Talk:Asylum in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something big missing from the article[edit]

Some of my own views will be on display in this post. I apologise for that, but I know I'm not alone in these views, and there's virtually no indication in the article that such views exist.

The two major parties are now insisting that this is all about stopping people dying at sea. It's obvious to many of us that it's also about (primarily about?) pandering to racist swinging voters. One hears them often enough on commercial talk-back radio, and in the "letters" pages of tabloid newspapers. They don't want the asylum seekers in Australia.

I know we need sources to include this stuff. Can anyone help me down the path of including this perspective in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These may be of interest as sources:
- Evad37 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it falls under dog whistle politics Iamthinking2202 (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new PNG solution page[edit]

Hey, I made a dedicated page for the PNG solution, it's incomplete so feel free to add to it. I might've borrowed a little info from this page. Just letting you all know... given how heavily written the 'crackdown' section is I thought there'd be some folk happy to contribute to the new page. Cheers Heptachord (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Rhetoric[edit]

I hesitate to edit an article on such a politically charged subject, but the article makes reference to "racist rhetoric against Muslims." I'm not sure that rhetoric against Muslims can be racist, can it? Muslims are a religious group, not a racial one. OTOH, I'm not sure what would be better - perhaps just "anti-Muslim rhetoric"? GoldenRing (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a change would be good. And yes, this is a politically charged topic. The article began life just two months ago, in the heat of the election campaign, as a potentially dangerous piece of work, but some quite civilised editing has since occurred, with virtually no conflicts. It's been a good example of positive work here at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Possumstoe[edit]

I reverted the removal of sourced material by Possumstoe because there was no consensus for major changes like that. His changes didn't appear to be neutral. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "asylum" under Australian law[edit]

This article is nonsense. There is no such thing as "asylum" under Australian law. The word does not appear in any Australian statute. Furthermore it doesn't appear in the Refugee Convention, either. This article needs to be completely rewritten. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? Asylum is a concept. It is something which is sought by refugees. Australia receives refugees and is party to both relevant conventions. Assuming you are correct about its absence from Australian law that doesn't mean its not a valid topic. The article is well-referenced and nicely written. A re-write is not needed at all. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should have an article called Refugee policy in Australia, which can absorb this article, and also Mandatory detention in Australia and probably others. The article does need to be rewritten - it's heavily biased in favour of the Greens position, and contains several false statements. "Australia currently recognizes the right of asylum." No it doesn't. "The prolonged detention of refugees is contrary to the Convention." No it's not. "In the eight years after the end of World War II almost 200,000 European refugees settled in Australia." They were migrants taken from DP camps, not refugees. etc Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several "Ayslum in x" articles and no "Refugee policy in x" articles. Considering we are the only country with mandatory detention, the article is apt. Did you have a source to support your claim that we don't recognize the right of asylum? Because that is not what this page outlines. This page explains the principle that detainment should be for the shortest appropriate period of time. If you have a source to support your claims or to fix inaccuracies just add them rather than accuse editors of political bias. Our articles aren't dictated by current government policy. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The HRC runs its own political line which is essentially the Greens line. They are a body independent of government and can take any line they like (although Tim Wilson may be about to change that). But they can't alter the law, and the fact is that "asylum" does not exist under Australian law (except that the Foreign Minister can grant political asylum to diplomats, although this hasn't happened in a long time). The HRC website you cite carefully dodges that point by conflating "asylum seeker" and "refugee", when these are different terms. As for sources, I don't need a source to demonstrate a negative proposition. Rather, this article needs a source to verify the assertion that "Australia currently recognizes the right of asylum" when the term asylum is unknown to Australian law, and also unknown to the Refugee Convention. That's why Refugee policy in Australia would be a more accurate article title than the current one, which is about something that doesn't exist. What is written about other countries' refugee/asylum policies is hardly relevant to that, since they have different laws. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Above user is once again resorting to having his way as if he WP:OWNs this and again asserts he doesnt need a source to demand his view fulfilled. Sorry but WP requires sources and again the onus is on the person making the claim to back it up. Dont provide proof and it wont get here thats for sure.Lihaas (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Australia probes detention of child refugees>> UN condemns Australia asylum deal with PNG >> Breakout at Australia's PNG detention centre>> Australia asylum seeker identities published>> Australia: Deterrence propaganda? (Lihaas (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Off-topic discussion on subject of article rather than the article itself - Evad37 [talk] 06:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I wouldn't find the whole mainstream political discourse about refugees quite so disgusting if the Liberals and Labor just stopped pretending they were acting out of some sort of moral imperative. Don't tell me that you're trying to prevent drownings at sea when boats continue to come and continue to sink, but journalists just aren't allowed to report on it any more. Don't tell me that you're looking out for the refugees' well-being when you cram them into fetid offshore prisons. And don't tell me that you're taking a stand against people-smugglers when you're bloody paying off people-smugglers.

I mean, come on, let's face it. The only reason both major parties have jumped on this issue is that xenophobia wins votes. Ever since the Tampa incident they've both co-opted the part of One Nation's message that resonated the best with voters and tried to make themselves look noble by attacking the rest. Paul Austin (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion on the subject of articles. - Evad37 [talk] 06:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strict enforcement[edit]

User:Lawarticles deleted the sentence, " Australia is the only country in the world to mandate the strict enforcement of the detention of asylum seekers" from the lead section. It was easy to find a second source for this statement. See: [1]. If the wording is vague, it should be improved. It is a neutral and significant statement that gives context to the article, as far as I can tell. I don't see a reason to remove it. In the meantime, I'll try a version that is closer to this source. Chris vLS (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, that change makes it much more accurate. The previous wording was an opinion. Lawarticles (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asylum in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping content[edit]

It was only after I had finished doing a tidy-up of the Timeline section in this article that I looked properly at the History section in the Immigration detention in Australia article and saw the huge amount of overlap. I don't have time to spend on this now but am just raising it here as I think it could do with some discussion as to how best to tackle the overlap and duplication in order to keep relevant material in one place and avert further duplication and/or holes in either narrative. It would be best to combine the info and keep the bulk of what is relevant to Immigration detention in one place (the other article?), with appropriate direction from this and other articles. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asylum_in_Australia&oldid=1205441886"