Senate Is the backlash against immigration valid, racist, both... or something else?

Hell, even I couldn't check in online the last time I went to HKG because I was on two one-way tix instead of a R/T and the airline counter wanted to see me and validate a return leg before printing me out boarding passes...

 

So it sounds like, for some reason, the legal migration path is biased against Arab and Middle-Eastern immigrants, and therefore not entirely fair to all migrants, and potentially racist?

Costume party!

 

Happiness is... Muslime raus.

 

Is this line really so clear cut, though? After all, the Convention doesn't stipulate that the government is the source of the persecution.

Is there some more completely elaborated definition of "well-founded" that has consensus within the international community? Because the Taliban is certainly a real presence in many parts of that country, which even the NATO coalition , let alone the Afghan government acting alone, has managed to muster the forces to disturb. While their strength may be due to a general deterioration in security and poor living conditions, I would have to judge it pretty undeniable that however the situation came about, they thereby pose a real threat of persecution to any number of groups. If we accept this logic, I don't see how it would be possible that 80% don't qualify, since for legitimate asylum-seekers any requirements for documentation are waived per Article 31.

The logic here is particular to Afghanistan, since that's the example we started out with. But really, it applies to most of the world's conflict zones. I see your point with wars or disasters more generally. But where what's happening is basically a civil war, and local control of territory is pretty fragmented and fluid, it would seem bizarre to me to posit that individuals in such a situation don't have any legitimate claim.

 

Only if you infer either a quota system per country is in place; or that applicants from the Middle East are turned away?

I would say the reasoning is more benign; there's greater interactivity with Europe and I suspect if you looked at emigration data from the Mid East you'd find a bias in favour of Europe followed closely by the US.

We typically attract NZ and Asian visitors for economic reasons, and European visitors for the beaches and weather (though UK migrants can tie work visas to this, getting roles with the Australian satellite of their UK firm for example).

This neatly breaks down recent data:
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/country-profiles/_files/country-ranking.pdf

The Lebanon tends to be the most prominent MidEast source country, which does not surprise me.

 

OK so why can these people afford the resources to mount an overland journey through Pakistan to somewhere along the Malacca straight to be picked up by boat for Australia at a cost of $50,000/head if they are refugees? Why are they not approaching UNHCR (or IOM, if they've been appointed in proxy)?

We have people in refugee camps in the Middle East, Southeast Asia (I was supposed to do 3mo in Thailand at one but couldn't go)... their job is to fast track approvals and meet UN quota.

If there's a line of people waiting to buy groceries, and you're missing your favourite show, do you get to go to the front of the line?

Moreover, why are these people coached to destroy documentation in the sea at first sign of an RAN vessel?

 

What do their resources have to do with anything? Are rich or middle class people magically exempted from persecution?You certainly raise several points that would be worthy of investigation. But I don't see where any of them are sufficient to conclude that something definitely is not a qualified asylum seeker.

 

The one aspect that pisses me off the most about immigration is the racial profiling in many of the southern states. That probably won't go away either.

 

Well, unfortunately racial profiling isn't limited to the South. Arizona is a notable example with regards to immigrants, NYC with its "stop and frisk," etc.

 

No, persecution tends to be class-blind.

But my point is this - to get from, say, Kabul to Australian territorial waters, you don't simply get into Pakistan and fly. You take an overland journey through to a transit point in SE Asia, carefully avoided border checkpoints along the way until you board a boat.

Now, if you are fleeing persecution and a geniune refugee - why don't you go to the Australian high commission and claim asylum there? Or if you're worried about sympathies between Pakistani agents and the Taliban, why not claim it at the embassy is a less hostile country like Thailand?

Because you're not really a refugee; you're following a plan and that plan ends with you in territorial waters having ditched your passport with the specific intent of making you harder to identify so you think you won't get sent back.

The analogy I'm about to make may sound glib, but it's not. There's a line at the grocery store and you push to the front because your favourite show is about to start. That's these boat arrivals.