tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7407662088162760129.post6486704661248235387..comments2023-10-19T20:21:22.149+11:00Comments on all right, all right: A Solution for Refugees & Asylum-Seekers: a Free CityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7407662088162760129.post-46943815478286805602013-04-16T13:45:34.102+10:002013-04-16T13:45:34.102+10:00The current problem with the "Free City"...The current problem with the "Free City" Proposal as it stands is that not enough attention is paid to the <i>de facto</i> operation of the UN Convention on Refugees as it is currently applied in Australia. Despite the various restrictions and exclusions in the Convention, the manner in which it is managed in Australia (under a spineless government, activist judges and a compliant Refugee Review system) means that if an "irregular arrival" crosses from the boundaries of the Free City and arrives in Australia proper and then applies for asylum on grounds of persecution, he then enters the system. <br /><br />The only change that has been mooted in the proposal above is that he would then be deported back to the Free City but no dismantling of the current edifice of "Refugee" rights and entitlements is otherwise made. Having claimed asylum, he'd have to be processed, and provided he had been suitably coached in a plausible sob story and had destroyed his documents, he would then receive a residency visa in Australia and would be entitled to welfare and the ability to ship his relatives over through family reunion. Thus, the Free City remains a fast track to residency, faster than arriving at Christmas Island by boat as he could not be processed offshore. <br /><br />So despite "illegally entering Australia", the claim to asylum still trumps other considerations. Thus you can see, as it stands, how the Free City concept turns into another conduit into Australia, leading to the overcrowded people smuggling/tunneling scenarios I described.<br /><br />Now it may be that you intended to withdraw Australia from the Refugees convention and make more stringent changes to the Migration Act than the simple alteration posited above but I see no explicit indication that that was the case. Unless Australia abandons the UN Convention on Refugees (replacing it with our own home grown protocols for dealing with genuine asylum seekers), the Free City concept is dead in the water- the Judiciary and the Ian Rintouls of the world would see it devolve into another express route to residency.<br /><br />PS. The idea that say, Sharia law would only be imposed after a "democratic" vote ignores the real world evidence of what happens when a substantial minority reaches a critical mass (short of the 50% +1). Communities in France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and England have seen features of sharia imposed on a community by vigilantes, not a vote. Your Free City doesn't appear to have Australian police or judges, so an imposition of sharia by force is all too likely. Cold-Handsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7407662088162760129.post-7527773019730132592012-10-20T15:39:41.930+11:002012-10-20T15:39:41.930+11:00sounds good to me! only thing I'd suggest is t...sounds good to me! only thing I'd suggest is that the territory be leased to the UN, with the UN inheriting the mandate to administer the territory, but to Australian laws.<br /><br />The UN would also finance the infrastructure and operating costs - 75% Australian content in terms of materials, expertise, contracts.<br /><br />Beat that for an on-shore processing solution!<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com