Earlier this month, I published an opinion piece on The Punch. It talked about Abdul, a refugee from Afghanistan, who I met on Christmas Island.
There were 159 comments on my piece. Julia Gillard encouraged people to have an open, frank debate. I reckon an open, frank debate means calling bigotry when you see it, and some of the comments made on my blog, like this one:
…every leaking fishing boat [is] loaded with people who are unprocessed on issues like health, criminal element, terrorist infiltration or the blatant open fact of illegal entry…
....simply peddled fear and prejudice. But many readers had real questions.
Public anxiety about asylum seekers is exploited every day by cynical politicians chasing votes. I hope that if I use my experience as an immigration lawyer to answer your questions, you might reconsider your views about asylum seekers.
Who decides that these people are genuine refugees? How do they decide?
The Australian Government decides. All people who claim asylum are subject to a rigorous process called Refugee Status Assessment. By rigorous, I mean hours of interviews by Immigration Officials – initially without legal advice.
After a brief interview with a lawyer asylum seekers have to make a written request setting out their claim to be a refugee. The definition of a refugee is found in the Refugee Convention and is also part of Australian law.
Each asylum seeker attends a lengthy interview with an Immigration Official. If they arrived on Christmas Island without identification Officials look for any inconsistency in their story.
Asylum seekers are interrogated about their family, the village they claim to be from, the geography and topography of the region, about the types of crops they grew on their farm, the ethnic groups that inhabit the area, their cultural practices and customs. Their answers are cross-checked by the Department of Immigration against detailed and credible country information.
Every asylum seeker is required to pass comprehensive health and security tests.
Why do people come without documentation?
Some people don’t have any identification, because they’ve never had it, they’ve had it taken away by people smugglers or persecutors, they’ve lost it, or they’ve destroyed it. In Afghanistan most people don’t have passports. The most common form of identification is the national ID or tazkira, which is held by about 70% of Afghans. The only clients I’ve had who have destroyed their ID have done so out at sea under the instruction of their boat’s captain. They felt they had no choice.
But by far the most common reason for why people don’t bring identification is because they flee without warning to escape danger. Abdul, for example, had to leave suddenly because the Taliban threatened to kill him. He didn’t have time to go back to his house, get his tazkira, or say goodbye to his family.
What countries do Afghan asylum seekers pass though before coming to Australia? How do they get there? Why don’t they claim protection?
Generally, Afghan refugees will travel a route through Pakistan (by land), to Malaysia or Singapore (by plane), then to Indonesia (by small boat or plane). None of these transit countries are signatories to the Refugees Convention. They offer no protection to people like Abdul.
How do asylum seekers pay smugglers?
People cobble together enough money by exhausting their life savings, selling their property, even their mother’s jewellery – they are desperate. While most Afghans I have represented are poor, people seem to forget rich people can be persecuted too. Money cannot protect people who are targeted by the Taliban. In fact having money, land or a successful business might encourage the Taliban to target a Hazara person.
Why don’t they join the queue?
There is no orderly queue. If they apply to the UNHCR in Indonesia they wait up to 10 years for resettlement, during which time they have no rights and no protection. Once you read the facts you might think twice about calling someone a ‘queue jumper’.
How do you know Abdul wasn’t lying? How do we know you aren’t lying?
While each case must be judged on its individual merits, in my experience people generally don’t risk their lives on leaky boats to come to Australia unless going home is a far more frightening prospect.
Every lawyer and migration agent is bound by professional codes of conduct. You have to represent your client’s claim honestly or face serious penalties. I do not, and would never, lie for my clients, or represent a client I knew was lying.
How can Australia’s facilities and infrastructure deal with boat people?
Infrastructure is indeed an important issue for a growing Australia. But linking ‘boat people’ with ‘population sustainability’ is like linking exposed breasts to seismic shifts in the earth’s crust. This infographic might redistribute your concerns.
What about Australian values? Will refugees uphold them?
Every refugee who Australia protects must sign an Australian values statement . These values include “fair play and compassion for those in need.” Refugees aren’t seeking a free ride – just a fair go. Some readers of my last piece belittled “the compassion argument” as the domain of “bleeding heart leftists”. The “compassion argument” doesn’t come from the left or right. It comes from our basic human decency.
Compassion is a value that Australians have singled out as fundamental to who we are. If we are serious about Australian values being more than empty rhetoric, we must get serious about designing an effective and compassionate refugee policy.
Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day
Get The Punch on Facebook
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
@karalee_ yeah, have concluded same after cursory look at a few. Scary that some brands might actually use them
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Schapelle has done her time
Schapelle Corby has served more than seven years in Kerobokan prison for attempting to import 4.2 kilos…
Do women need to know when to walk away?
Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond has sparked controversy over her advice that young women should sometimes…
Who murdered the Arts degree?
Have we murdered the liberal arts education? That was the final question on Monday night’s Q&A…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented