Digging deeper beyond the lies and clichés, Nauru, Manus, refugees, border control

First thing most seem to not understand.

Reasons asylum seekers flee and become refugees is many, war, famine, persecution of different kinds etc

Most refugees can't afford to flee far and many want to return home once situations change.

Media/public like to paint all refugees with one brush however refugees generally fall into two categories.

1. Refugees who will never be able to return home or very unlikely to ever return home as change in circumstances are unlikely or they are stateless.

2. Refugees who in time are highly likely to be able to return home and rebuild their lives.

Obviously when resettling refugees (not hosting-temporay protection) preference should to those who will be very unlikely to ever be able to return home, although offshore resettlement programs are run like a lottery we do give priority to these people especially high risk groups (like LGBTQ refugees who will be persecuted in most developing countries )

Now the thing often overlooked is just because a refugee on Manus or Nauru was assessed as genuine 5 years ago, doesn't mean if they were assessed today they would sill be a genuine refugees (if it is safe for them to return home)

In the past year USA assessment has found 121 of 383 people on Nauru to no longer be genuine refugees and were rejected from being resettled in the USA

Over 30% of these people where from Iran, which although refugees can still come from Iran, Iran is generally a country refugees flee too and host the fourth largest number of refugees in the world.(1/3 of all refugees on Nauru are from Iran) a large number of Iran refugees have also voluntary returned home.

118 of those resettled so far by USA were stateless of 372 so far assessed by USA (going of stats from refugee council)

So as you can see, those with true need are getting rewarded, then in order.
-Pakistan
-Afganistian
-Sri lanka
-Iran =15

Now it seems over 70 have actually rejected resettlement in USA since program began.

Honestly I'm pretty surprised by this????

Cut and paste article from yesterday, incase you get a pay wall https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/families-f...

"More than 70 asylum-seekers in detention centres on Nauru have knocked back an offer to resettle in the US when they heard they would have to work and would not receive welfare.

In a report in The Daily Telegraph today, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said the refusal by a sizeable number of people on Nauru to resettle in the US indicated they were not genuine ­refugees. Rather, they were more likely to be economic refugees and not truly desperate for a safe home.

“I would say millions of refugees have gone to the US and may have died trying because it’s the land of opportunity and one of the greatest countries in the world,” Mr Dutton said.

READ NEXT

Sky sacks host Ross Cameron
SASCHA O’SULLIVAN
“People who have refused to take a place in the US aren’t genuine (refugees).”

He also warned that resettling refugees from Nauru in New Zealand would risk restarting the smuggling trade to Australia, where new refugees would end up in Nauru regardless of whether they had children.

“Now is exactly the wrong time to be sending people to New Zealand because we don’t have Labor’s agreement on the lifetime ban, and it’s doubtful they would support it. Secondly, there’s too much activity and speculation around, which means NZ would be a pull factor,” he said.

Scott Morrison has said he would support sending asylum-seekers to New Zealand if there was a lifetime ban on them returning to Australia.

But even if the lifetime ban were in place, Mr Dutton said it could encourage people-smugglers to restart the boats, which would take the Australian government back to square one and could lead to more children ending up in detention on Nauru.

Revelations about the refusals to resettle in the US emerged as an advocacy group that has secured transfers to Australia for about 120 asylum-seeker parents and children said the families being flown from Nauru to Australia were being sent to cities that had psychiatric beds for children.

The Australian revealed yesterday that the Coalition government plans to move the remaining 40 asylum-seeker children still on Nauru to Australia by the end of the year, a policy later confirmed by the Prime Minister on radio 2GB in Sydney.

Some 244 children have been relocated in the past few years and 46 asylum-seeker children have been born on Nauru since the offshore regime began in 2012.

George Newhouse of the Nat­ional Justice Project said yesterday none of the adults from families already transferred from Nauru as a result of his advocacy had been told they were the subject of adverse security findings.

“Security risk has never been raised as an issue in relation to any of our clients that have been transferred to Australia,” Professor Newhouse said.

None, as far as he was aware, had received offers to be resettled in the US.

Professor Newhouse said all children transferred from Nauru were going “straight to hospital”.

He said most but not all of the families transferred as a result of work by the National Justice Project had been found to be genuine refugees.

“The vast majority of the families we act for have been found to be refugees,” he said.

“Most of our clients have not had a response and only a few of them have been rejected … the ones who have been rejected ­appear to be of a nationality that the US President has ordered to be excluded from the US.”

Personally id love to see stats on what refugees are making current claims to get to Australia?

Are these people/families ones rejected from USA or knocked back USA resettlement ???

A back to business trying to get to Australia (that might actually work)

I do know that the Somalia lady who poisoned her baby last week on Nauru (that got little media coverage) was one of two Somalias rejected from USA resettlement

About current issues on Nauru.

Generally Australian public have a perception that most if not all refugees on Nauru live at the centre behind locked gates some even think refugees live in tents.

Which is so far from the truth.

Over 80% of refugees live in the community on Nauru right along side locals, with all the freedom of locals all have been provided with a 20 year visa.

Despite the BS locals say that their children play happily together and despite the picture often painted by refugee advocates, many refugees and locals get along fine and are even friends some are even in relationships together.

Locals have even helped some refugees to get jobs and start business, may refugees even own motorbikes a few even cars.

Even SBS one of the most far left media outlets in Australia did an article on this aspect in 2016 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/nauru-s-culinary-boom-locals-reap-the-reward...

Yes sure like any community some don't get on together, thats life and according to locals there is differences in attitudes towards locals from different ethnic groups (so some groups are liked more by locals than others)

And according to locals some are trouble makers and complete BS artist.(and obviously get media attention)

However locals also say some refugees are actually quite happy and appreciate what Australia and Nauru has provided, temporary protection and pretty much all paid for. (doesn't make a good story though does it)

Unlike how most refugees in the world live which is a much more basic and harsher existence without knowing where the next meal will come from, rights to work, medical care etc

BTW on the children thing seems the number is 46 Children have been born on Nauru since 2012, however refugee council stats says of Oct 2017 30 were born either there has been a recent increase in births or one stat is wrong .

In regard to how many refugee children are on Nauru seems numbers are thrown around between 50 to 137 (includes ones currently in Australia )

Either way its fair to assume many fall into the 30-46 being born on Nauru which to them is as close to home as could be.

And only 12 to 22 live at the centre (again stats depend on who you believe) rumour is all now live in the community.

Off course refugee advocates etc will say this or that about children's metal health and back it up with doctors reports etc.

IMHO its pretty clear it's complete BS and just another obvious result of coaching from refugee advocates and parents ,but I'm sure many will disagree.

Many will say, but these doctors say this or that.

IMHO even if the doctor did not believe the child is telling the truth, it's going to be a very ballsy doctor that is going to say, sorry i think the child is lying.

Apart from the fact the doctor will be demonised by refugee advocates and made to look very bad in the media, if the child then goes on to do something like swallow a razor blade wrapped in tape etc

Then again the doctor is going to be blamed and completely torn to shreds.(possibly even legal ramifications?)

Pretty fair to say the default assessment of a doctor is going to be not to doubt or question the child and to say this child needs medical care and to be brought to Australia.

I take your comment on board but we are continually told Nauru and Manus are hells on earth, and often compared to concentration camps etc.

Surely any chance of a new life in a developing country is a fresh start, no matter the initial struggles, I'm honestly surprised with rejection as i don't buy the "refugees are only after welfare line"

I honestly would never expect any refugee to reject being resettled in the USA or any other developing country.

To me this rejection is further confirmation that conditions on Manus and Nauru are much better than portrayed. (something i already know, but surely this should help bring the truth to the greater public)

I agree many may suffer PTSD as all refugees around the world may.

However the reality is they have far less stress and uncertainty than most refugees in this world.

All refugees on Nauru have been issued a 20 year visa that allows them pretty much the same rights as locals (not sure on property rights)

They also have options PNG, Cambodia, attractive packages (believe about $30K) to help resettle if return home as mentioned situations change. (for some countries 30K can be 20 years equivalent of average wage or more)

Now also the USA option for i think about 1,400 refugees (or maybe it is a little less, it is over 1k though)

They have the security of knowing they wont go hungry or will always have a roof over their head, schooling and medical care, legal representation etc.

In contrast most refugees be it in a refugee camp or if living in the community in another country, have much more uncertainty of their future and lack options, they often struggle to put a meal on the table relying on UNHCR rations or aid or own funds, often struggle to provide shelter or may be moved on (shanty towns), if get sick have little options, no options for education, often no rights to work, the stress of all this would be ten times worse than any refugee under our care.

My father went to vietnam and has been diagnosed with PTSD so i am familiar with it.

Pleasant island is the alternative name for Nauru that explorers labeled it, Nauru is the local name.

I hate the political aspect of this issue and i voted for Rudd, i liked him at the time and supported some of his other ideas.

But he really screwed up on this issue, testing out an almost open borders policy, during his time we had over 50,000 refugee arrive by boat, over 20,000 in one year period, then he did a complete back flip reopened offshore detention and said "No Refugee that arrives by boat will ever be resettled in Australia"

To be fair he didn't have a choice but he really farked up on this issue and many of the people on Nauru and Manus are a result go his screw up.

Credit where credit is due, liberals have done a great job on this issue getting things under control and greatly reducing numbers on Manus and Nauru and transferring centres from closed almost jail like to open improved centres with a focus on community living.

Personally I'm not 100% against NZ as an option but it's only one hundred plus anyway, but i think its a bit of joke NZ acting or people seeing them as a saviour or taking some moral high ground.

Yes New Zealand is much smaller than Australia, but their resettlement program yearly quota was only recently raised from 800 to 1,000 per year.(first time its risen since the 80's)

To put some perspective on things in the last two years Australia has resettled more refugees through offshore resettlement programs than New Zealand has since world war 2 (almost 70 year period) or i guess you could say ever as assume that s when intake was started.

The first article hmmm nah.

Second article first part is sensationalism journalism just telling people what they want to hear, but i think the second half is a better read and deals with areas of the issue rarely talked about and much of it i agree with, although i still think there is a degree of trigger risk from this current issue but only if a boat could make it to far to turn back and a decent amount of people were put on Nauru again.

IMHO offshore processing is in no way a deterrent I'm sure most refugees would rather be on Nauru with everything provided and knowing their resettlement chances have improved greatly (fact 50 refugees would rather stay in Nauru or Manus than tackle USA confirms this)

But unsuccessful trips due to boat turn backs are a big deterrent, because people smugglers don't give refunds for unsuccessful trips , i think as long as boats get turned back even if refugees resettled in NZ i don't think it will cause an influx to great to deal with.

Although I think giving any priority at any time to refugees with children is a risky precedent to set, if we have fertile couples left on Nauru you can bet they will be pregnant pretty soon.

If we ever do see a trigger of any sort that causes and influx we could also see children used as pawns even those that can not afford to send the whole family could just send an Adult and child or even children alone.

BTW, For interest sake heres that stats of those currently on Manus/Nauru taken from refugee council website.(assume includes many reaccepted by USA for restatement)

Iran =over 1,300
Statless=almost 400
Pakistian= just over 250
Afghanistan = Less than 250
Sri lanka=Almost 200
Iraq=less than 200
Somalia=about 130
Bangladesh=About 130 or little less
Sudan=about 100
Lebanon=about 50
Less than 50 India, napal, Syria etc

In Comparison for interest sake

Countries we resettle refugees through offshore resettlement programs.

Changes slightly year to year hard to get stats for last two years, but trend has been

Syria
Iraq
Burma/Myanmar
Afghanistan
Congo

Then lesser countries like
Somalia
Sudan
Eritrea
Bhutan
Ethiopia

Worldwide trend of refugees

Syria (by far the largest number)
Afghanistan
Sudan
Myanmar
Somalia
Sudan
Congo
Central Africa
Eritrea
Burnudi

I can't be bothered now but would like to do an average monthly wage on each country so you can see clearly that even though refugees come from many different countries only certain countries have refugees with the resources to travel and pay people smugglers, to be fair id need to do it comparing the countries refugees came from in the Rudd era though)

One thing for certain we wont be getting an influx of boat arrivals from poorer African countries where currently a lot of refugees come from because reality is very few have the resource to travel and pay people smugglers..

Sri lanka is a bit of an exception it has a very low average wage but due to it being the most close country refugees currently come from we do see some being able to try to get to us.

Manus is a little different there is no women or children on Manus only men, all refugees have been provided option to live in the community but only a handful do including one refugee married to a local.

But reality is obviously Manus is much more hardcore i guess this is generalising but Papuans are pretty strong minded people and do have a high level of violence in their society.

I believe thats why the three centres (areas of housing) are closed between 6 to 6 to stop coming and goings as being men apparently some (not suggesting all) do like to indulge in drinking, local prostitute, gambling etc and reports are some don't come back for days (assume have local girlfriends) you could imagine problems could arise if intoxicated men are coming and going from centre during the night.

It's really no surprise services are being decreased, all refugees on Manus assessed by USA were accepted for resettlement I've heard of none rejecting a new life in USA.

In May 2018 there was only 716 men left there (not sure if the 110 accepted by USA had gone by then?)

One thing to note as numbers on Manus and Nauru the overall price per refugee head increases, even with the decrease for need of some services.

I think the government have done a really good job on the practical side of reducing boats to a manageable level.

But i think stopping the media from Nauru and Manus has become a problem that is now bitting them on the bum.

I 100% understand why they did it, before there was so much BS media fuelled by refugee advocates the government and Nauru had become very frustrated with all the lies and misinformation, hence the ban.(which hasn't really helped with the misinformation and lies)

But now we are at a point where only a very small percentage of public understand the situation.

For instance if you ask a group of average Australians (even people here) how people are housed on Nauru, i bet almost all would say.

People are locked up in the centre, maybe even suggest they live in tents.

Most people have no idea both Manus and Nauru have been open centres for years Nauru 24/7 meaning all refugees can come and go freely.

And very very few people know that over 80% of refugees on Nauru live in the community for a few years now, and even then most people don't understand that they are free to work even run business etc

IMHO the government really screwed up with how they presented Nauru.

The government should have said from day one.

Although we are no longer going to resettle these people in Australia, we will do our best to find resettlement options elsewhere in the mean time we will provide temporary protection for them covering all cost at a standard higher than any refugee camp.

Then they should have totally ditched the processing and detention labels that have negative connotations and renamed it Nauru temporary protection centre and then latter Nauru temporary community protection.

They should have been all along painting things as they really are, temporary protection more in similar with a refugee camp then anything else..

Now they are screwed because most of the public pictures kids locked up in a jail like setting, when its not actually correct, but in a respect it's the government own fault from not letting people see the truth.

Although the problem still with this, is its very easy to present Nauru in a negative way because the island does have issues due to past exploitation by mining and much of Nauru is run down due to going from bom town to bust town.

Hence why Nauru agreed to work with Australia, the centre and refugee on Nauru is actually just as much about foreign aid type project to rebuild Nauru.

Moving forward IMHO the government should move all people from the centre into the community and only use the centre for assessments etc and staff etc more like a centre link office.

Then for any future refugees that may need to be housed on Nauru, the government should make it public and known to refugees that they have a choice and options resettlement in PNG, Cambodia or temporary protection in the Nauru community on 20 year visas.

They should also be working with countries that have refugee camps to give them the option of transfer to a refugee camp and for every refugee that does go we pay out a huge sum of money like a million dollars to help deal with the needs of refugees in these countries seeking temporary protection.

As mentioned above Nauru and Manus should never ever been associated or seen as a deterrent or punishment and should be seen in a positive light like a refugee camp is.

the UNHCR don't get critiqued for looking after refugees in worst conditions but we do, which is crazy.

But it's probably gone to far for much of that, even just trying to change the perception and a name change would be hard to do.

This is a interesting read/perspective from a backpacker/blogger on Nauru from 2016.

IMHO it's as neutral perspective as can be and the island does sound very paranoid/secret in that hidden from government kind of way.

http://www.ramblinrandy.com/oceania/nauru/?fbclid=IwAR24qgzFSPpp3YuJWV1v...

To be fair i don't think PNG would be a very good option, working there as an expat with good cash flow could be very different to being a resettled as a refugee, PNG does have extremely high levels of different types of violence etc and as far as i understand not much diversity in ethnic groups outside of melanesians .

Cambodia IMHO although still has issues would me more realistic and has a similar muslim population to Australia percentage wise (assuming most on Nauru are muslim but many may not be) and more ethnic groups like Chinese etc

USA though, i really can't understand how any refugee from Nauru could turn down resettlement there, even without ongoing financial help.

Remember USA has a problem with people from Mexico or even refugees trying to get into USA they also don't have financial help and many not even there legally.

Im sure there would be many organisations ready to help those from Nauru make the transition.

Yeah Nauru has been pretty much fucked over like i said that's why they are working with Australia.

Many people think it's just about refugees but the money that goes to Nauru goes into many other things, like building schools, vastly improving the hospital(26 million upgrade) and services it offers, i think we funded the desalination plant all kinds of stuff.

This years project seems to be "A new Australian-funded tertiary education facility was opened in May 2018. The “learning village” includes a campus for the University of the South Pacific, new technical and vocational facilities, and a national library."

https://dfat.gov.au/geo/nauru/development-assistance/Pages/development-a...

I think next is a major port upgrade to deal with rising oceans.

Let me predict the next comment by inzider.

Some negative comment about Nauruan people.

Many things in life are a two way partnership.

We had a problem and needed help with a solution for it, Nauru had a problem and needed help.

Despite the claims otherwise the outcomes for all parties is positive.

Nauru= Gets help helping it's self rebuild and not become a failed country (yet?)

Australia= Found a temporary home for the influx of refugees, and although it took time and a few governments with one big fuck up by Rudd, the situation is under control.

The Refugees= Got temporary protection with everything provide free of charge and gained an advantage over other refugees elsewhere in the world for resettlement options.

The funny things is: (and this is lucky for the government)

Everyone gets upset because we have taken refugees and provided them protection and thrown millions of dollars at housing them, feeding them, even providing an education for them.

But

The alternative we have come up with turning back boats, is far worse in reality for refugees.

Once back in Indonesia they then have to look after themselves find housing, put a meal on the table for their kids, i don't expect their children are able to participate in the school system so no education (plus would need to learn indonesian), any medical care needs to be paid for, which can actually be expensive in Indonesia if you go through private system as they can't have the equilvent of a family health care card for public system.

The only slight advantage is most refugees are muslim and middle eastern people especially muslims in Indonesia are generally respected especially if they have been to mecca. (so persecution by locals not too bad, unlike if they were a different religion and say dark skinned like African as dark skin is seen in Indonesia generally as a negative)

In reality if you gave any refugee the choice I'm sure they would pick the first option rather than the second option.

I agree with much of that Sypkan

Personally i remain positive on the whole situation, i think the worst is behind us in all areas.

Boat arrivals/boarder control=I think in regard to boats arriving i think we have found a system that works in turning back boats, as long as we don't have any crazy change in policy like we did during the Rudd era, i think that area is going to controllable. (off course greens will bang on about different things and push for onshore processing etc, but Labor wont be sucked in twice, the whole screw up by Rudd was pandering to the Greens who took no responsibility for the the problem created)

Refugees on Nauru and Manus= If you look at the stats the numbers are reducing every year (looking at the stats many actually return home, as situations do change) then with the USA deal hopefully we will see more resettled, id be surprised if NZ deal doesn't get done...seems kids are going to be taken of Nauru, no idea what they are going to do here.

Other refugees= Our refugee intake is as high as its ever been and as far as i understand its now all offshore resettlement, no longer broken up to onshore and offshore so although only slight the chances for those in camps etc has increased, or at least we don't have a system where they are getting screwed over and others by passing them.

Refugee advocates= you are never going to keep them happy, we will always have to have some centre (or community living) open somewhere expect both Manus or Nauru to remain for any overflow.

And as numbers decrease the cost per refugee will increase so expect to see refugee advocates bang on more about this.

I think the government really needs to put pressure on the UN to redraft and update the refugee convention though for this day and age. (more on that latter)

@Fozza

Im interested to hear what you think is a good solution?

With only a few aspects/rules you need to-consider.

1. All refugees are treated equally and fairly no matter location or resources available to them.

So for example a refugee in Sudan who has $5 has the same chance of a new life as the refugee from Syria that has $,30,000.

Neither gains advantage or disadvantage based on their local economy or what they have or don't have, just because thats what they were born into.

2. A system were we don't have the need to constantly control our borders like a game of cat and mouse, assuming we can all agree that we have official entry points for a reason, with immigration, quotas, customs, and strict quarantine measures and need to be realistic and follow the reasons why we have these things.

3. A system where we can stick to current intake quotas and not have a situation where we have a backlog or need to house people etc

Interested to see the system you think we should have that follows these rules/aspects.

@ Stunet

Same deal, the issue is not about if refugees need help or deserve or don't deserve help etc.

Lets just all agree they do.

The issue is about deciding how we give or decide who gets processed or deserves priority?

Do we have a get here and we will process you system that favours those with the resources to do this and neglects those that don't? (which still has issues of what to do if a backlog is created)

Or do we try to have a system that gives all refugees a chance of a new life, no matter rich or poor?

Or perhaps if priority of some sort is going to be given, give the priority to those who will never be able to return home, like stateless refugees.

But even then you need a system to determine who gets priority/processing first?

IMHO the system we have In place, offshore resettlement programs is the best system possible (run like a lottery), the problem is the refugee convention encourages people or gives them a legal right to bypass the systems in place to try to gain processing priority, based purely on the fact they are lucky enough to have the resources to do so.