An adverse ASIO Assessment probably means that we really do not want these people running around in Australia
An adverse ASIO Assessment probably means that we really do not want these people running around in Australia.
Contrary to what people may tell you ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) do not make the decision about who gets to stay in this Australia. They are neither omnipotent nor above the law. Unfortunately like most secret organizations around the world they are as much a victim of myth creating than they are of reality. When it comes to asylum seekers ASIO’s role is restricted to making an assessment about the security risk an individual may pose to the Australian community. At no stage do they have the power to incarcerate asylum seekers. Rather that role is handled by the government who uses these assessments to decide whether someone should be let loose in the broader community.
The complication to this assessment comes after a person has been deemed to be eligible for refugee status by the UN. The refugee assessment takes place prior to the ASIO assessment but does not take into account any possible risk the claimant may pose to the Australian community. All it does assess is whether the person reasonably believes that they will be persecuted. Consequently the UN makes an assessment and leaves the ramifications of dangerous people to the country where they are residing. This where the ASIO assessment cops the most flack from asylum seeker advocate groups and activists. Yet it is also where the greatest loophole exists in the UN refugee assessment process. What danger is there to a society when: a person who has had weapons and explosive training; has been indoctrinated into terrorist organization; has been involved planning assassinations or any number of other thugs? After being assessed as a refugee is it wise to suddenly canonize as collective innocent?
In late April ASIO did break their silence about why some asylum seeker would be given an adverse security assessment. The statement was not directly specific to any case for security reasons but it does explain some of their fears about letting certain individuals free in the community. The summary document by ASIO refers to 55 people who are “likely to engage in acts prejudicial to Australia’s security”.
People smuggling activities, forging documents and helping members of the Tamil Tiger terrorist organization obtain false identities. More serious allegations included plots to kill and the training of militants.
What would be the ramifications of having terrorist agents and sympathizers being released into the community?