Report on the fate of rejected asylum seekers
What happens to Australia's rejected asylum seekers?
Has the Australian Government or its agencies sent asylum seekers to unsafe places?
Has the Australian Government or its agencies actually increased the dangers for rejected people by sending reports about them to overseas authorities?
In managing removals, has the Australian Government or its agencies encouraged asylum seekers to obtain false papers or become associated with bribery and corruption?
Is the manner of conducting asylum seeker removals consistent with Australia's legal obligations?
Is the manner of conducting asylum seeker removals consistent with Australia's traditional values?
The Edmund Rice Centre has an ongoing project monitoring the fate of asylum seekers deported from our country. The project has released two reports, Deported to Danger and Deported to Danger II (the full report is 1.6MB, you can also download the executive summary which is under 200KB).
Deported to Danger II was released in October 2006 and details the cases of 41 asylum seekers who have been interviewed as part of the project. The report gives a full account of findings released in August 2006 to Lateline , which revealed that a number of those deported to Afghanistan had since been killed or had members of their families killed.
The findings generated significant media and government interest. The initial findings are given here. The Centre's response to the emerging debate is given in the following items:
o Those Who Fled from the Taliban, Never Were the Taliban
o Edmund Rice Centre Sends More Information to DIMA
o Decision to Return to Afghanistan No ‘Choice’
o Director responds to claims by Minister
o Immigration amendments rejection a win for human rights
o Edmund Rice Centre Report Confirms a Further 39 people Deported to Danger
To read the report from the Edmund Rice Centre, click on:
Edmund Rice Centre
Has the Australian Government or its agencies sent asylum seekers to unsafe places?
Has the Australian Government or its agencies actually increased the dangers for rejected people by sending reports about them to overseas authorities?
In managing removals, has the Australian Government or its agencies encouraged asylum seekers to obtain false papers or become associated with bribery and corruption?
Is the manner of conducting asylum seeker removals consistent with Australia's legal obligations?
Is the manner of conducting asylum seeker removals consistent with Australia's traditional values?
The Edmund Rice Centre has an ongoing project monitoring the fate of asylum seekers deported from our country. The project has released two reports, Deported to Danger and Deported to Danger II (the full report is 1.6MB, you can also download the executive summary which is under 200KB).
Deported to Danger II was released in October 2006 and details the cases of 41 asylum seekers who have been interviewed as part of the project. The report gives a full account of findings released in August 2006 to Lateline , which revealed that a number of those deported to Afghanistan had since been killed or had members of their families killed.
The findings generated significant media and government interest. The initial findings are given here. The Centre's response to the emerging debate is given in the following items:
o Those Who Fled from the Taliban, Never Were the Taliban
o Edmund Rice Centre Sends More Information to DIMA
o Decision to Return to Afghanistan No ‘Choice’
o Director responds to claims by Minister
o Immigration amendments rejection a win for human rights
o Edmund Rice Centre Report Confirms a Further 39 people Deported to Danger
To read the report from the Edmund Rice Centre, click on:
Edmund Rice Centre
posted by Pax Christi @ Thursday, October 19, 2006
<< Home