How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

[bigfield]

How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

Should that country inflict pain and misery upon these already desperate people, in the hope that their suffering will serve as a deterrent for those who might follow?

 

[TV and credit cards]

An interesting comment for the Wikipedia page "Right of Asylum": "A recent empirical analysis by three legal scholars described the U.S. asylum process as a game of refugee roulette; that is to say that the outcome of asylum determinations depends in large part on the personality of the particular adjudicator to whom an application is randomly assigned, rather than on the merits of the case."

As the Passport & Visa Liaison between Subic Bay Naval Base and the US Embassy in Manila and personal experience, I can bear witness to the above statement. When you are sitting across from the interviewing official, you are at his/her mercy. This could mean your life, your family, your future is going to be determined in the following minutes by an individual you hope is capable of doing his job without any bias or emotional distraction.
If you were an asylum seeker and the members of this forum were adjudicating cases, who would you want to be interviewed by? Spin the wheel.

I'm all for a generous immigration policy for asylum seekers. As much as the country can support. I would not necessarily encourage or deter it but surely there's a better way than "refugee roulette".

 

[Tigers!]

""How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

Should a determination first be made whether in fact they are asylum seekers?

 

[bigfield]

""How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

Should a determination first be made whether in fact they are asylum seekers?

If they request asylum, then they are asylum seekers.

What you are presumably referring to is the determination of their status as refugees.

 

[laughing dog]

How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

Should that country inflict pain and misery upon these already desperate people, in the hope that their suffering will serve as a deterrent for those who might follow?

No. They should be treated with respect, kindness and dignity while their application is quickly expedited so that they are either permitted to enter or repatriated.

 

[Tigers!]

""How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

Should a determination first be made whether in fact they are asylum seekers?

If they request asylum, then they are asylum seekers.

What you are presumably referring to is the determination of their status as refugees.

What precisely is the difference, in your opinion, between a refugee and an asylum seeker?

Easy to claim asylum status, harder to justify.

 

[bigfield]

If they request asylum, then they are asylum seekers.

What you are presumably referring to is the determination of their status as refugees.

What precisely is the difference, in your opinion, between a refugee and an asylum seeker?

Easy to claim asylum status, harder to justify.

My opinion is irrelevant: the two terms refer to two separate concepts.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/asylum-seekers-and-refugees-guide#who
"An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applied for protection as a refugee."

Many, including yourself, conflate the two terms.

 

[Tigers!]

What precisely is the difference, in your opinion, between a refugee and an asylum seeker?

Easy to claim asylum status, harder to justify.

My opinion is irrelevant: the two terms refer to two separate concepts.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/asylum-seekers-and-refugees-guide#who
"An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applied for protection as a refugee."

Many, including yourself, conflate the two terms.

Based upon the quote you provided viz. "An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applied for protection as a refugee."
it seems asylum seeker = refugee.
Again I ask when does asylum seeker /= refugee?

The bona fides of all such people need to be established before we give refugee/ asylum seekers status.

 

[bigfield]

My opinion is irrelevant: the two terms refer to two separate concepts.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/asylum-seekers-and-refugees-guide#who
"An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applied for protection as a refugee."

Many, including yourself, conflate the two terms.

Based upon the quote you provided viz. "An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applied for protection as a refugee."
it seems asylum seeker = refugee.
Again I ask when does asylum seeker /= refugee?

Maybe this will spell it out for you a little more obviously:

http://www.ssi.org.au/faqs/149-what-is-the-difference-between-a-refugee-and-an-asylum-seeker
"An asylum seeker is a person who has sought protection as a refugee, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been assessed. Every refugee has at some point been an asylum seeker.

"Those asylum seekers who are found to be refugees are entitled to international protection and assistance. Those who are found not to be refugees, nor to be in need of any other form of international protection, can be sent back to their country of origin. (RCOA)"

Does that clear it up for you? And if so, can you answer the questions in the OP?

 

[skepticalbip]

This question is one that I thought I understood but, obviously, I didn't have a clue.

I would have to start with the definition of a refugee. I thought that refugee meant someone who's life or liberty would be in peril if returned to their country. Is that right?

Next would be the reason for that peril whether it be political, economic, personal problems, etc. I don't have a clue how international law establishes which of these would qualify as an "official refugee".

Granting asylum just means allowing them to enter the country, right?

The actual granting of asylum is now a mystery to me but seems to be based on international law and the guidelines of the country itself. Such as the US will accept any Cuban that manages to actually get their feet on dry land. Strangely, it seems their greatest barrier is to get past the US coast guard boats to reach the beach.

 

[bigfield]

I should have been more specific in my OP:

How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

When someone arrives in a country's territory without a visa, whether that be by land, sea or air, and asks for asylum, some time will necessarily pass between their arrival and the point when their refugee status is decided. How should these people be treated during this period of 'limbo'?

 

[DBT]

I should have been more specific in my OP:

How should a country treat asylum seekers who enter their territory without a visa?

When someone arrives in a country's territory without a visa, whether that be by land, sea or air, and asks for asylum, some time will necessarily pass between their arrival and the point when their refugee status is decided. How should these people be treated during this period of 'limbo'?

As reasonably as possible, but given that some may be taking advantage of their refugee status in order to make a new home in Australia. Many probably were indeed under threat of percecution in their homeland, but some were not. So the need to sort out who is a genuine refugee and who is taking advantage of a bad situation in order to become a (economically driven) migrant.

As we don't know who falls into which category, initially, all should be treated reasonably until their status is determined.

 

[bilby]

I am not quite sure why the division between 'economic migrants' and 'refugees' is an important one.

If you are going to die due to starvation at home, you are not allowed to try to rescue yourself or your family by moving to another country; while if you are going to die of gunshot wounds, you are.

Why the difference?

 

[DBT]

I am not quite sure why the division between 'economic migrants' and 'refugees' is an important one.

If you are going to die due to starvation at home, you are not allowed to try to rescue yourself or your family by moving to another country; while if you are going to die of gunshot wounds, you are.

Why the difference?

Those who are living under difficult economic conditions are not necessarily faced with religious, ideological or ethnic persecution, being tortured or killed. They may be helped to improve their economic condition in their own country and community, raising their own standard of living, etc, without the need to relocate them to another country, be it Australia, Germany, USA, etc. Basically, they are not under any threat of being persecuted, tortured or killed.

 

[Tigers!]

I should have been more specific in my OP:


When someone arrives in a country's territory without a visa, whether that be by land, sea or air, and asks for asylum, some time will necessarily pass between their arrival and the point when their refugee status is decided. How should these people be treated during this period of 'limbo'?

As reasonably as possible, but given that some may be taking advantage of their refugee status in order to make a new home in Australia. Many probably were indeed under threat of percecution in their homeland, but some were not. So the need to sort out who is a genuine refugee and who is taking advantage of a bad situation in order to become a (economically driven) migrant.

As we don't know who falls into which category, initially, all should be treated reasonably until their status is determined.

Sound perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[jonatha]

Give the person a train ticket to the next country north and drive them to the station?