Over the past few weeks as the asylum debate has heated up, rumours and myths have been circulating with well-rehearsed mantras being repeated about the good, the bad and the downright ugly of asylum politics.
Here’s a few of the most pernicious untruths, and how they are shattered in the face of evidence-based research. We’d love to hear if you have any others.
Myth one: there is an ‘orderly’ resettlement process
The notion that Australia’s offshore refugee program is a perfect system, where more deserving refugees wait patiently in some kind of queue, is something that gets trucked out by people on both sides of the political divide. Most recently by the current Immigration Minister Chris Bowen and Former Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone. Research on the refugee experience emphasises a number of themes – most often violence, marginalisation and unpredictability, not orderly queues and a known future.
The most immediate problem with refugee resettlement process is the lack of available places. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that with 800,000 refugees globally in need of protection and only 80,000 places offered annually by countries around the world, “only one in every ten refugees at risk and in need of resettlement will be able to secure the protection they require through this durable solution”.
This makes for pretty stark numbers: closer to home, in a recent evaluation of its Malaysian operations, UNHCR reported 7300 resettlement cases departing in 2009 and nearly 8000 in 2010, many fewer than the places that could be taken up by some of the 100,000 refugees and asylum-seekers residing in Malaysia. Of course not everyone wants to be resettled (many people opt to be voluntarily repatriated or integrate locally in a country) or will be found eligible for resettlement. No one country is going to solve the plight of the world’s refugees through resettlement alone but more countries taking part in resettlement programs will help.
As demand grows, refugee resettlement has also become highly contentious and complicated. Ethnographic studies and NGO reports of resettlement show it to be a negotiated and imperfect process. For example, a scandal in 2001 revealed that bribes were being paid to staff at the UNHCR office in Kenya by refugees hoping to get their resettlement applications prioritised.
Australia conducts interviews with all of its refugee applicants, including those referred by UNHCR, which can make the application process slow. Perhaps some improvements could be achieved by getting more cases referred from reputable NGOs who work closely with refugees and streamlining the interview to a desk review of cases – which is how the USA handles its large resettlement program. Getting to a UNHCR office, or a local Australian embassy can be risky or near impossible for many refugees.
It is true that all people arriving by boat or air who are accepted as refugees do reduce the number of places available to people waiting offshore. But this is due to the decision by the Australian government to link the (onshore and offshore) programs so that everyone competes for the same pool of resettlement places.
To change this would involve a simple bureaucratic decision that can be reversed at any time.
Myth two: there is a ‘typical’ refugee
The work of scholars like Aristide Zolberg and James Jupp provides a historical backdrop to the situations that cause people to flee their homes as refugees and the profile of people who leave. It is remarkable for its breadth and diversity.
Refugee arrival trends across the decades from Indo-China in the 1970s, the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka today, reflect contemporary crises. We can no sooner predict where the next group of refugees will emerge from than we can their demographic profile.
What we do know from the work of Zolberg in particular is that refugees flee for persecution-based reasons and also as a consequence of state or regime change. For example a large proportion of the latest refugee arrivals in the European Union originate from Libya and Tunisia – states undergoing major changes. Today’s asylum-seekers will most likely not be the same profile in future and this is why an asylum policy should be centred on long-term strategies rather than concentrating on specific refugee groups.
Finally, a lot of interesting research has shown how we have become accustomed to refugees fitting a certain prototype or image. Barbara Harrell-Bond, Founding Director of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, has helped us to re-consider refugees as “the eye of many a political storm", rather than the way NGO appeals or media portrayals would have us see them – as helpless victims. It is worth reflecting on how this feeds a perception of a “grateful” refugee that is pitted against a mythical “queue-jumping” asylum-seeker.
Myth three: people are being ‘pulled’ to Australia
Many comments to The Conversation’s Expert Panel Blog have suggested that asylum-seekers are drawn to Australia because of what it offers. Research by Dr Khalid Koser for the UK Home Office found that “asylum seekers may arrive in destination countries without detailed knowledge of asylum policies, even where they have established social networks."
This is because “many asylum seekers leave their country of origin under duress, and do not have the time to mobilise social networks or to evaluate information about potential destinations”.
As asylum seekers worldwide spend more and more waiting time in countries of transit, they may become dependent on information from people smugglers. Whether they trust the information they are given, if they are given it at all, is unclear and so-called “deterrence” strategies are questionable.
What other myths persist about asylum seekers who come to Australia? Do you have any questions for our panel? Leave your thoughts below.
Read the rest of The Conversation’s asylum seeker coverage:
Asylum seekers and Australia: the evidence
The Conversation panel on asylum seekers: meet the experts
Infographic: global refugee populations 1975-2010
Refugee intake starts in the region: making a difference in regional burden sharing
Refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia: the good, the bad and the unexpected
What does the Australian public really think about asylum seekers?
Resettling refugees: the evidence supports increasing our intake
What role does Australia play in accepting the world’s refugees?
Who are Australia’s ‘boat people’, and why don’t they get on planes?
There’s no evidence that asylum seeker deterrence policy works
There’s more to regional collaboration than the Malaysia Arrangement
How immigration policy harms asylum seekers' mental health
Asylum seekers in Indonesia: why do they get on boats?
Preventing deaths at sea: asking the experts on asylum seekers
Dan Abrahmsen
Public Servant
While economic refugees might not be mentioned in the legal definition, Zimbabwean migration into RSA has surely blurred the definition. There is, I believe, a mistaken perception that an economic refugee isn't a "real" refugee and that economic reasons are the only motivation for many refugees rather than being one of many.
There seems to be a perception that jumping on a boat to come from Sri Lanka or Malaysia is a cynical move on the part of the asylum seeker to come to Australia for the better…
Read moreMarilyn Shepherd
pensioner
There has never been a law saying refugees have to apply in the first country.
Dalit Prawasi
Auditor, Accountant, Trade Teacher
“Refugee arrival trends across the decades from Indo-China in the 1970s, the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka today, reflect contemporary crises. We can no sooner predict where the next group of refugees will emerge from than we can their demographic profile.”
The writer is either not aware or is stating a blatant lie. The so called refugees from Sri Lanka are not just arrivals of today.
Read moreThis takes me back almost thirty years to a rally at the former city square in…
Marilyn Shepherd
pensioner
The media myth now is that if only the politicians in this country could agree the mechanism for expulsions we could legally flog asylum seekers off to other countries.
They show no interest in learning what the law is, no interest in arcane things like facts or anything else and none of the buffoons ever stop to think that the asylum seekers who come here have already been pushed to the absolute end of the line for protection and pushing them back is utterly illegal.
Many seem to think that refugees come here to have a joyful sail on the high seas and they drive me insane.
Another myth is the people smuggling babble.
It is not people smuggling when it is the refugees who make the decisions, it is only people smuggling if the refugees can somehow be coeced to leave home and that does not and never has happened.
Which part of everyone has the right to seek asylum don't our media and politicians understand? And how can that be compromised? Where is the wriggle room?
Kenneth Mazzarol
Kenneth Mazzarol is a Friend of The Conversation.
Retired
There have been millions of people from all nations come to Australia since Australia was discovered. As late as 1970 hundreds of boat people were landing from Vietnam and I was teaching them Design and Technology at Mt Lawley SHS.
The only risk, as I see it, is letting in the radicals who seem intent on forcing our society to accept their ideas. We seem to be a law abiding society, to a fault.
Bruce Moon
Bystander!
Melissa
I appreciate the way you have constructed the article. On the subject of refugees, remaining fact-based, rather than driven by ideology, is refreshing.
You ask...
"What other myths persist about asylum seekers who come to Australia? Do you have any questions for our panel? Leave your thoughts below."
Above, you have written on (1) orderly (re)settlement and (2) a 'typical' refugee.
As you point out, these 'myths' are part of the current domestic agenda about refugee immigration…
Read moreMelissa Phillips
Doctoral Candidate at University of Melbourne
Thanks for the comments Bruce, we'll take them on board as the panel progresses for sure - stay tuned for more great opinion this week.
DMK
logged in via Twitter
The first and last "myths" haven't quite been debunked.
Re the first: it may not be "orderly" to you, but there is a process that gives Australia the ability to select who we take based on criteria that we choose, as opposed to the criteria of who can get here. Also,
> "To change this would involve a simple bureaucratic decision that can be reversed at any time."
... and the allocation of millions of dollars. It's amazing how people tend to forget that things cost money.
As for the third point, asylum seekers that arrive in Australia do not generally come directly from their country of origin, but most often have been through at least one intermediate country. There must be a reason why they would choose to travel to Australia rather than remaining in Indonesia or Malaysia -- that is some form of "pull" factor.
Marilyn Shepherd
pensioner
So what? Everyone who is not an Indonesian, New Zealander, Papuan or Timorese comes through or over many countries and it makes not a jot of difference to anything.
Coming directly means coming directly to a signatory nation and those who arrive here have all come directly to a signatory nation as there has been nowhere in between to claim refugees status under any laws.
Why don't you go and do some more reading and homework and then ask why we never whinge about asylum seekers who fly here from as far away as Peru, Brazil, China, Jordan, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Moldova, Russia, Israel, and everywhere in between.
Debbie Hoad
student at University of Canberra
"It is true that all people arriving by boat or air who are accepted as refugees do reduce the number of places available to people waiting offshore. But this is due to the decision by the Australian government to link the (onshore and offshore) programs so that everyone competes for the same pool of resettlement places.
To change this would involve a simple bureaucratic decision that can be reversed at any time."
Really? A SIMPLE decision? Does refugees arriving offshore magically create more resources for resettlement? No. So what choice is there but to link those programs together and use the same pool or resettlement places? There's nothing simple about this issue and (in my opinion) it's not helpful to suggest there is.
Marilyn Shepherd
pensioner
It is very simple. Resettlement is a voluntary scheme that costs taxpayers about $60,000 per person to import refugees as migrants.
Asylum seekers pay their own way and they are the only people we have a legal obligation to.
De link them and stop pretending they are the same thing can be done tomorrow or at the click of the fingers today.
Philip Dowling
IT teacher
“asylum seekers may arrive in destination countries without detailed knowledge of asylum policies, even where they have established social networks."
When I see studies that are so bold as to use the word "may" , I wonder about the validity of any policies based on them.
A lierature search will reveal that questions asked of people caliming to be refugees are available for sale in Kabul and Peshawar and Kandahar.
A certain well-known refugee advocate's phone number has been well known to people in many boats.
Comments published in Australian newspapers by "refugees" have shown that they are exceptionally well-informed about Australia's refugee policies.
Marilyn Shepherd
pensioner
Only the Iranians and Iraqis and if they are aware that we are a liberal democracy who is a signatory to the refugee convention why is that somehow sinister.
Andrew Smith
Education Consultant at Australian & International Education Centre
Dinner parties turning into WWIII are caused by mentioning refugees and Aborigines (plus the potential of house prices falling).
Refugees in the politics and media are one part of an overarching narrative where it is just one of several issues that can play up to a broad audience including racists, anti immigration lobby, nativists, environmental lobby, anti growth lobby etc. etc.
Whether pronouncements are true or entirely accurate is not important, what is important is the idea of fear or alarm, and plenty of race related buttons to apportion "blame" including refugees, "foreign" students from Asia (who have driven "runaway population growth"), immigrants, "foreign" workers, "carrying capacity", "they" don't speak English, "they" are given benefits and waste "our" taxes.....
Says something about the maturity of Australian society when issues that have little impact our own lives are used to distract from more pressing national issues? But that is probably the idea.......
Dalit Prawasi
Auditor, Accountant, Trade Teacher
Busting a myth, call a spade a spade
1. There are no such people as people smugglers unless they bring them in body bags or in an enclosed space like in the back of a refregeration van. Such smugglers are found in Europe.
2. The poor Indonesian youth who are in jail for providing passage to persons who are prepared to pay for the service theyb get are not criminals. They are merely selling their service whether they ply from Indinesia to Australia or between islands within Indonesia.
We should immediately release these young people and let them settle here if they wish to do so.
3. The real culprits are the ones who live off the refugee business and those who sponsors and pay for the passage of these "asylum-refugees" they be individuals or institutions.
Please note my busters do not apply to refugees from conflicts that we are involved like Afganistan.
Philip Dowling
IT teacher
The Carers Alliance Party was recently deregistered as a political party by the AEC.
They have finally given up in despair. After all, the people they try to represent are merely Australian citizens.
Melissa of course acts as advocate for non Australian citizens who have access to substantial multiples of average wage in the countries they come from.
The billion dollars spent on these middle and upper class foreigners would have been useful in the recent NDIS discussions.
So should UNE be decommisioned as an unaffordable luxury or should the disabled be left to lie in their faeces, Melissa?
Rosemary Holmes
Retired
It would seem that people smuggling from Indonesia to Australia is big business, if you take the cost of the fare (said to be $10K) 100 people per boat would be $1M. The boat is old and costs little because it will either sink or be burned by Australian officials and the boys hired to man the boat will either drown or be imprisoned in Australia. All the hot air in the Australian parliament won't stop this lucrative enterprise.
Marilyn Shepherd
pensioner
There are no smugglers doing anything. It is not smuggling, it is people seeking asylum and the so-called smugglers are simply other refugees.
The fare is a gross exaggeration, that cost is overall cost of travel from home countries, bribes to be paid, accommodation and other expenses sometimes for months on end.
Do stop reading the crap media.
Rosemary Holmes
Retired
I know they are refugees, but it is also a money making business to transport them here.
Rosemary Holmes
Retired
I err in using the term "people sugglers" from the media. As they also err in calling the refugees "queue jumpers" and "illegal immigrants".
Danderson
logged in via Twitter
Did you know that our courts are sending people to jail for this non offence?
http://www.news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8503796/fisherman-jailed-for-people-smuggling
The Supreme Court in Brisbane heard on Monday that Selu, who pleaded guilty to one count of organising the bringing of non-citizens to Australia, was to be paid less than $1200 for the trip.