Are asylum seeker claims genuine? > Check the facts
Who: “The people coming here by irregular maritime arrivals (arriving by boat) are not people fleeing persecution…They’re coming here as economic migrants… We need a tougher, more hard-edged assessment.” Bob Carr
“Recent spike in Iranian immigration, which is overwhelmingly middle-class Iranians… who are coming to these shores as economic migrants” Bob Carr
The claim: The majority of asylum seekers who arrive by boats are economic migrants not genuine refugees and a tougher procedure for granting refugee status needs to be in place. In particular, Bob Carr referred to a recent spike in Iranian asylum seekers.
The facts: Australia determines the validity of claims for asylum using standards set under international law. Those who are granted refugee status must meet the UN definition of a refugee which excludes people who are only seeking economic opportunities. This means that people who are economic migrants will not be granted refugee status.
In the last quarter to March 2013, 90.5 per cent of processed claims were found to be genuine, including 86.5 per cent of asylum seekers from Iran who were granted refugee status.
Discussion of evidence: Australia stopped processing new claims from asylum seekers arriving by boat in August 2012. Processing began again on July 1, 2013 which means for the past eleven months Australia has not processed any new claims.
Existing claims continued to be processed and in the first three months of 2013 nine out of ten claims from people who had arrived on boats were found to be genuine. This included 86.5 per cent of claims from Iranian asylum seekers.
The recent spike in Iranian asylum seekers that Bob Carr refers to cannot be classified as economic migrants as their claims will not have been processed yet. However, the majority of existing claims processed this year were found to be genuine refugees.
(Updated post.)
Hi Can you explain these two pieces:
If the government has not processed since August 2012, how can 90.5% of refugees and 86.4% of Iranians be found to be genuine? Were they found to be genuine by the Australian Government or the UN?
“In the last quarter to March 2013, 90.5 per cent of people who arrived on boats were found to be genuine refugees. This includes around 86 per cent of asylum seekers from Iran who were granted refugee status.”
“the government has not processed claims since August 2012. Processing only began again on July 1, 2013 which means for the past eleven months Australia has not processed asylum seekers to determine if they are genuine refugees.”
Read the article properly:
“Australia stopped processing NEW claims… in August 2012.”
“EXISTING claims continued to be processed…”
All the claims are assessed by us, not the UN. DIAC records show that from 2010-1196% of Iranians have been accepted as refugees no matter how they get here.
What on earth could have changed in those years.
Ignoring the issue and just looking at the logic of the article:
Bob Carr claims that the test as applied does not expose the true nature of the refugees – “We need a tougher, more hard-edged assessment”
The article refutes his claim by quoting the results of the very assessment that Carr claims is unreliable. It does not seek to refute his claim by providing evidence from an alternate source that backs up the disputed figures.
Two striking statistics have been repeatedly claimed, and rarely contradicted, by persons arguing opposite sides of the asylum debate.
The first is that 90% of asylum-seekers are examined on arrival and classed as not being refugees.
The second is that (provided they insist on staying) 90% will eventually be allowed in and given refugee status.
Which of these claims is correct?
Or are both of them correct?
And if so how?
The examination is a prolonged affair due to shortage of people qualified to do the assessment. Sometimes takes years. The asylum seekers are held offshore to deny them access to the Australian Legal system. Which by the way was said to have cost Australia too much, and now the Gulags cost much more.Eventually some are allowed into the community on TPV’, which prohibit them working or having families reunited.
Australia is one of ten countries who have pledged in 1951 and again in 1965 to take a quota over and above the asylum seekers who arrive on our borders.
No one mentions that any more and are pretending we are talking about immigration policies.
Confused?
Join the club.
John
My understanding is, there are 15 -20 UNHCR officers to process asylum seekers in the area from Ethiopia east across to The Philippines.
Yes Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Syria, Ryhingha from Burma,
Malaya, Thailand, Vietnam, China, India, Sri Lanka,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Pakistan.
The UNHCR has over a $billion to do the assessments worldwide. And Australia spends that much and more handling the few we have in our Gulags.
We should join with Indonesia and Malaya and all the above countries to process people over there and fly them to Australia. the process would shorten and we would stop the boat traffic for the same Amount we spend today.
The Facts: Those who are granted refugee status must meet the UN definition of a refugee which excludes people who are only seeking economic opportunities. This means that people who are economic migrants will not be granted refugee status.
It also states that Refugees & Asylum seekers must come DIRECTLY from the country that they are escaping from.Country Shopping negates any claim of seeking Asylum.
Sunni’s escaping from Iran could go to a Sunni majority country close by. Not cross many Borders to arrive in Australia where they are not welcome.
The problem with Bob Carr is he is making stuff up. So how about we not join him and check all the facts before we start making claims?
Which UN definition of a refugee requires that a refugee stop running as soon as they cross one border? Not here: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/prsr/prsr.html
“Article 1A, paragraph 1, of the 1951 Convention applies the term “refugee”, first, to any person considered a refugee under earlier international arrangements. Article 1A, paragraph 2, read now together with the 1967 Protocol and without the time limit, then offers a general definition of the refugee as including any person who is outside their country of origin and unable or unwilling to return there or to avail themselves of its protection, on account of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion. Stateless persons may also be refugees in this sense, where country of origin (citizenship) is understood as “country of former habitual residence”. Those who possess more than one nationality will only be considered as refugees within the Convention if such other nationality or nationalities are ineffective (that is, do not provide protection).”
You can find the full text here http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html – noting that the limitation of 1951 has been extended to all future events.
The problem is that under the UN’s definition of a refugee no one can be denied. The only way we can get control back over our borders is to withdraw from the 1951 Charter and the 1967 amendment.
Once we have done this then we petition the UN to have a reassessment of the entire system. This charter has done nothing but allow criminals, terrorists, and economic refugees enter our countries and our own laws allow it. How do you make corrupt countries fix themselves by taking their citizens. They need to be held to account. The UN is the most corrupt and impotent organisation on earth. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand and western countries stop being hosed over and invaded and be left to carry the bag, it has gone on long enough. Other countries are getting rich while we pay their debt. Why are we paying foreign aide to Indonesia when at the same time they increased their military spending by $6 Billion?????? The only way to solve half the issues we face on this planet is to stop all foreign weapons sales. We have flooded Africa with weapons and wonder why there are wars there constantly. Look at Britain it has taken huge numbers of so called refugees, now they are being attacked from within. America is the same. Mark my words it will happen here too, we will not be lucky enough to stop them all the time.
Bob Carr I think has a point.
Most of these refugees, especially boat arrivals have been in Indonesia where they are safe. BUT they THEN take the risk of coming here because our legal system requires us to treat them on face value ignoring the fact that they may have passed through many other safe countries on their way to get here.
Case closed, they left another country where they were safe to come to Australia. The only reason can be economic.
Doesn’t anyone stop the THINK, why are we getting boat arrivals filled with people from counties half the world away?!
They are clearly CHOOSING to try and become a refugee in Australia.
Who says they are safe in Indonesia? Asylum seekers have been beaten to death by the police, they are imprisoned, they are starved – they can’t work or go to school. Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. Not safe at all!
They are not safe in Indonesia. Don’t you read anything?
This post has been edited. While we welcome a broad range of views, please ensure that posts contribute to a constructive discussion of the issue.
[…] who have arrived many have not yet had their refugee claims processed, as discussed in this fact here. The claim that 50,000 extra asylum seekers have added to Western Sydney’s traffic congestion is […]