The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

[azureline**]

This is disgraceful and I can only hope the people who are in charge fix this asap.

An asylum seeker who was moved off Nauru to give birth is being locked up for 18 hours a day in a detention centre in Brisbane while her week-old baby remains in hospital with respiratory problems.

The case of Latifa, a 31-year-old woman of the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, has shocked churches and refugee advocates.

She was separated from her baby on Sunday, four days after a caesarean delivery, and has since been allowed to visit him only between 10am and 4pm in Brisbane's Mater Hospital. The boy, named Farus, has respiratory problems and needs round-the-clock medical care.

Latifa is confined to the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation, 20 minutes away, where her husband and two children, four and seven, are being held.

Advertisement

Latifa's husband, Niza, is not allowed to visit the child at all, according to people in daily contact with the family.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-mother-kept-from-newborn-baby-in...

[**meep**]

Aren't Englsh and USA cittizens among the worst visa overstayers?

So?  Majority of visa overstayers simply apply for visa extensions.  They fall under the category of  "overstayers"

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@azureline** wrote:

A spokesman for the Immigration Minister yesterday said doctors at the hospital had advised that it is not common for mothers to stay overnight because of bed restrictions.

But in a statement to the ABC's AM program, the Mater Hospital suggested the mother should have been allowed to visit her child whenever she wanted.

The hospital says it encourages new mothers to be involved in the baby's care wherever possible to help establish a strong bond, and does not place restrictions on visiting hours.

"Once a mum is clinically well enough to go home, she is discharged from hospital, but is encouraged to be involved in her baby's care wherever possible to help establish and strengthen her bond with her baby," the statement said.

"Mater places no restrictions on women and they can visit their baby anytime where possible."

---

The woman is a detainee, obviously at short notice in an unprecedented situation, what was possible was restricted.

She gave birth, millions of people do that all the time, it doesn't give her or anybody a free pass to circumvent any red tape or procedures and protocols already in place.

It takes TIME. and in the land of red tape, 4 days is NOT enough TIME! It takes years to have legislation and policy documents alterered, and people can't just decide for themselves when they are going to break the law, regardless of the circumstances. We don't have the luxury of making it up as we go along....

[*elizabeths-mum*]

The Mater isn't going to make statements which tarnish their reputation either. Leaving staff have to sign a form that they will not disclose anything which may reflect badly on the mater hospital. Disgruntled staff have an interview to underline this.

[punch*drunk]

You know when you consider the fact that the child was released on day 4 and presumedly the mother had been there since 10am that day, we're really only talking 3 days of restrictions. Not ideal, but I think calling appalling or inhumane is a bit over the top.

The "locked up" part of the story makes it sound like they are locked away in a prison cell or something. Does anyone even know whether the mother requested further access and was refused or is her situation just being used to further someones political agenda?

[*crikey*mate*]

makes sense..

but I would be interested to know from the source why the restrictions were imposed rather than just emotive outrage. Interesting to know exactly what rules and regulations are in place iykwim and what if anything was done to make the allowances that were made.

You know, like what arrangements had to be made to arrange transport and supervision etc.

stuff like that.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

You know when you consider the fact that the child was released on day 4 and presumedly the mother had been there since 10am that day, we're really only talking 3 days of restrictions. Not ideal, but I think calling appalling or inhumane is a bit over the top.

The "locked up" part of the story makes it sound like they are locked away in a prison cell or something. Does anyone even know whether the mother requested further access and was refused or is her situation just being used to further someones political agenda?

---

just quoting and enlarging so it doesn't get lost.....

[azureline**]

The family are locked up, no one is denying that, that is our asylum seeker policy at work.

I think the situation in the OP was appalling: horrid, awful, disheartening, dreadful, bad....................

[punch*drunk]

---

@azureline** wrote:

The family are locked up, no one is denying that, that is our asylum seeker policy at work.

I think the situation in the OP was appalling: horrid, awful, disheartening, dreadful, bad....................

---

And if it turned out the mother was happy enough with the allowed time that she didnt request longer visits and that she wanted to spend evenings with the rest of her family and arrived rested at the hospital each morning, would you still consider it appalling or bad? Would you consider her a bad mother for not wanting to be there longer?

There's so many possible scenarios of how and why this situation happened and they simply arent all bad, the stories are just spun to get the biggest emotional reaction.

[azureline**]

The mother was not happy with the situation. Ideally she should have been allowed to be with her baby and have her husband and other children there for visits, at the very least.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Ideally the child wouldn't have needed intensive medical treatment. Ideally the mother wouldn't have needed a Caesarian. Thank goodness care was available to prevent an even less ideal outcome.