you so? Did politicians? The same media and politicians who told you that children were thrown overboard during 2001’a Tampa affair?
And what “refugee agreement drawn up in another time for different circumstances” would that be?
I am also a tad confused about your assertion that asylum seekers are treated better than our homeless and aged citizens. While I would agree that a lot more could be done for aged citizens and certainly for homeless people, neither is locked up without any charge for periods of up to years at a time, and both are eligible for a number of Australian welfare payments – something I can assure you asylum seekers are not, until they become 100% genuinely accepted refugees, at which point they are eligible to receive the same welfare payments you and I are.
The burden on the taxpayer is something I totally agree with you on. But again, you can blame the Labor and Liberal Governments. Both have spent millions upon millions of taxpayer money on detention centres. The Labor Government pledged $973.6 million on the Christmas Island over 5 years (starting last year). That’s your money and my money to pay for something the asylum seekers certainly don’t want. It is money spent to make it look like they are doing something. Something expensive and something very inhumane.
Last year Australia received 7672 refugee applications. France received just under 42,000. We are hardly being swamped. And as for “picking” and “choosing” – you’re not buying a pet – these are people who have endured political and social circumstances that no one should have to endure.
While I respect your choice and your opinion regarding not wanting certain types of people in Australia, please do not include those who disagree with you in your statements. “We do not want or need these people…” – wrong – you and some others don’t. “Australian taxpayers do not want to have to support these people” – wrong again – I will happily support them with my taxes. I resent my taxes going towards locking them up, but I will happily have my taxes go towards any positive action.
So there you go, Steve old mate. Just two people’s opinions. One based on facts, figures and reason, the other based on hearsay, innuendo and sensationalism.
The goings on in other parts of the world that are not the cause, or under the control of Australia are of no concern to the vast majority of us. Given that most of us welcome actual refugees that have taken the time and trouble to enter into the correct process, and thus be allocated to Australia, we reserve the right to be sceptical when someone leave their home country, travels – on their own identity documents – through numerous safe locations while transitting to Indonesia – yet another safe country – then jumps on an illicit boat to Australia to present with no means of identification or verification of their circumstances or place of origin.
That these people did not elect to register with the UNHCR as a prospective refugee or make contact with the Australian Consular Service, then impede the investigation into their identity and circumstances reasonable leads many of us to assume these people have much to hide and expect they would not normally be accepted as refugees, if their actual circumstances were discovered. If here was nothing to hide, why attempt to derail the investigation? Because they have something to hide which would render them ineligible. It is not even reasonable to travel so far in search of “Asylum” when so many safe locations were passed through and the opportunity at “first asylum” declined – Indeed by the time an illegal has been intercepted, he or she can no longer be called an asylum seeker as exactly that has taken place – the need for asylum has evaporated once it was not embraced in the first safe location arrive at after leaving home. At the very least, Australian taxpayers do not want to have to support these people and their extended families, who get greater consideration and concession than our own elderly and homeless, do not wish or attempt to integrate into our society and milk political correctness and the weak government to get thier own way. Simply, we do not want them here. Actual refugees or not, we do not want them here if they did not come via the accepted legal channels as there is no way of knowing who we are really getting and the cost is not something out taxpayers should have to bear. Especially with no benefit to gain from it. The sooner Australia gains a Liberal Goverment again, and/or withdraws from the UNHCR Accords that oblige us to accept these freeloaders, the sooner we have a measure of control over who comes to this coutry and how. To come to, and be given the opportunity to live in Australia is a privilege that must be earned, if not already Australian, not to be given freely to satisfy political correctness and an out of date refugee agreement drawn up in another time for a differnt set of circumstances. We do not need or want hese people and can afford to pick and choose who we want. Many other nations do not even recognise the notion of asylum seeking, so why should we?