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...

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

---

T The thread was posted because I was appalled that this could happen in Brisbane, today.

I think Australians are better that that, that we can give asylum seekers empathy, consideration and the same care we get ourselves in difficult circumstances. It may mean this little boy grows up with a healthy respect for this country..... or not.

---

I understand that this family have not received what is ideal in regards to what we expect for "ourselves", but their actual circumstances do need to be considered (i.e. they are unprocessed Detainees and as such a potential threat to the safety of our country and all who populate it and perhaps not even true seekers of Assylum, in which case they need to avail themselves to the processes of Immigration).

Where do we draw the line Az? Do we accept and provide for every person who wants to avail themselves of our resources, regardless of their intentions and needs?

What Australia did do is to provide the family with safety under the premise of Asylum whilst they await processing for an aplication of Refugee Status, and then extend to them resources to which they are not yet entitled. They were moved as a family to a location close to adequate medical care, provided that medical care and then security and transport to the baby after the mother's discharge for 4 days.

This has been an unprecedented ocurrance, for both Asylum Seekers and Brisbane (birth and pregnancy is usually directed to Darwin, but it appears that this is the first situation where complications have been anticipated so were instead transferred to Brisbane) so undoubtedly protocols and procedures had not been implemented to acommodate their situation and 4 days is simply not enough time to circumvent existing legislation and Standard Operating Procedures.

When decisions and the procedures required to implement such changes are done in haste, mistakes happen. The security for all is the dominating focus, not the ideal situation for an individual.

Of course our empathy is extended to those in these situations, in fact anyone who does not share the same benefits as we do, but we also need to accept that at times our ability to deliver ideal outcomes is restricted, if not impossible. It has nothing to do with not wanting to help anyone in an inferior situation to ourselves, but rather our ability and extent to which we can.

No doubt those in authority really wished they could circumvent a few laws and rules to speed up the implementation of an ideal outcome, but their responsibility is to the entire population, not individual situations and to implement the rules and laws as they currently stand.

Our laws state reasoned protocols taking many factors into consideration, all there to protect the population from hostile occupation.

[cherry*135]

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison orders review after asylum seeker kept from baby

November 16, 2013

The treatment of an asylum seeker locked up in detention for 18 hours a day while her week-old baby was in intensive care in hospital will be the subject of a review by the Immigration Department.

The story of Latifa, revealed by Fairfax Media on Thursday, sparked an outcry from the public, doctors and politicians, including former Liberal Party leader John Hewson and forced Immigration Minister Scott Morrison to seek answers.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott said from Sri Lanka he ''deeply regretted'' the separation of mother and baby but added it would not have happened if the woman and her family had not come to Australia ''illegally by boat''.

The Mater Hospital in Brisbane on Friday distanced itself from comments by Mr Morrison that doctors had advised it was ''common practice'' for mothers not to stay overnight with their children in special care units due to bed restrictions.

Latifa, a 31-year-old of the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, had been restricted to visiting her newborn, Farus, who was in the Mater with respiratory problems, during a six-hour window between 10am and 4pm.

In a statement, the hospital said it encouraged mothers to have as much access to their babies in intensive care as they wished to establish the strong bonds needed between mother and child.

'Mater places no restrictions on women and they can visit their baby any time where possible,'' the hospital said.

Dr Hewson said the separation was ''inhumanity in the extreme, in my view''.

''A mother in these circumstances is normally given 24-hour access to a child in intensive care. I mean for heaven's sake, you know Morrison can go make all the short-term points he likes out there but this is something I think that sends absolutely the wrong message.''

Mr Morrison told journalists at his weekly briefing for Operation Sovereign Borders: ''I have requested my department to look at the arrangements that were put around that particular instance to ensure a mother would have as much access to their child as they would request.''

The baby is now with his family in the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation. Churches have offered to take care of the family but it is almost certain they will be returned to Nauru.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/immigration-minister-scott-morrison-orders-review-after-asylum-seeker...

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

whatever you or I personally believe those fleeing persecution deserve doesn't make it fact, wrong or right, or applicable in our Country in 2013 to the most persecuted people in the world today.Read what our obligations are to human beings.It is set out in writing.

Has history taught us nothing?

---

Iza, they are Assylum Seekers. It has not even been established yet if they are fleeing anything far less anything that constitutes Asylum. We do not even know where they have come from, only where they have been for the last 10 years. They claim to have originated from Burma, but have they? They claim to have been persecuted in Burma, but were they? They claim to be in need of safety and protection, but are they, and if so, why and from who?

I know what our obligations are, however it is apparent that you don't.

[*crikey*mate*]

something that I have only just considered in relation to the father and his lack of access to the hospital is security, but from a different angle to that of securing him.

I would imagine that it is also the responsibility of the Australian Government to ensure his safety. It is well known that not all Australian Residents are tolerant of those who seek asylum or refuge, nor is it unknown that Australian Residents do take things ointo their own hands, take opportunities for protest and to harm other people.

Perhaps some of the decisions surrounding this situation were to provide adequate protection FOR this man and his children at such short notice.

Consider the planning, procedures and considerations in simply transporting a prisoner. Authorities not only have to protect the population from the prisoner escaping or initiating harm to the general population or making contact with others with nefarious intentions, but they also have to protect the prisoner from any acts of violence etc directed at them. They have to ensure that the prisoner does not have access to anything that they are not supposed to bring back to their prison or their destination such as materials to cause harm to themselves, others or property.

Perhaps, we simply could not extend this level of protection, supervision and safety to more than those for whom transport was essential because we lack the resources to do so.

[polksaladallie]

What melodramatic nonsense.  There are huindreds if not thousands of asylum seekers living in motels or similar accommodation with guards who supervise shopping trips etc.  Probably some near your house.  There have been procedures in place for years to monitor and transport these people to wherever they have to go.

From what I understand, asylum seekers live freely in the community in NZ while their claims are being assessed, and I have nor heard of any trouble there.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison orders review after asylum seeker kept from baby

November 16, 2013

The treatment of an asylum seeker locked up in detention for 18 hours a day while her week-old baby was in intensive care in hospital will be the subject of a review by the Immigration Department.

The story of Latifa, revealed by Fairfax Media on Thursday, sparked an outcry from the public, doctors and politicians, including former Liberal Party leader John Hewson and forced Immigration Minister Scott Morrison to seek answers.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott said from Sri Lanka he ''deeply regretted'' the separation of mother and baby but added it would not have happened if the woman and her family had not come to Australia ''illegally by boat''.

The Mater Hospital in Brisbane on Friday distanced itself from comments by Mr Morrison that doctors had advised it was ''common practice'' for mothers not to stay overnight with their children in special care units due to bed restrictions.

Latifa, a 31-year-old of the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, had been restricted to visiting her newborn, Farus, who was in the Mater with respiratory problems, during a six-hour window between 10am and 4pm.

In a statement, the hospital said it encouraged mothers to have as much access to their babies in intensive care as they wished to establish the strong bonds needed between mother and child.

'Mater places no restrictions on women and they can visit their baby any time where possible,'' the hospital said.

Dr Hewson said the separation was ''inhumanity in the extreme, in my view''.

''A mother in these circumstances is normally given 24-hour access to a child in intensive care. I mean for heaven's sake, you know Morrison can go make all the short-term points he likes out there but this is something I think that sends absolutely the wrong message.''

Mr Morrison told journalists at his weekly briefing for Operation Sovereign Borders: ''I have requested my department to look at the arrangements that were put around that particular instance to ensure a mother would have as much access to their child as they would request.''

The baby is now with his family in the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation. Churches have offered to take care of the family but it is almost certain they will be returned to Nauru.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/immigration-minister-scott-morrison-orders-review-after-asylum-seeker...

---

Mr Abbott is actually correct, it IS illegal to attempt/force entry of Australian borders by boat or by any other means. However this illegality is negated once asylum is sought.

At this stage, it has not been established if this family are true seekers of Asylum, or Economic Immigrants attempting to bypass legal means of entry.

I think it is awesome that this incident has initiated a review of protocol, it may mean we are better prepared and can act differently should a similar occasion arise in the future. However the review doesn not guarantee change, it is only to assess if what was provided/currently possible can be changed in some way, whether that be to extend or reduce allowances will have to be determined taking all factors and ramifications of change into consideration, including precedent, future attempted abuse (as outlined by ashjoma), available resources, and any limitations that extending access to available resources may cause, such as a reduction in the number of people that we can assist on any level.

[izabsmiling]

'You should read history and look at ostracism, persecution, martyrdom, and that kind of thing.

They always happen to the best men, you know.'

George Eliot

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

What melodramatic nonsense.  There are huindreds if not thousands of asylum seekers living in motels or similar accommodation with guards who supervise shopping trips etc.  Probably some near your house.  There have been procedures in place for years to monitor and transport these people to wherever they have to go.

From what I understand, asylum seekers live freely in the community in NZ while their claims are being assessed, and I have nor heard of any trouble there.

---

Excuse me?

a) This is NOT New Zealand.

b) I have often cited and thus acknowledge that no assylum seeker who has arrived by boat (so far) has EVER been charged with crimes such as terrorism, however, prior to September 11, 2001, no one had flown into the World Trade Centre either. Hence there is also a first time.

c) Yes, I am aware of several places where detainees are currently residing within mine and surrounding communities (a family member's fiance actually oversees the operation of one such facility in Brisbane)

Thus I can only suspect that you are unaware of the status of those Detainees and their relevant place in the process of determination for Refugee status and the actual "freedom" they are provided.

In a sense, your response almost addresses the situation with some fact - almost - that the procedures have been in place for some time for those immersed into local communities, but you have failed to realize that this family are not a part of that established protocol, they have been transferred from Nauru, to a specific Detention centre where transport from that centre in this manner has never been contemplated or staffed for.

None of this has any form of precedent as it also appears that this is the first family or persons that have been transferred to Brisbane, particularly that Detention Centre,  for the purposes of child birth, they have, in the past been taken to Darwin. The centre where they are detained is not purpose specific for those seeking assylum, it is for those with minor illegal immigration infringements. (i.e overstayed their visas). The usual residents of the centre do not have access to 'field trips" for the purposes of shopping or otherwise, but are provided with medical access when required for the person requiring that medical access, not the entire family on a long term basis.

Do you propose, that at short notice that existing staff and resources be pulled from other people for an undetermined lenght of time? Or perhaps we could engage Harry Potter or Dumbledore to conjure up the staff, protocols and resources that were not available at short notice.

The lady, the one in need of the medical assistance was provided with the medical care and associated security that she required, clearly, at this stage, it did not/does not extend to those not in need of medical assistance.

[cherry*135]

In response to one of polks comments: New Zealand has a different (better?) system for assisting refugees/asylum seekers settle in their new country. Being a much smaller country than Australia the number they accept is much lower.

Churches and charities support them in many ways to help them settle in their new country. See below.

The charities/churches help them source secondhand furniture & household items to buy or it may be donated to them.

Red Cross

Refugee Services Work

You can support a refugee family to build a new life in New Zealand!

Our refugee services volunteers complete a comprehensive training course and are placed in teams to work with newly arrived refugee families or individuals for their first 6 months in New Zealand. Volunteers are supported by staff throughout their placement and assist with tasks which include:

• setting up homes
• linking with Work & Income, schools, ESOL courses, local GPs
• orientating to the local community (facilities, public transport)
• providing ongoing support (hospital appointments, mail, Work & Income appointments, social visits)
• alerting our professional staff to particular needs or issues

If you want to help a family start again, learn about new cultures and meet new people, we’d love to hear from you. You will change a life, and maybe also your own.

Asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand without proper documentation are often detained on arrival, to allow the government to confirm their identity and ensure that they do not pose a threat to our national security or have criminal intentions. Once this has been established, such people may be "conditionally released" into the community.

They must live in an agreed location and report periodically to the authorities while they are awaiting the outcome of their application for refugee status.

People on conditional release have limited access to basic social entitlements and cannot be granted temporary Work Permits.

People who enter New Zealand with legal documentation (and subsequently apply for refugee status) are normally granted a Temporary Work Permit and are also eligible for a greater range of social security benefits.

[polksaladallie]

The only reason they were not is Australia is because of the barbaric policies of this government and the last with the Manus/Nauru "solution".  Otherwise they might well have been housed in a motel.  Do you think that those off-shore detainees are more "dangerous" than those housed in Australia?  Your words suggest so.