NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do people think of mandatory detention in Australia? For those with no idea of what I'm talking about, let me give you the run down: Refugees fleeing from oppression leave their lives and usually their famalies and friends (and everyone they've ever known) and spend their entire savings on securing a place on some leaky old tub which is always overcrowded and unsafe. After a long and dangerous journey they arrive in Australia.

As soon as they are captured they are sent to concentration camps in the middle of the desert (and for those of you who will whine that only Nazis used concentration camps and that these aren't concentration camps because people aren't being gassed to death go read some history. Concentration camps are a British invention, first used during the Boer(Sp?) war and concentration camp does not necessarily mean death camp). If they want to seek refugee status, they have to state (during their first interview, in English) that they are refugees and that they seek asylum in Australia.

This is the start of a long process where the government calls them names and villifies them to the general public. While the government is doing this they usually spend between three and five years in this camp. This can be so distressing that it is one of the few places where people become psychologically blind and/or lame. Physically, they can see/walk but they are so mentally distressed they become blind/lame.

The government then tells 99% of them that they are refugees (whoops), and they are not 'illegals' or anything else the government called them while they were locked up.

One interesting case recently was an Australian woman who suffered from mental illness. She is an Australian citizen, but was locked up for ten months in one of these detention centres as an illegal refugee. At no time during her lock up was it ever realised she was sick, except by her fellow inmates who constantly told the staff she was ill. Rather than diagnose her, she was frequently locked in solitary confinement.

She is one of thirty-three Australians who have been wrongfully detained. Her case is not the worst. One Australian woman was locked up and then deported. The government only realised this when her family's search took them to the detention centres. The government is still looking for her four years later.

So, is it a barbarian practice or a necessary security measure to lock all all unexpected foreigners, men, women and children together? If you think this is a necessary security measure (mandatory detention as opposed to assessing them to see if they are security risks and housing them appropiately while they are checked) how does this make Australia a safer nation? The September 11 terrorists didn't arrive illegally in leaky boats...

Do you think this policy makes Australia a less attractive place for refugees and other illegal immigrants? Do you think this policy means less illegal immigrants/refugees? Do you support this policy?

Well, you australians have always been hasty puddings about things.

I am sure it will blow over.

Well, you australians have always been hasty puddings about things.

I am sure it will blow over.

This policy has been in place for some years now (despite protests).

This policy has been in place for some years now (despite protests).

See, I don't know what to tell you. There was that time in the late forties and early fifties when the Australian government "stole" white children from their parents in Britian - admitedly with the complicity of the British government - as part of a "white australia" program.

Now that is pretty fucking bone, but it all blew over, and the Australian government never even apologized to the kids or their parents. (Nor did the brits but that is a separate issue).

So I say, it will all just blow over. Remember how homophobic Australia used to be? That went away, so will this too I guess.

Now stop winning at cricket. ;)

See, I don't know what to tell you. There was that time in the late forties and early fifties when the Australian government "stole" white children from their parents in Britian - admitedly with the complicity of the British government - as part of a "white australia" program.

I had no idea! We're taught that immigration from this era was 'skilled European migrant workers' for the emerging economy. Still, not the only lot of children we as a nation have stolen...


Now stop winning at cricket. ;)

Never!!! :p

I had no idea! We're taught that immigration from this era was 'skilled European migrant workers' for the emerging economy. Still, not the only lot of children we as a nation have stolen...

Yah, it was totally fucked up. Social services - or whatever was the equivalent- in those days in england would remove the kids from welfare families and single mothers, telling them they weren't fit to look after them. Then the kids would get shipped to australia and the british government would tell the parents the kids had got ill and died. Meanwhile the Australian government would tell the kids that their parents had died.

What brought it out was the Catholic Priest abuse scandal. Apparently, to cap the whole process off, if your family was catholic you would be housed in a catholic orphanage, because, you know, your parents wishes about your religion were tantamount to all other considerations. Go figure? Naturally, there were a few in this program who, in later years, questioned the whole procedure. It was at that point the whole thing came out.

Saying that, neither the British or the Australian government have ever acknowledged it; even when the victims have asked for no-more than recognition.

Now, naturally, the numbers involved were never huge. I believe it was in the low tens of thousands. But still, the whole thing is a bit off.



Never!!! :p

I am working on a clone of Doug Jardine :)

I am working on a clone of Doug Jardine :)

And I am working on a way to get Warnie to text message you... :p

Oh the irony of it all. The Australian government doesn't think boat people have anything to contribute to society. What a deliciously ironic attitude for the leaders of a country founded by boat loads of convicts to have.

Oh the irony of it all. The Australian government doesn't think boat people have anything to contribute to society. What a deliciously ironic attitude for the leaders of a country founded by boat loads of convicts to have.

If it was ironic it would be made out of iron! :p

And I am working on a way to get Warnie to text message you... :p

Whatever. I think we can both agree that Hadlee was a wanker. :)

Edit: I might go watch Botham's ashes. I enjoy that show.

Eh I dont they should just be allowed in, unless they actually do stuff and we should start deporting all the people who just get the dole there life and never work

New Bendigo']Eh I dont they should just be allowed in, unless they actually do stuff and we should start deporting all the people who just get the dole there life and never work

These refugees are more than willing to work. The camps offer them a pitiful $5-20 a day (depending on task) to do all of the cleaning, cooking, etc. (Pure genius. Cut the overhead, increase profits, AND keep the detainees from rioting :rolleyes: ) and they jump at the opportunity.

These refugees are more than willing to work. The camps offer them a pitiful $5-20 a day (depending on task) to do all of the cleaning, cooking, etc. (Pure genius. Cut the overhead, increase profits, AND keep the detainees from rioting :rolleyes: ) and they jump at the opportunity.
Of course they want to be here, they risked life and limb to get here. Aren't they the kind of people we want here? But wait... they're the wrong colour/religion and it wins the government support to say they're "making Australia more secure." UGH.

Someone posted a good list of the myths surrounding asylum seekers and detention. Come back, whoever you were!!!

Of course they want to be here, they risked life and limb to get here. Aren't they the kind of people we want here? But wait... they're the wrong colour/religion and it wins the government support to say they're "making Australia more secure." UGH.

Someone posted a good list of the myths surrounding asylum seekers and detention. Come back, whoever you were!!!

I suppose, and this is only a guess, it is something to do with territorial integrity.

The UN recognizes it.

I suppose, and this is only a guess, it is something to do with territorial integrity.

The UN recognizes it.

Oh, because the UN recognises it, it must be okay.

Just kidding.

The policy really needs to be reassessed. Screening for medical reasons and some degree of security is probably necessary, but neither of these take half a decade. On a sidenote, there are children born in these detention camps. Are they even nationals of any country? And what threat could they possibly pose?

I suppose, and this is only a guess, it is something to do with territorial integrity.

The UN recognizes it.
The UN also recognises the right to seek asylum in another country and NOT be detained. Besides, it's unreasonable to leap from a relatively small number of people arriving in boats to a loss of sovreignty. But of course, xenophobia wins votes, at least in Australia.

The UN also recognises the right to seek asylum in another country and NOT be detained. Besides, it's unreasonable to leap from a relatively small number of people arriving in boats to a loss of sovreignty. But of course, xenophobia wins votes, at least in Australia.

The real irony is that every single one of these xenophobes are descended from immigrants, and the majority within two generations. Heh.

Oh, because the UN recognises it, it must be okay.

Just kidding.

The policy really needs to be reassessed. Screening for medical reasons and some degree of security is probably necessary, but neither of these take half a decade. On a sidenote, there are children born in these detention camps. Are they even nationals of any country? And what threat could they possibly pose?

Well, that's fine. But at the end of the day it is a purely domestic problem, and certainly - despite what I posted earlier in this thread in re stolen kids - Australia is not a human rights hellhole.

I am sure, one way or another, these things will work themselves out as they should, and people shouldn't freak out about it. Democracy is slow, but it gets there eventually.

Saying that, no more Don Bradmans, 'mkay.

The UN also recognises the right to seek asylum in another country and NOT be detained. Besides, it's unreasonable to leap from a relatively small number of people arriving in boats to a loss of sovreignty. But of course, xenophobia wins votes, at least in Australia.

To seek, not to be granted, they could leave the second it is denied at the port of entry.

That is all.

They came to Australia illeagaly. I disagree with how the whole thing is done, but the fact is that they shouldn't have "jumped the queue" with coming to Australia.

For example, there was a Sudanese illegal immigrant a little while ago (6 months or so) in Melbourne who raped 5 people, and robbed them. He'd been in Australia for 3 weeks and didn't speak any english.

Is it any wonder that Australia adopts a harsh policy towards illegal immigrants when there are so many coming here, many who don't speak english, etc.

Oh the irony of it all. The Australian government doesn't think boat people have anything to contribute to society. What a deliciously ironic attitude for the leaders of a country founded by boat loads of convicts to have.

Yeah, great irony considering there have been so many immigrants coming to this country. Both my parents moved here before I was born, and at the moment I go to a school where there are a maximum of 5% pure Aussies.

Well, that's fine. But at the end of the day it is a purely domestic problem, and certainly - despite what I posted earlier in this thread in re stolen kids - Australia is not a human rights hellhole.

I am sure, one way or another, these things will work themselves out as they should, and people shouldn't freak out about it. Democracy is slow, but it gets there eventually.

Unfortunately, our Prime Minister is pushing this policy, and he doesn't look like he's going to lose popularity any time soon. This policy will probably (maybe) be turned back by a Labor party government in the future...but many in the Labor party support the policy. When you have a major party pushing this platform, and the other major party unwilling to oppose it for fear of losing votes, you have a pretty dire situation. When a change does occur, it won't help many who will by that stage have been trapped in the system for quite possibly over a decade.

Saying that, no more Don Bradmans, 'mkay.

*hits cricketball in your direction*

Our new SDI system.

:D

I am sure, one way or another, these things will work themselves out as they should, and people shouldn't freak out about it. Democracy is slow, but it gets there eventually.

I think that's where Kanabia and I disagree... :p

They came to Australia illeagaly. I disagree with how the whole thing is done, but the fact is that they shouldn't have "jumped the queue" with coming to Australia.

For example, there was a Sudanese illegal immigrant a little while ago (6 months or so) in Melbourne who raped 5 people, and robbed them. He'd been in Australia for 3 weeks and didn't speak any english.

Is it any wonder that Australia adopts a harsh policy towards illegal immigrants when there are so many coming here, many who don't speak english, etc.

Here's some reading material for you.

Myth 1 - Boat People are Queue Jumpers

Fact: In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries and supports the International coalition of nations who continue to oppose these regimes and support sanctions against them. Therefore, there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered. Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such asylum seekers are forced to continue to travel to another country to find protection. People who are afraid for their lives are fleeing from the world's most brutal regimes including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Sadaam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq. Antonio Domini, Head of UN Humanitarian Program in Afghanistan, states that Afghanistan is one of the most difficult places in the world in which to survive.

Myth 2 - Asylum Seekers are Illegal

Fact: This is untrue. Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law. Many Asylum Seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration processes from occurring. 'Illegals' are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists.

Myth 3 - Australia Already Takes Too Many Refugees

Fact: Australia receives relatively few refugees by world standards. In 2001 Australia will receive only 12 000 refugees through its humanitarian program. This number has remained static for three years, despite the ever-increasing numbers of refugees' worldwide. Australia accepted 20 000 refugees each year at the beginning of the 1980's. According to Amnesty International 1 in every 115 people on earth are refugees, and a new refugee is created every 21 seconds.

Refugees re-settle all over the world. However, the distribution of refugees across the world is very unequal.
o Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people (1:76)
o Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people. (1:530)
o Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Australian people. (1:1583)

Myth 4 - We're Being Swamped by Hordes of Boat People

Fact: 300 000 refugees arrived in Europe to seek asylum last year. In contrast, 4174 reached Australia by boat or plane. In 2000, Iran and Pakistan each hosted over a million Afghan refugees. The real burden of assisting refugees is borne in the main by the world's poorest nations.

Myth 5 - They're Not Real Refugees Anyway

Fact: 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

Myth 6 - They Must Be 'Cashed up' to Pay People Smugglers

Fact: It is alleged that people who have the resources to pay people smugglers could not possibly be genuine refugees. The UNHCR disputes claims about 'cashed up' refugees saying that payments made to people smugglers in fact range from $4000 - $5000 AUD. In reality, many families and communities pool their resources in an attempt to send their relatives to safety. People smuggling is a crime that the international community needs to combat. However, this does not negate the legitimacy of asylum seekers' claims, nor their need to seek refuge. The international community, in eradicating people smuggling, is also required to address the growing numbers of asylum seekers throughout the world. As a Western nation, Australia has a role to play.

Myth 7 - There is no Alternative to Mandatory Detention

Fact: Asylum seekers claims need to be assessed for legitimacy. Australia is the only Western country that mandatorily detains asylum seekers whilst their claims are being heard. Asylum seekers are not criminals and detention should be minimal. At a cost of $104 a day per head the policy of detention is very expensive. Community based alternatives to mandatory detention can be found internationally and within the current Australian parole system.

A select Committee of the NSW Parliament has costed alternatives to incarceration including home detention and transitional housing. The average cost of community based programs are (per person, per day): Parole: $5.39. Probation: $3.94. Home Detention: $58.83. These options are clearly more economically efficient, and much more humane.

Sweden receives similar numbers of asylum seekers as Australia, despite having less than half the population. Detention is only used to establish a persons identity and to conduct criminal screening. Most detainees are released within a very short time, particularly if they have relatives or friends living in Sweden. Of the 17,000 asylum seekers currently in Sweden 10,000 reside outside the detention centres. Children are only detained for the minimum possible time (a maximum of 6 days).

Myth 8 - If We Let Them In, They'll Take Our Benefits

Fact: A common misconception is that refugees arriving in Australia will 'steal' the entitlements of Australians. The reality is that refugees, like migrants, create demand for goods and services, thus stimulating the economy and generating growth and employment. A recent UCLA study has shown that unauthorised immigration boosts the US economy by $800 billion per year.
Source (http://www.erc.org.au/issues/text/se01.htm)

On a sidenote, there are children born in these detention camps. Are they even nationals of any country? And what threat could they possibly pose?

According to the Nauru Wire Organization (we have detention camps over seas too) the babies born in detention are 'stateless.' I guess this means that it depends on if the mother is allowed to stay or not.

They also say that of those kept in our centre in Nauru 317 out of 350 are from either Afghanistan or Iraq

They came to Australia illeagaly. I disagree with how the whole thing is done, but the fact is that they shouldn't have "jumped the queue" with coming to Australia.

Ha!

Do you think Saddam would have let you out of the country legally if you were an Iraqi? In many of these countries, we don't have embassies anyway. There are no proper channels. The best they can do is land in Australia and claim asylum.

For example, there was a Sudanese illegal immigrant a little while ago (6 months or so) in Melbourne who raped 5 people, and robbed them. He'd been in Australia for 3 weeks and didn't speak any english.

There are also white Australians who do things like that. Shock, horror. One psychopathic rapist is not representative of all from his country.

I think that's where Kanabia and I disagree... :p

Oh, I didn't say we wouldn't have to shake up the system a little for it to happen ;)

According to the Nauru Wire Organization (we have detention camps over seas too) the babies born in detention are 'stateless.' I guess this means that it depends on if the mother is allowed to stay or not.

They also say that of those kept in our centre in Nauru 317 out of 350 are from either Afghanistan or Iraq

Poor kids. What if they become orphans, and are permanently stateless? :(

Oh, I didn't say we wouldn't have to shake up the system a little for it to happen ;)


Whoops, bad wording. I meant we (both of us!) disagree with Lacdaemon on the ability of parliamentary democracy to chang society. :p

Kanabia: Indeed, but that's why we have the lines, and applications! What great things these are, which have a chance of stopping people like that man from coming to Australia!

Preebles: My bad, I'll look into it some more, but don't consider any internet article to be completely truthful.

Yeah, great irony considering there have been so many immigrants coming to this country. Both my parents moved here before I was born, and at the moment I go to a school where there are a maximum of 5% pure Aussies.

What makes a 'pure Aussie'? being born here? Being white? Speaking only English? Is there a club? Are they aborigional?

I think you'll find that many from your school were either born here (this makes them second generation I guess) or are here for an education and plan to return to their homelands after finishing their their studies.

Preebles: My bad, I'll look into it some more, but don't consider any internet article to be completely truthful.
It's an academic article. I'd say that gives it a bit more weight than some loon venting his/her spleen...

Also Patra Caesar is right, by "pure Aussie" you mean indigenous, right?

Pure Aussies being the typical yobbos that everyone knows and loves. You know who I'm reffering to.

Poor kids. What if they become orphans, and are permanently stateless? :(

Jabba the Hutt, err, Amanda Vandstone will eat them. :eek:

No, I think the hypothetical orphan would either be posted to any living relative the government could find (which is kinda sad if the mother died to come here, only to have her child sent home) or they will become wards of the state. Which state I don't know, either the state they are detained in (unlikely IMHO) or the state from which they were fleeing.

Kanabia: Indeed, but that's why we have the lines, and applications! What great things these are, which have a chance of stopping people like that man from coming to Australia!


How do you tell, though? How can you tell that someone is going to flip out and do something like that in a few years? You can't.

And I maintain that most of these people don't have access to lines and applications. They have nowhere to apply to without entering the country.

Whoops, bad wording. I meant we (both of us!) disagree with Lacdaemon on the ability of parliamentary democracy to chang society. :p

Ah, I see. :D

Pure Aussies being the typical yobbos that everyone knows and loves. You know who I'm reffering to.

Ah, so your school is only 5% redneck? Nice! I wish I had gone to a school like that. ;)

Pure Aussies being the typical yobbos that everyone knows and loves. You know who I'm reffering to.

So english speaking white folk? :confused:

It's an academic article. I'd say that gives it a bit more weight than some loon venting his/her spleen...

Also Patra Caesar is right, by "pure Aussie" you mean indigenous, right?

Yeah, well look, as far as I can tell, i don't agree with the policy.

But you all are aussies, and you want to change it. So hopefully, it is on its last legs, even if you don't get your guy in power.

I mean, look how much more dovish Bush has got since he won his second term, you know.

Jabba the Hutt, err, Amanda Vandstone will eat them. :eek:

No, I think the hypothetical orphan would either be posted to any living relative the government could find (which is kinda sad if the mother died to come here, only to have her child sent home) or they will become wards of the state. Which state I don't know, either the state they are detained in (unlikely IMHO) or the state from which they were fleeing.

Ehh. She probably would, too >.>

Anyhow, I doubt their home nation would want them back. It'd be like those Vietnamese left in the Phillipines after the vietnam war, they belong to no state and Vietnam doesn't want them back, so therefore they have no rights.

(I have a source for that, but it's written, not online)

*hits cricketball in your direction*

Our new SDI system.

:D

Bah, I am safe under the Larwood/Jardine defence screen. I mock your SDI.

Oh, that's right, I mock it.

Yeah, well look, as far as I can tell, i don't agree with the policy.

But you all are aussies, and you want to change it. So hopefully, it is on its last legs, even if you don't get your guy in power.

No, it is just a vocal minority that are against this, the majority are misinformed by the government. They are told that all these boat people are terrorists and they come in droves (a few hundred every year) to take your jobs and benefits and commit crimes.

As for Howard becoming softer with a second election, HA! :p This is his fourth(or fifth, he was first elected in 1996 and is the nation's second longest serving PM) and he's intent on leading the party to the next election again and will probably win. As for 'my guy', there are very few these days that are worthy of respect. :(

So english speaking white folk? :confused:
Well we all know they were here first...

BTW, I wonder what Kim Beazley thinks of Peter Costello becoming the new leader of the opposition ? :D :p

I can't believe that any country would do such a thing. It's very bad and highly unnecessary.

Well we all know they were here first...

But Pauline was here before them! I mean she had established her fish'n'chip shop, and got her dancing shoes... :p

Did you hear? Next she is going to be in a musical? :eek: Now not only will I hate what she says I can hate what she sings too! :p She'd better dance better than she sings...

Pauline Pantsdown was awesome though! :D

Indeed Potaria? I can't believe a country would go to war and then change their reasons for going to war twice.

Patra Caesar, Preebles, I concede. You win. I'll look into this some more on the weekend.

No, it is just a vocal minority that are against this, the majority are misinformed by the government. They are told that all these boat people are terrorists and they come in droves (a few hundred every year) to take your jobs and benefits and commit crimes.

As for Howard becoming softer with a second election, HA! :p This is his fourth(or fifth, he was first elected in 1996 and is the nation's second longest serving PM) and he's intent on leading the party to the next election again and will probably win. As for 'my guy', there are very few these days that are worthy of respect. :(

Yah, but in my experience, these things usually pass away. After all, as you say a majority is against it already, so give it a chance. You know, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

And as far as I understand it, this is Howard's last term. As Harrased Wilsods said: "a weak id is a jung time in poll-tactics*".


* damn I wish BWO was here, she/he would get that reference.

Indeed Potaria? I can't believe a country would go to war and then change their reasons for going to war twice.

Nor can I, and I do not support my government in any way, shape, or form, in its current state.

Australia does it's fair share in assisting refugees, per capita the only nation who does better is Canada.

The number of refugees Australia takes in must be regulated as too many refugees in too short a space of time would inundate Australia's ability to provide assistance.

Refugees also need to enter the nation in an orderly fashion. Propper paperwork needs to be completed so that undesireable elements do not enter and so adiquate assistance is given.

To allow uncontrolled immigration to take place would leave refugees vulnerable to unsavoury elements within our society.

Illegal prostitution and sweatshops already use illegal immigrants as their workforce. To allow unrestricted migration would provide crminal elements with an unending supply of desperate people.

MORE INFO http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/migrating_refugee.htm

Refugees also need to enter the nation in an orderly fashion. Propper paperwork needs to be completed so that undesireable elements do not enter and so adiquate assistance is given.

To allow uncontrolled immigration to take place would leave refugees vulnerable to unsavoury elements within our society.

:rolleyes: *Sighs* No one is saying "Let's have open borders." They are saying that refugees should be treated better. It isn't either mandatory detention or open borders, there are other ways.

Illegal prostitution and sweatshops already use illegal immigrants as their workforce.

But surely the amount of good in the world has increased if these people are stitching ugg boots in a sweatshop for two dollars an hour as oppossed to dodging bullets for no dollars an hour?

Prostitution is still illegal in Australia? Damn, I'll have to see my member about that. I'm sure my member is willing to take a stand when it comes to sex workers.

But surely the amount of good in the world has increased if these people are stitching ugg boots in a sweatshop for two dollars an hour as oppossed to dodging bullets for no dollars an hour?

Prostitution is still illegal in Australia? Damn, I'll have to see my member about that. I'm sure my member is willing to take a stand when it comes to sex workers.

I know Prostitution is legal in Queensland...

Say if I'm over simplifying this but if you don't want to be locked up, enter our country legally. How are we too know that these immigrants harbour fundamentalist views against Australia, are drug dealers or have diseases or whatever, these people are NOT in jail there being processed to enter our country. Would you prefere them just being let into the country without even being asked there name? The Australian government has too represent public opinion and I'm sorry to say but those who are against mandatory detention and protesting are minorities, stats indicate most of Australia are in favour of this. Any less than this would be gross negligence on the part of the government and an stupid oversight in national security.

I know Prostitution is legal in Queensland...
It's legal in most, if not all states. What's illegal is "street prostitution."

Say if I'm over simplifying this but if you don't want to be locked up, enter our country legally. How are we too know that these immigrants harbour fundamentalist views against Australia, are drug dealers or have diseases or whatever, these people are NOT in jail there being processed to enter our country. Would you prefere them just being let into the country without even being asked there name? The Australian government has too represent public opinion and I'm sorry to say but those who are against mandatory detention and protesting are minorities, stats indicate most of Australia are in favour of this. Any less than this would be gross negligence on the part of the government and an stupid oversight in national security.

1) Read my post on the myths surrounding asylum seekers.
2) If the government is supposed to represent the majority, why did Australia go to war in Iraq, since the majority opposed it?

MORE INFO http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/migrating_refugee.htm

Just out of interest, how many refugees with no money, food and shelter do you know who can log onto the Australian immigration department's website and read (in English) how to apply to the UN (if the UN is anywhere near them) to become recognized as a refugee (which I imagine will take some time, especially if they require identification to be issued by the government they are fleeing from) while being under constant threat of death?

1) Read my post on the myths surrounding asylum seekers.
2) If the government is supposed to represent the majority, why did Australia go to war in Iraq, since the majority opposed it?

Whoa. The way our media reports it, you'd think the majority of Australians supported the war.

Prostitution is still illegal in Australia? Damn, I'll have to see my member about that. I'm sure my member is willing to take a stand when it comes to sex workers.

I said illegal prostitution, that is unregulated. Most women are forced into the trade and some are hooked on drugs to keep them from fleeing.

It is a sick and inhumane trade.



As for detention centres - they are required for those who do not enter our nation via legitimate means.

On the same note those who overstay their visas are transfered to detention centres before deportation.

Australia has recently been allowing Somalis to resettle, before that Iraqis. The Australian Government is not heartless, but nor is it a push over for those who trade in human misery, people smugglers.

Andaras Prime: I would hazard a guess that most Australians don't want to let drug dealers etc. into Australia. I would also hazard a guess that most Australians don't want innocent people, including children, locked up for one day longer than is required to determine they are not drug dealers etc.

Just out of interest, how many refugees with no money, food and shelter do you know who can log onto the Australian immigration department's website and read (in English) how to apply to the UN (if the UN is anywhere near them) to become recognized as a refugee (which I imagine will take some time, especially if they require identification to be issued by the government they are fleeing from) while being under constant threat of death?

These people enter how many UN run refugee camps?

These people cross how many other nations to get here?

These people spend how much money in an attempt to get to this country and all they need to do is contact our mission, consulate or embassy to enter a queue and get here for almost nothing?

Say if I'm over simplifying this but if you don't want to be locked up, enter our country legally. How are we too know that these immigrants harbour fundamentalist views against Australia, are drug dealers or have diseases or whatever, these people are NOT in jail there being processed to enter our country. Would you prefere them just being let into the country without even being asked there name?

You're right, people in jail have rights that these refugees do not. As for the 'it must be mandatory detention or it must be open borders where we don't even know their names' that is a load of crap, which had you actually bothered to read through the thread you would have realised that no one advocates that. :rolleyes:

Rather than just lock everyone up together, wouldn't it make more sense and make the country more secure if these people went through security checks, and then if they didn't pose a security risk (such as a child) could be released into some homecare facility while they waited to see if they would be recognized as a refugee?

Rather than just lock everyone up together, wouldn't it make more sense and make the country more secure if these people went through security checks, and then if they didn't pose a security risk (such as a child) could be released into some homecare facility while they waited to see if they would be recognized as a refugee?

So we break-up families?

2) If the government is supposed to represent the majority, why did Australia go to war in Iraq, since the majority opposed it?


That's not how it works. It's not a direct democracy.

I have a great idea to make everybody happy. Fine refugees for coming to Australia. This can be a great little money maker for the government. You can take the fine out of their wages when they get jobs. We go from detention being a minus on the budget to working refugees being a revenue earner. The money can be earmarked for training for low income Australians who are most likely to feel downward pressure on wages if the refugee intake is increased.

And yes, some refugees will commit crimes, but are refugees more likely to commit crimes that the average Australian? If it turns out that they are less likely to commit crimes than the average Australian, then one way to decrease the crime rate per person would be to allow more refugees in.

It'd be great if the person who started this thread had presented straight facts rather than a ridiculously humanitarian skewed view.The fact of the matter is we have to detain these people until we know what they're doing coming to Australia. Now i'll agree their conditions drastically need to be improved but purely due to the sheer number of illigal immigrants (and make no mistake, assylum seeker or not, these peeople are still breaking the law) it takes a long time to process them all. It's just not feasible or smart to let them roam free whilst we decide if they have a right to be jumping ahead of people migrating here legally or worse still, if they're simply here to blow shit up. Neither extreme works, what we need is a balance. mandatory detention in decent conditions and more people working to process these people.

As Harrased Wilsods said: "a weak id is a jung time in poll-tactics*".


LOL!

LOL!


Finally, someone gets it.

Australia's asylum seekers policy is disgustingly outrageous. I have visited Villawood detention centre, and it's absolutely awful. The guards were really rude to us as visitors, can you imagine how they must treat the asylum seekers? It makes me sick.
I've met asylum seekers who have been released from detention and are on temporary relief visas, they all seemed really lovely and many are educated also.

Anyway, I better not get started on this subject as it is something I am very passionate about and I have a ton of other work to do *sigh*.

first of all, no ques to jump? they came via indoneasia, so there would have been plenty of countries that they went through that had australian diplomatic establisments. i mean just outside iraq you have jordan, saudi arabia, kuait(sp) and turkey, all of which have australian embasies. afganistan shares its border with pakistan, and there would be an australian embasy there too.
second, i lived down the road from womera. when it closed down, they auctioned the gear that was there. there were lots of computers and stuff. they were treated better than some aussies.
thirdly, anyone who says 'oh, but you only have a population of 20 million', we barely have the essential natural resourses, ie water, to cover that population as it is, let alone more people who rocked up on our doorstep.
whilst i dont exactly agree with mandatory detention (sucks up much needed tax-payers money), i also dont agree with people assuming they can land in a place and be given a visa. and i bet, even though you dont hear about it, we are not the only country who has that kind of policy. i have heard of the USA shooting people before they hit the shore and claim asylum.

It's a fact, mandatory detention is necessary for any state. If not for security reasons then for public health reasons.

During the last 2 years, government policy on refugees has become far less prohibitive. The Department of Immigration and Mulicultural Affairs is now legally obligated to provide legal advice to applicants on how to apply for permanent residence. And by the way, it was the "liberal" (as in actual meaning) Labor Party who brought in the idea of mandatory detention, not the conservatives.

TO ALL THE POMMY BASTARDS: While your "convicts" were doing hard time in Australia (learning to surf, beach activities, playing rugby), your people where throwing shit onto the street because they they lived in one of the most disgustingly unhygienic societies to ever exist. (However, I love London).

In conclusion, detention is necessary, however, it should be kept to a minimum (one detainee costs on average $70,000 per year). And both the major parties are in agreeance (the Greens, Democrats, One Nation and Family First will never make it in Australia-sorry).

By the way, its not against the law to detain refugees. Any well respected lawyer will tell you this. Australia, with EVERY SINGLE OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD does not listen to everything the U.N. (a toothless tiger, and unfair (considering Australia should have a permanent place on the SC...along with NZ and Canada)) says.

By the way, its not against the law to detain refugees. Any well respected lawyer will tell you this. Australia, with EVERY SINGLE OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD does not listen to everything the U.N. (a toothless tiger, and unfair (considering Australia should have a permanent place on the SC...along with NZ and Canada)) says.

I don't think anyone was saying it is illegal, just ethically and fiscally questionable.

It's a fact, mandatory detention is necessary for any state.

If it is necessary you would expect most, if not all (being necessary) countries would employ mandatory detention, as far as I know there are few who do have a mandatory detention policy.

So we break-up families?

While not ideal, I do think it is in children's interests not to be raised in detention centres. Of course this needs to be done on an individual case by case basis and most importantly it has to be a judgement that is in the child's best interests.

These people enter how many UN run refugee camps?

These people cross how many other nations to get here?

These people spend how much money in an attempt to get to this country and all they need to do is contact our mission, consulate or embassy to enter a queue and get here for almost nothing?

While there are a number of refugee camps throughout the world not everyone is able to access them. Just because you are in another country does not mean that you are safe from the threat which you are running from.

As for how much money they spend, not all refugees pay to get on boats, some make small rafts and are usually doomed. Those that do pay usually spend their life savings and the money they get from selling their posessions. If you are after an actual number I can't give you one, however I have heard everything from $300 to $3000. So why do they sell everything they have? Because there is little other choice. Because Australia has a maximum quota of refugees it will allow in each year few are able to come that way. It does not do them much good to be waiting in a queue while being shot at.

If it is necessary you would expect most, if not all (being necessary) countries would employ mandatory detention, as far as I know there are few who do have a mandatory detention policy.
which is because they are very good at hiding it. i mean, it would be more easier for iraqis to head north through turkey into europe, notably the EU, than to travel all the way to australia.
While there are a number of refugee camps throughout the world not everyone is able to access them. Just because you are in another country does not mean that you are safe from the threat which you are running from.

As for how much money they spend, not all refugees pay to get on boats, some make small rafts and are usually doomed. Those that do pay usually spend their life savings and the money they get from selling their posessions. If you are after an actual number I can't give you one, however I have heard everything from $300 to $3000. So why do they sell everything they have? Because there is little other choice. Because Australia has a maximum quota of refugees it will allow in each year few are able to come that way. It does not do them much good to be waiting in a queue while being shot at.
so they are going to get shot at while waiting in an Australian Embasy in Jordon. or Saudi Arabia. or Turkey. or Egypt. or Pakistan. or India. or Bangladesh. or Thailand. or Malaysia. or Singapore. or Indonesia.... see where i am going?

[QUOTE=Preebles]Of course they want to be here, they risked life and limb to get here. Aren't they the kind of people we want here? But wait... they're the wrong colour/religion and it wins the government support to say they're "making Australia more secure." UGH.
[QUOTE]

Explain that to the family of the police officer that got killed in that London raid on the illegal immigrant who was al-Queda and wanted to poison London water, potentially killing thousands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4433709.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442219.stm

I disagree with the dentention centres but we can not have that happen here. Instead of protesting, organise rallies for federal funds and fundraising for faster processing to allow legitimate refugees in.

You're right, people in jail have rights that these refugees do not. As for the 'it must be mandatory detention or it must be open borders where we don't even know their names' that is a load of crap, which had you actually bothered to read through the thread you would have realised that no one advocates that. :rolleyes:

Rather than just lock everyone up together, wouldn't it make more sense and make the country more secure if these people went through security checks, and then if they didn't pose a security risk (such as a child) could be released into some homecare facility while they waited to see if they would be recognized as a refugee?

Kind of hard when they burn identity documents.

It'd be great if the person who started this thread had presented straight facts rather than a ridiculously humanitarian skewed view.The fact of the matter is we have to detain these people until we know what they're doing coming to Australia. Now i'll agree their conditions drastically need to be improved but purely due to the sheer number of illigal immigrants (and make no mistake, assylum seeker or not, these peeople are still breaking the law) it takes a long time to process them all. It's just not feasible or smart to let them roam free whilst we decide if they have a right to be jumping ahead of people migrating here legally or worse still, if they're simply here to blow shit up. Neither extreme works, what we need is a balance. mandatory detention in decent conditions and more people working to process these people.

I agree. When Illegal Immigrants represent 10% of your population like mine, your going to have alot of social and economic problems sooner or later. It's necessary, though mistakes do happen (like your story at the beginning).

Of course i support this policy, you hippie.

Hey i think your old Combi vans are leaving for the Woomera Detention Center, get moving or youll miss out on some senseless, violent riot.

WAke Up

I have a great idea to make everybody happy. Fine refugees for coming to Australia. This can be a great little money maker for the government. You can take the fine out of their wages when they get jobs. We go from detention being a minus on the budget to working refugees being a revenue earner. The money can be earmarked for training for low income Australians who are most likely to feel downward pressure on wages if the refugee intake is increased.

It's a dangerous double edged sword. Soon you'll find companies hiring low cost workers to do simple things, and eventually weed out your own workers. Who wants to pay an Australian labourer few times more when you can hire an Indonesian for alot less?

Sure it would push up competition greatly. But the standard of living you'd sacrifice for it. Your own citizens would be eating up the dole as they can't find work because all its given away to the immigrants.

Of course i support this policy, you hippie.

Hey i think your old Combi vans are leaving for the Woomera Detention Center, get moving or youll miss out on some senseless, violent riot.

WAke Up
hehe, that reminds me of the time there was a walk from womera to canberra or sydney. i past them at a rest stop between womera and pt augusta when i was on my way to visit my folks at pt pirie, the on the pirie side of augusta on the way back to roxby.... i wonder how far they got. and also, to correct you, they are not at womera anymore. it is baxter just outside augusta now. as i said in a previous post, a couple mates went down to the auction after it closed, and the suff they had there was better than what most normal aussies (those born here) get.

It's a fact, mandatory detention is necessary for any state.

so your claim is that if something is a state, then it has a policy of mandatory detention. therefore, since australia didn't have such a policy before 1992, it must not have existed.

so your claim is that if something is a state, then it has a policy of mandatory detention. therefore, since australia didn't have such a policy before 1992, it must not have existed.

Your really stupid arnt you?

:rolleyes:

I have a great idea to make everybody happy. Fine refugees for coming to Australia. This can be a great little money maker for the government. You can take the fine out of their wages when they get jobs. We go from detention being a minus on the budget to working refugees being a revenue earner. The money can be earmarked for training for low income Australians who are most likely to feel downward pressure on wages if the refugee intake is increased.

And yes, some refugees will commit crimes, but are refugees more likely to commit crimes that the average Australian? If it turns out that they are less likely to commit crimes than the average Australian, then one way to decrease the crime rate per person would be to allow more refugees in.
ummmm..... how can we fine them? they have no money. they spent it getting over here. also, how are they going to get jobs, without speaking english or any recognised qualifications? also, coming from an uneployed person's perspective (i have no qualifications, and yes i am looking), i know there isnt enough jobs to go around, so why should they get preference over the unemployed in australia (those actually looking for jobs, i might add. we are all not lazing around, doing nothing, or expecting a job to fall in our laps)

Of course i support this policy, you hippie.

Hey i think your old Combi vans are leaving for the Woomera Detention Center, get moving or youll miss out on some senseless, violent riot.

WAke Up

You voted for Pauline Hanson, didn't you.

No liberals

though the democrats might be ok

family first mayby

No liberals

though the democrats might be ok

family first mayby
bugger family first. i put them in the same catagory as the old Call To Australia, now Christian Democrats (is that an oxy moron) fred niles group. i voted democrats, then greens as second choice at the last election...

GREENS

OMG

Dont u eva do it again!!!

GREENS

OMG

Dont u eva do it again!!!
hehe, what can i say, i have no faith in the 'big' two....
go figure, my grandfather voted liberal, my father votes labour, and i vote democrat..

That's not how it works. It's not a direct democracy.
I know, I was just retorting to a "point" made by a previous poster.

And Scnarf, you're obviously confused if you consider voting for the Dems OR Family First. Aren't they rather different? Family First = Christian Fascists.

Even though I'm anti-fake democracy, I voted Greens, since they are the least evil of all the moderately large parties... They polled really well in my seat too, more than the Liberals.

And no... I'm not a hippie. LOL!1!1!!!!OMG!!!!!! (Sorry, feeling sarcastic... PMS you understand)

Get rid of the camps, that are left, and just fly them all back, it will be alot cheaper on the taxpayer.

I know, I was just retorting to a "point" made by a previous poster.

And Scnarf, you're obviously confused if you consider voting for the Dems OR Family First. Aren't they rather different? Family First = Christian Fascists.

Even though I'm anti-fake democracy, I voted Greens, since they are the least evil of all the moderately large parties... They polled really well in my seat too, more than the Liberals.

And no... I'm not a hippie. LOL!1!1!!!!OMG!!!!!! (Sorry, feeling sarcastic... PMS you understand)
actually, i think you are thinking of the christian democrats, not family first, although you could pretty much lump them both together anyway. and i am not a hippie either, i just chose greens second coz i am sick of labor and liberals. both are as hopless as the other

Get rid of the camps, that are left, and just fly them all back, it will be alot cheaper on the taxpayer.
1) post once, not 3 times. 2) where too? they destroyed there identification papers, so where do we know they actually came from?

1) post once, not 3 times. 2) where too? they destroyed there identification papers, so where do we know they actually came from?

Yeah Ill fix that, it wasnt intentional.
Now why would they destroy their ID? Do you think they might have had something to hide?
Determining where they came from could be as simple as a brief interrogation I wont go into, but Im sure you get the drift.

actually, i think you are thinking of the christian democrats, not family first, although you could pretty much lump them both together anyway. and i am not a hippie either, i just chose greens second coz i am sick of labor and liberals. both are as hopless as the other
Nah, I was thinking of Family First although the Christian Democrats are frightening too. FF has made some bloody frightening statements, like "lesbians are witches who should burn at the stake," and most of their candidates are pastors. Sadly, with the evangelical craze sweeping Australia (and with creepy, pop-culture, money glorifying churches like Hillsong growing insanely fast) this kind of message will find sympathetic ears. I recently heard from a MEDICAL STUDENT who doesn't believe in evolution. Crazy. That basically negates everything we learn in science.

Nah, I was thinking of Family First although the Christian Democrats are frightening too. FF has made some bloody frightening statements, like "lesbians are witches who should burn at the stake," and most of their candidates are pastors. Sadly, with the evangelical craze sweeping Australia (and with creepy, pop-culture, money glorifying churches like Hillsong growing insanely fast) this kind of message will find sympathetic ears. I recently heard from a MEDICAL STUDENT who doesn't believe in evolution. Crazy. That basically negates everything we learn in science.
yeah, obviously you havent heard about fred niles. he is just as bad, and he is the one behind the Christian Democrats (i still think that is an oxy moron)

It's funny we put refugees into these nice camps and let the real terrorists run around Australia with false passports.

ummmm..... how can we fine them? they have no money.

They owe it until they are making money, then start to pay it back. This makes Australia a less attractive destination to economic migrants who might pose as refugees.

also, how are they going to get jobs, without speaking english or any recognised qualifications?

I dunno, same way my dad got work when he came here without any English? Took him six weeks to learn it while working as a labourer on a construction site. You can learn a lot of vocabulary when a carpenter hits his thumb with a hammer.

also, coming from an uneployed person's perspective (i have no qualifications, and yes i am looking), i know there isnt enough jobs to go around,

As for unemployment, lower the minimum wage and institute a negative income tax for Australian citizens and long term residents. A lot of refugees have a lot of skills, even if many don't have formal qualifications. The lack of qualifications, and the freedom in this country are why so many immigrants create their own businesses. A lot of them become millionaries. My dad worked sixty hour weeks for 40 years and at one point owned three businesses and employed 25 people. He worked like a Chinaman. It's hard to find a lazy bludger among first generation imigrants.

Also, improved funding of Tafe and other forms of training would help upgrade the skills of the workforce and make more work availible for new arrivals who don't have skills.

so why should they get preference over the unemployed in australia

No, they compete for jobs from employers same as everyone else. It would be pretty stupid if they had some kind of special preference. The only special preference they might have is the same kind of help Australians give to anyone who might need a hand, or is down on their luck.

It's funny we put refugees into these nice camps and let the real terrorists run around Australia with false passports.

Yeah well we cant catch them all, especially with a large middle eastern community unfortunately in our midsts now, thats all too accommodating.

Yeah Ill fix that, it wasnt intentional.
Now why would they destroy their ID? Do you think they might have had something to hide?
Determining where they came from could be as simple as a brief interrogation I wont go into, but Im sure you get the drift.

Or that same identification (if they were ever issued any) could put them in danger of being identified by a government that is not adverse to spilling their blood.

so they are going to get shot at while waiting in an Australian Embasy in Jordon. or Saudi Arabia. or Turkey. or Egypt. or Pakistan. or India. or Bangladesh. or Thailand. or Malaysia. or Singapore. or Indonesia.... see where i am going?

Yes I see where you are going and I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, bad connection.

However, if they did join a queue at a secondary destination (assuming that a queue is available, which isn't everywhere) and they are genuine refugees they may still not get into Australia. They may have had to flee to a neighbouring country that is on friendly terms with those that are trying to harm the refugees (or have extradition treaties), or like in Darfur even though across the border they are still not far enough away to be free from danger.

yeah, obviously you havent heard about fred niles. he is just as bad, and he is the one behind the Christian Democrats (i still think that is an oxy moron)
Um, smartypants, I NEVER said that the CD's weren't bad, I was just making a point about Family First. I know Fred Nile is a crazy fundie freak.

They owe it until they are making money, then start to pay it back. This makes Australia a less attractive destination to economic migrants who might pose as refugees.



I dunno, same way my dad got work when he came here without any English? Took him six weeks to learn it while working as a labourer on a construction site. You can learn a lot of vocabulary when a carpenter hits his thumb with a hammer.



As for unemployment, lower the minimum wage and institute a negative income tax for Australian citizens and long term residents. A lot of refugees have a lot of skills, even if many don't have formal qualifications. The lack of qualifications, and the freedom in this country are why so many immigrants create their own businesses. A lot of them become millionaries. My dad worked sixty hour weeks for 40 years and at one point owned three businesses and employed 25 people. He worked like a Chinaman. It's hard to find a lazy bludger among first generation imigrants.

Also, improved funding of Tafe and other forms of training would help upgrade the skills of the workforce and make more work availible for new arrivals who don't have skills.



No, they compete for jobs from employers same as everyone else. It would be pretty stupid if they had some kind of special preference. The only special preference they might have is the same kind of help Australians give to anyone who might need a hand, or is down on their luck.
looks good on paper, wont work in practice. no government is going to fork out money for this kind of proposal, plus we have enough unemployed in australia already. as i said, this is coming from the prospecive of someone who is unemployed and does want a job. also, remember this: your dad worked for 40 years. thus he arrived here 40 years ago, in the 1960s (just an estimate from the information you gave me). the situation then and now is vastly different, economic, political and social. your idea may have worked in the 60s or 70s, but probably wouldnt today.

Yes I see where you are going and I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, bad connection.

However, if they did join a queue at a secondary destination (assuming that a queue is available, which isn't everywhere) and they are genuine refugees they may still not get into Australia. They may have had to flee to a neighbouring country that is on friendly terms with those that are trying to harm the refugees (or have extradition treaties), or like in Darfur even though across the border they are still not far enough away to be free from danger.
i listed 11 countries there. all of which would have embasies for at least 50 different coutries, including canada, USA, and european nations. maybe one or two would have extradition treaties with either iraq or afganistan. so you are telling me, that they travelled over 2000 km, illegaly entering at least 7 countries, destroying their papers (which makes me wonder in the first place) to get to australia, when they could go through 1 or 2 countries, go to an australian, canadian, american, or european embasy to apply for assylum? using the addage 'they wouldnt feel safe' is a cop out.

Your really stupid arnt you?

:rolleyes:

i merely restated their claim. whether their claim was stupid or not has no bearing on my stupidity

so you are telling me, that they travelled over 2000 km, illegaly entering at least 7 countries, destroying their papers (which makes me wonder in the first place) to get to australia, when they could go through 1 or 2 countries, go to an australian, canadian, american, or european embasy to apply for assylum? using the addage 'they wouldnt feel safe' is a cop out.

Why do they necessarily travel through a minimum of seven countries? I remember reading news reports of the boat people from Vietnam after the withdrawal where people would just get on boats and travel south. Many of them stopped at Indonesia, but not all.

It is my understanding that just because you apply for asylum at an embassy in a country you were forced to flee into (or even in your own country) they do not necessarily let you in. Even if they do I imagine while your claim is being processed you would have to find accomodation outside of the embassy.

looks good on paper, wont work in practice. no government is going to fork out money for this kind of proposal, plus we have enough unemployed in australia already.

The United States forks out money for a negative income tax. You would think such legislation would be even easier to pass in battler friendly Australia. If you don't want to shell out for a negative income tax, just lower the minimum wage. The money saved from unemployment benefits can be used to top up the wages of low income citizens and long term residents. Is that revenue neutral enough for you?

the situation then and now is vastly different, economic, political and social. your idea may have worked in the 60s or 70s, but probably wouldnt today.

What's so different? Sure there are less construction and labouring work available as a portion of the workforce, but there are more service sector jobs. More people are willing to pay for house cleaning, gardening, hair styling, beauty treatment, ironing, etc. Surely we need more people coming into Australia now that the population is much older? Australian births are much lower than replacment rates.

Sure there are less construction and labouring work available as a portion of the workforce, but there are more service sector jobs. More people are willing to pay for house cleaning, gardening, hair styling, beauty treatment, ironing, etc.

I thought there was a high demand for construction workers and labourers still...

[QUOTE=Patra Caesar]Or that same identification (if they were ever issued any) could put them in danger of being identified by a government that is not adverse to spilling their blood.
QUOTE]

Shit happens I guess.