Comments on: ‘He attempted suicide in front of his son’: asylum seeker stories

By: Andrew Ferrier

Andrew Ferrier — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I wonder how it would damage a country or 20 million by allowing the 9 asylum seekers mentioned in the cases above, to remain. Seems like the mean spirit of Phillip Ruddock still keeps lingering on within the Department of Immigration, despite a change of government. How very sad.

By: Chris Johnson

Chris Johnson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Adam – what do you think ASRC’s role is – handing out tea and bickies and fluffy pink rugs? Its whole agenda is provision of broad support, health and advocacy services to stressed and wretched human beings dispossessed of homeland, families, friends and in most cases, their sanity. Perhaps Crikey like most of us recognises the need to hammer loudly on government doors despite indifference, to remove the tragic fallout of years under Howard bigotry. And if these cases are the tip of the iceberg heaven help (literally) those who didn’t make the list. If your life was as skewed as these cases, the last thing you’d want is a shrugged shoulder and the Adam Coleman acceptance policy.

By: Adam Coleman

Adam Coleman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The only remotely newsworthy aspect of this entirely predictable spat between the immigration minister and refugee advocates is the fact that “The ASRC admits not all the cases in which his intervention has been requested are strong.” However, Crikey have not investigated this angle of the story at all. Given that the minister has made clear that he perceives intervention as an exceptional action rather than part of the process, why does the ASRC waste Commonwealth and their own resources, as well as prolong the uncertainty and stress of asylum-seekers by making applications they themselves know will not succeed? Does the ASRC typically do this? What does the ASRC’s board and financial supporters think about this policy—and why had Crikey not addressed it in their reporting?