Australia defends plan to send deportees to tiny Pacific nation of Nauru
Posted by Pelinth@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 57 comments
Posted by Pelinth@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 57 comments
LineOfInquiry@reddit
Yay I love throwing people in camps in foreign countries for the crime of walking somewhere! /s
The global normalization of state violence against immigrants and people simply exercising their human right to movement is crazy and something I hope we address soon because I think it’s the canary in the coal mine for how citizens of these countries will be treated in the near future. It always escalates.
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
It's an extremely popular policy in Australia. For many reasons, and it's not as simple as "lol racism" like I'm sure you'd prefer to believe.
Australia has an extremely unforgiving policy towards "illegal" immigration. The offshore processing of these immigrants while waiting to determine whether they're refugees as per the UN charter or "illegal" immigrants means that every single person an Australian sees on the street has been vetted by the government and is in Australia on a good faith basis.
This has resulted in Australia being one of the most positive countries to immigrants in the world, despite having one of the highest populations of immigrants in the world. I'll say that a different way, Australia accepts more immigrants as a percentage of the population (approx. 30% of Australia was born overseas) than nearly any other western nation, and has an attitude that is overwhelmingly positive towards them.
The theory is that by tightly controlling who comes into the country, which thrives on immigration, you have a population that will not consider "immigrants committing crime" or "immigrants stealing our jobs" to be election issues. You know that any person in your workplace is there legally, that essentially nobody in the street is there without having documentation, education, or being a legitimate refugee.
It's a system that works very well,.as evidenced by the popular opinion towards immigration generally, and multi culturalism specifically.
This white washes the serious human rights problems of offshore detention, I am not denying that. But in broad terms, the policy does work, people like it, and as a result, every single immigrant or asylum-seeker arrives in a country that overwhelmingly approves and supports them.
Comments like below:
Just seem like logic for 5 year olds. In the 1800s, Australia was a prison colony. Therefore, it should not have any border security? I think you guys need to stop telling other people what to think and start thinking about why particular policies are popular or unpopular. Germany, Britain and the USA are all dealing with major issues with large voting blocks hating immigrants. In Australia, this is a vastly smaller election issue for a reason.
champagneface@reddit
Isn’t there a growing anti-immigration movement in Australia?
1294DS@reddit
We've had two protests one yesterday and last month but it's not as strong as the anti immigrant sentiment that Europe is experiencing in my opinion.
GnomeWarfair@reddit
The reason is racism. English backpackers who overstay their visa, work and live illegally in Australia, do not get sent to these immigration detention centres.
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
Brits who overstay their visa get deported. They don't go to Naru, because Naru is for people who claim they cannot be sent back to their home country due to persecution. If a Brit said he would be politically persecuted, jailed, or executed on return to the UK, they would be sent to Naru too.
GnomeWarfair@reddit
So refugees get different treatment to illegal immigrants ... because refugees don't come from UK, NZ, Canada.
But refugees do come from countries we have helped invade/occupy with the USA - like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
Austtalia's refugee detention policy was created by the Australian Labor Party in the 1990's to lock-up Vietnamese refugees.
So racism/colonialism.
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
What are you talking about? Overstaying a visa gets you deported. Arriving by boat gets you deported. Unless you say being deported would lead to your persecution.
It's an internationally accepted practice to verify the validity of that claim. There's nothing racist about it. An Afghan who shows up in China claiming asylum would go through the same process. The question here is the off shore detention centre. It's not about race, it's about the process. I already said in my first post that it's highly questionable.
GnomeWarfair@reddit
Mandatory indefinate detention without charge is not internationally accepted practise. It's a form of human rights abuse.
And yes, Australia has been taken to the UN for this.
https://theconversation.com/the-un-says-australia-violated-human-rights-law-but-its-unlikely-to-change-the-way-we-treat-refugees-247096
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
You're moving the goal posts. You said:
You are claiming it is based on race or country of origin, it's not. That's bullshit. I explained why and now you're making an entirely separate claim.
See my original post:
GnomeWarfair@reddit
Yeah good one cooker.
LowTheme1155@reddit
what does that even mean
sBucks24@reddit
That was a lot of dribble to whitewash the obvious racism... But you do you bud
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
Point to the racist part.
sBucks24@reddit
"when Australians see an immigrant, they know they're safe"
You can't "see" an immigrant. There's a reason British backpackers who overstay visas are harassed while people of colour with almost certainly be exclusively sent to this prison camp.
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
Extreme pedantry. Replace "see" with "meet" and the point stands. It's absolutely the case that Australians are extremely positive re: immigration in part due to this process. You don't like it, you don't have to like it, but that's just how the world works.
🙄
The reason British backpackers don't go to Naru is because they simply get deported back to the UK. The reason anybody goes to Naru is because they are claiming they will be persecuted if they are deported back to their country. That's not because they are "people of colour", it's because they are making that claim. It would be the same if a white guy from California said he had justifiable fear of unjust persecution if he was sent back to the USA.
They go to Naru while their asylum claims are investigated. It is a UN mandated process that these claims are investigated and validated. Some countries let the asylum seekers live in the country while their claims are processed. My entire point is that Australians like this process happening elsewhere, it has created a verifiably positive stance towards immigrants. Not just asylum seekers, all immigrants.
sBucks24@reddit
You've actually completely missed the point to go on this rant. Which given the point, is pretty ironic.
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
You made a silly point and don't know what you're talking about. That's not my fault, that's yours.
sBucks24@reddit
My guy, you just ignored the fact that you said when the avg Australian looks into a crowd and sees a PoC they know they're safe because they know they've been vetted and they're not a terrorist. While ignoring that the majority of illegal migration occurs via over stayed visas by white people who would never have been considered in your eye test.That's why you can't just substitute the word you used, and meant to use, with a completely different one.
The funny thing is you're mask offing without even realizing what you're doing... You should look up what "systemic racism" means and give it some self reflection.
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
I didn't say that.
I never ignored that?
It's just so, so tiresome. Don't you guys get sick of this same old line?
FourRiversSixRanges@reddit
Except when they come on a plane. Then they can stay.
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
Where are you guys getting this? Thousands of Brits and Irish get deported every year for overstaying their visa.
marvin_bender@reddit
This system makes a lot of sense. Too bad over here in Europe we can't to be bothered to replicate it.
setut@reddit
Except we're signatories to UN Convention on Refugees ... and seeking asylum isn't illegal. The whole narrative about 'illegals' is a right wing fear-mongering - it always has been, that's why Howard had to lie during the Tampa affair.
NoHandBananaNo@reddit
This. Jesus H Christ I hate how ignorant right wing Aussies are about this.
WE are the criminals because we are breaking international law on this, not the asylum seekers who have every right to seek asylum.
LineOfInquiry@reddit
Australia had a white Australia policy just a few decades ago, the core of society doesn’t change that quick. Plus, Australia’s immigrants mostly come from upper class backgrounds as those are the only people who can afford to. Of course they’re going to look down on poorer immigrants, and probably be racist towards them just as natural bornAustralians are. Besides, how popular a policy is is irrelevant to the question of if it’s actually a good idea or not.
The policies the far right uses to get into power are the very same ones that they support. For instance, here in my country the US undocumented immigrants can be exploited by landowners and corporations to work for terrible wages and therefore these people may not hire as many natural born citizens to do that work, or pay them less. That’s a very real issue, but it’s not one you can solve by tightening immigration laws since those are the very things that allow these bosses to exploit their workers in the first place. Increasing the threat of state violence only makes said exploitation easier to do. The solution would be to make immigration easier and give immigrants protections to unionize, be protected by our labor laws, and be able to leave bad jobs without immediately getting deported. This would raise wages for everyone and created more job opportunities, but it’s not a policy supported by the far right or a popular one in general simply because it’s never brought up as a possible option because the media and politicians are owned by the very corporations which benefit from strict immigration. Alternatively, they may also just lie about immigrants, like they do about undocumented immigrants committing crimes here in my country, despite them lowering the crime rate. So no, I don’t think any “solutions” they offer are worth taking seriously.
But more importantly, what is the logic behind policies like the one in this news article? It’s the idea that letting people who previously committed a crime and served their time or might commit a crime in the future based on some arbitrary group identity is dangerous and we can’t allow this to happen. Hence they need to be deported at once and sent to Nauru. The problem is that Australia already has people who either have previously committed crimes and served their time or could commit them in the future: its own people. Does this logic not equally apply to them? After all, I doubt a murder victim really cares if the one who kills them is Indonesian or Scottish. So if it works “so well” with immigrants, why not pursue this same policy with natural born citizens? Freedom of movement “isn’t a real right” after all. This is how you normalize things like mass surveillance, arbitrary search and seizure, arbitrary arrest, police brutality, a corrupt justice system, and abuse of prisoners. “First they came for the communists…” you know the poem. If a policy for stopping crime is successful, it shouod be just as successful against people born on the other side of an imaginary line. So we can either treat everyone the way we treat natural born Australian citizens, or everyone will end up treated like undocumented immigrants : (
Tilting_Gambit@reddit
Yes it does, that's just a factual statement: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-share-of-foreign-born-population-in-oecd-countries/
Australia has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in any OECD nation. If you exclude Luxemburg and Switzerland (for obvious reasons), it has the highest.
Huge citation needed, but I'll actually grant you the premise. Yes, migrants tend to be those who are educated and can afford to move internationally. No, this has nothing to do with Australia in particular. All countries experience this, including the USA, which receives extremely well educated and wealthy Indians. This isn't a point for or against what I said above. We are talking about whether Australia's policy towards immigration has helped maintain a positive view towards migrants in an environment of very high immigration. I'm saying it does, you're saying random shit in response.
Did you read my comment at all? Australians are some of the most pro-immigration people in any OECD nation. This is even more interesting since we have twice as many immigrants as the USA or UK, who are right now making their "huge immigration problems" national electoral issues. Again, we have twice the proportion of immigrants compared to the USA, UK, and Germany. In those countries, immigration is considered out of control. In Australia, immigration polls extremely well.
If you're going to offhandedly say that Australians are particularly racist, or only accept wealthy immigrants, get some data, back it up. Because the polls do not support that for cross-national reporting. Australians love multiculturalism:
And as per Australian migrants being "rich"? Totally wrong:
So no, they aren't.
I addressed this in my last comment, reread it.
I have literally no idea how this connects to my comment whatsoever.
LowTheme1155@reddit
dude you cant just enter a country without permission. Why is that such a hard concept?
LanaDelHeeey@reddit
There is no human right to cross borders as one pleases without permission.
RydderRichards@reddit
Aren't there reports that show that this stance keeps a lot of people from downing since they now don't take the journey to Australia?
LineOfInquiry@reddit
A much better way to stop them from drowning would be to offer them a safer way to get to Australia
RydderRichards@reddit
That depends on your definition of better. Open borders and social safety nets, unfortunately, don't mix well.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
These are refugees, they arrive by boats and jump to different countries hoping the next country will accept them.
The human rights article 13 covers residents and citizens, and also the rights for people to exit the country and be able to return to it.
The point of reference is the home country (of the person). If I am from country X going to country Y, country X can’t disallow me to leave, and when I’ve left country X can’t deny my entry back. It does not mean just because I arrive in country Y means country Y can’t turn me away.
LineOfInquiry@reddit
That’s a legal document, it isn’t the end all be all. If you believe in natural rights for instance, then freedom of movement would absolutely be among them.
Furthermore even from a legal perspective, I think freedom of movement for people (not goods tho) is a good thing in the long run. Human labor is the number one source of productivity we have, and so the more people your country has the easier it is for it to succeed. There’s a reason all the largest countries are on the up and up. More people is basically always a good thing, especially if they have an education or can be educated to be even more productive.
SoulofZ@reddit
Who gets to decide what “natural rights” are?
It seems like the exact kind of thing that requires an on the record binding document to pin down.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
UN is not a legal entity in the sense like State to Federal government relationship. They are practically “soft” alliances, like a group of friend, “if you want to join this group here are some guidelines”.
The UDHR itself is a document but has 0 legal power as any execution are left to the member countries and each countries are to monitor each other’s behaviour subject to these guidelines.
The issue isn’t just about accepting them at the door. That’s the easiest part. The problem is that as soon as you accept them there’s a higher bar on how you’d have to treat them, because now you are part of the country’s legal system.
That’d be like if an employer hires you, they’d by that instant have to abide to all the labour laws. If they think they don’t or can’t abide to that when hiring you, they are allowed to not hire you.
NoHandBananaNo@reddit
Im an Australian too and it absolutely IS popular because of racism. We are an INCREDIBLY racist nation. Just recently we held a referendum on giving Indigenous people a say in how things are run and the majority voted against it. Aboriginal Australians are disproportionately imprisoned, poorer, and die younger.
In doing this offshore island bullshit Australia is knowingly breaking international human rights law that we signed up to as a nation, too. Unlike the US, Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee conventions.
I am ashamed of what we are doing with this.
Tsofuable@reddit
Just like Israel committing genocide it's a bit ironic that the prison island/continent Australia deports their own to a prison island.
kneyght@reddit
Rent free.
sBucks24@reddit
Yes, the knowledge that a state my country funds is commiting a genocide is in fact a rent free thought in my head.
The fact it isn't to you, is you telling on yourself.
kneyght@reddit
You’re not OP but raring for a fight, huh? Lol
sBucks24@reddit
I find people being flippant about human rights violations to be abhorrent. It's not a fight, you're just a shitty person.
Czart@reddit
Brother, could you at least open a map?
Also, i love that certain countries have to let in anyone and everyone who arrives there. But only certain ones.
LineOfInquiry@reddit
I didn’t think I had to spell out that I was exaggerating to make a point, but I guess some people don’t have the reading comprehension to realize that
Every country does, in fact most countries outside of the first world have far more open borders than we do. It’s a lot easier for me to go idk Tanzania than it is for someone from a Tanzania to come to me.
Czart@reddit
Your exaggeration doesn't work when it ignores the fact that you need to cross a fucking ocean to get somewhere and not "just walk".
Yea yea, i'm sure you can just start living in tanzania like that. Sure dude. But you know what, you're right, you made me realise that colonisation was just extreme form of open borders policy.
Taniwha_NZ@reddit
Australia's obsession with 'turn back the boats' has been a thing for generations. There was an incident around '96 where an Australian navy ship was caught trying to sink a boat of refugees, or something like that.
And I didn't click on this article, but Australia has been sending refugees to Nauru for 30 years already, not sure if they've just restarted or something.
In any case, the current level of anti-immigrant behavior in Australia is not remotely recent, and doesn't really have much to do with European and US anti-immigrant sentiment. Australia is plenty racist on their own.
drewts86@reddit
…but why not just send them back to their country of origin? This just sounds like a weird choice. Although I do know an old penal colony in the South Pacific they could deport them to.
NoHandBananaNo@reddit
The cruelty is the point.
I have a mate who used to do social work for those in our Australian mainland detention centres and some of the people in them were fighting to BE deported so that they could try somewhere else.
Its a massive scale human rights violation to permanently imprison someone for seeking asylum yet that is what we do. Its disgraceful.
drewts86@reddit
Oh I’m well aware. Don’t know how much you’re keeping up with current events in the US but we’re doing some very similar shenanigans. These cunts in charge have no empathy and, like you pointed out, they’re being cruel just for the sake of being cruel.
CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit
They literally want an exit from their country, that’s why they are there in the first place.
Another thing is that since their intent is to claim asylum, thus they can’t be sent just be sent back there (they assumption is they are running away from danger, you can’t put them back to the source of danger kind of thing).
thepatriotclubhouse@reddit
They will shred their passports and claim they cannot be brought back to home country. This claim is usually complete nonsense. If they really can't then waiting anywhere while their application processes is a great option, otherwise they'll just go home.
LonelyStranger8467@reddit
They claim they can’t go back there, it’s legally more difficult than sending them to a safe third country.
LanaDelHeeey@reddit
Well yeah it makes total sense. If they’re just trying to escape persecution as refugees, surely they’d be happy living anywhere that is safe, right? I don’t see for the imperative that they be allowed into Australia. If they claim they must live in a rich western nation, we can surmise they are not in fact being persecuted and therefore do not qualify as refugees.
maporita@reddit
The global refugee system needs an overhaul. Many of these would be immigrants are not refugees, they are economic migrants, and relatively rich ones since they are able to afford the thousands of dollars paid to smugglers for their passage. Meanwhile the true refugees, the ones who literally have nothing, remain in their home countries in misery.
Different_Record3462@reddit
I know there is probably a few things. Other than being a third country and less discrimination, how is this any different from Ellis Island? Wasn't that an island that kept immigrants from the mainland to be processed?
Pelinth@reddit (OP)
Rowey5@reddit
Good.