fatvegan

In particular, we are concerned that IOM's work in certain contexts is adversely impacting upon basic human rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, including for example the right to be free from arbitrary detention and the fundamental right to seek asylum. Amnesty

Mandatory detention is immoral = Australia should accept more refugees

That equation is the intent of the anti-detention argument, and the inevitable outcome of winning it.

I think it's at the heart of the debate. Asylum-seekers aren't being arbitrarily detained, they can leave whenever they want (at least those with countries to go to). And they have already sought asylum, but were rejected. Amnesty et al disagree with the number of asylum-seekers being granted entry, which is a different toaster of fish. That's the toaster I disagree with as well. And I think that is the issue they should be arguing. If you argue strongly enough that mandatory detention is a violation of some UN convention, I suspect that all you will achieve in doing having the convention changed, or having certain countries (like Australia) unratify it.

Until you make the case for increased numbers, and there is a strong case, I think they are going to lose, and I suspect we risk losing parts of a convention that are the main means there are of improving the living conditions in detention. Which I actually think would be a more valuable short-term cause to pursue anyway.

13 immigration posts in one week. That's all. Promise.