U.N. urges Australia to take responsibility for refugees

 

FILE PHOTO - Activists hold placards and chant slogans as they protest outside the offices of the Australian Immigration Department in Sydney, Australia, February 4, 2016. REUTERS/Jarni Blakkarly

 

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations called on Australia on Tuesday to take responsibility for around 800 refugees and asylum seekers stranded in a detention centre on Papua New Guinea where it said many lack medical and mental health care.

 

The refugees - many from Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar - were removed from a holding camp in the remote Papua New Guinea island of Manus in November when Australia decided to close it.

 

Australia's government - whose policy of holding asylum-seekers in offshore camps has bipartisan political support - has said the centre that the group was moved to on the island was adequate and that the Papua New Guinea government was responsible for running it.

 

But Rico Salcedo, UNHCR regional protection officer, told journalists on Tuesday that Canberra had a duty under international law to take responsibility for the 800 who had been seeking sanctuary in Australia.

 

"What stood out the most from this mission ... was a pervasive and worsening sense of despair among refugees and asylum seekers," he said by video link from Canberra after returning from a trip to Manus Island.

 

"Australia remains ultimately responsible as the state from whom refugees and asylum seekers have sought international protection for their welfare and long-term settlement outside of Papua New Guinea," he added.

 

There was no immediate response from Canberra to the UNHCR comments on Tuesday.

 

Salcedo said that while services were still predominantly implemented by Australian-contracted providers, the Canberra government was no longer coordinating the operation there, leaving refugees and asylum seekers confused as to how they can obtain services.

 

At least 500 of the 800 remaining on Papua New Guinea (PNG)await solutions or resettlement in third countries, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) says.

 

The UNHCR calls came as a group of 18 men departed PNG for U.S. resettlement. The men were part of a larger group that were approved for U.S. residency late last month.

 

Under the Obama administration, the United States agreed to take up to 1,250 refugees, but transfers have been slow under Trump.

 

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-14

Stand strong Australia, this is not about today and tomorrow. Think of your future. Look abroad at nations that threw open their borders, and how that worked for them. The Rohingyas IMO would be better off in Bangladesh, perhaps some financial incentive could be offered to Bangla govt officials to welcome them back to their spiritual homeland.

 

 Worth mentioning, were there not at least 2 terror/violent unprovoked attacks in Melbourne by Rohingyas? I'm thinking the stabbing last week and the Commonwealth bank petrol bomb. This will not endear the Rohingyas to the public at large, and will make a decision to accept them all into the mainland so much harder. Sorry for the truly vulnerable ones, the young children and women.

 

Going forward, strict adherence to the Dublin convention is the correct course. Travelling through Malaysia, and Indonesia(muslim majority countries, and safe countries) to reach Australia makes them migrants not refugees.

Those people are economic migrants/ refugees, not true displaced people  owning to war or persecutions, each paid up to ten thousand dollars to be allowed to sneak into Australia illegally, they were told that Australia is soft on immigration laws and their laws protect illegals once

the set foot on Australia soil, and several years it was so until someone woke up and realised the con job that those people were perpetrating...

25 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Stand strong Australia, this is not about today and tomorrow. Think of your future. Look abroad at nations that threw open their borders, and how that worked for them. The Rohingyas IMO would be better off in Bangladesh, perhaps some financial incentive could be offered to Bangla govt officials to welcome them back to their spiritual homeland.

 

 Worth mentioning, were there not at least 2 terror/violent unprovoked attacks in Melbourne by Rohingyas? I'm thinking the stabbing last week and the Commonwealth bank petrol bomb. This will not endear the Rohingyas to the public at large, and will make a decision to accept them all into the mainland so much harder. Sorry for the truly vulnerable ones, the young children and women.

 

Going forward, strict adherence to the Dublin convention is the correct course. Travelling through Malaysia, and Indonesia(muslim majority countries, and safe countries) to reach Australia makes them migrants not refugees.

Dublin Convention is irrelevant to Australia. Neither Indonesia or Malaysia are signatories to the UN Convention for Refugees, nor provide permanent resettlement for refugees, legal access to work etc etc.

 

The arson attack on a bank in Melbourne is not a terrorism related incident. Murder and other serious crimes have been committed by white migrants from other countries, no one is calling for a ban on migrants from their home countries. The  stabbing attack is a terror incident carried our by a Bangladeshi in Australia on a University study visa; to date there is no evidence she is an ethnic Rohingya.

 

The Australian government has accepted resettlement of refugees from Myanmar, but no boat people as an result of the 'Pacific Solution' implemented by a Labor government. 

 

Rohingya were recognised as an ethnic group at the time of independence of Burma, indeed there have been recognised Rohingya politicians. As with a number of non Burman ethnic groups, Rohingya have been severely suppressed, disenfranchised and suffered War Crimes by the Burmese government and extremist nationalist Buddhists for decades. 

 

As you and others would know mass graves of thousands of massacred Rohingya are now being regularly uncovered along with satellite images of hundreds of destroyed villages.

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Those people are economic migrants/ refugees, not true displaced people owning to war or persecutions, each paid up to ten thousand dollars to be allowed to sneak into Australia illegally, they were told that Australia is soft on immigration laws and their laws protect illegals once

the set foot on Australia soil, and several years it was so until someone woke up and realised the con job that those people were perpetrating...

Incorrect. The large majority remaining detained offshore are positively vetted refugees.

Tell the UN to take care of the refugees and send them to Islamic countries, not our problem. 

21 minutes ago, rosst said:

Tell the UN to take care of the refugees and send them to Islamic countries, not our problem.

Streuwth !

As a European, I wish the EU had the balls to do the same as Australia !!!  For those illegal migrants: fix your problems at home, running away from them is not the answer.

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Incorrect. The large majority remaining detained offshore are positively vetted refugees.

Only according to liberal, overly-sensitive, guilt-salving, virtue-signalling criteria. Those better acquainted with human nature are not duped.

Keep them out.   They are country shoppers looking to enter illegally.  If they have enough to pay people smugglers then they have enough to buy an airline ticket ....  or is that not the plan as you tore up your passport.  When Johnny Howard started stopping the boats it was the best thing Australia did.  Keep the buggers off shore until they decide to swim back home.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

leaving refugees and asylum seekers confused as to how they can obtain services.

and they have a "right" to better than that on offer because?

The UN should butt out and mind their own beeswax.

 

They don't want to live in Papua New Guinea because the lifestyle there isn't what they expected to have when they paid criminal gangs to take them on a boat to Australia, thereby jumping the q of refugees doing it the proper ( and longer way ).

 

Far as I know, any of those complaining can ask to go home anytime they want.

 

If the Aussie government caves on this, the criminal gangs will be using it as a selling point to get more victims and then there will be more news stories of them dying at sea.

4 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Stand strong Australia, this is not about today and tomorrow. Think of your future. Look abroad at nations that threw open their borders, and how that worked for them. The Rohingyas IMO would be better off in Bangladesh, perhaps some financial incentive could be offered to Bangla govt officials to welcome them back to their spiritual homeland.

 

 Worth mentioning, were there not at least 2 terror/violent unprovoked attacks in Melbourne by Rohingyas? I'm thinking the stabbing last week and the Commonwealth bank petrol bomb. This will not endear the Rohingyas to the public at large, and will make a decision to accept them all into the mainland so much harder. Sorry for the truly vulnerable ones, the young children and women.

 

Going forward, strict adherence to the Dublin convention is the correct course. Travelling through Malaysia, and Indonesia(muslim majority countries, and safe countries) to reach Australia makes them migrants not refugees.

It's actually a British problem. While the Rohingyas lived there for centuries, they imported many labourers from  Bangladesh when they ruled Burma, which stayed, and when they granted independence they didn't sort their right to citizenship in Myanmar.  On that basis, the Rohingyas should be given asylum in Britain, as the British stuffed it up.

 

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's actually a British problem. While the Rohingyas lived there for centuries, they imported many labourers from  Bangladesh when they ruled Burma, which stayed, and when they granted independence they didn't sort their right to citizenship in Myanmar.  On that basis, the Rohingyas should be given asylum in Britain, as the British stuffed it up.

 

 

And all the Australians of European, African, Asian or American ethnicity and descent should be expelled from Australia as they stole it from the native Australians.

 

How far back do you want to go?

 

Btw, what happened to the scandal of the Australian government being exposed for bribing criminal gangs to not deliver illegal migrants?

 

 

Edited February 14, 20188 yr by Baerboxer

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and they have a "right" to better than that on offer because?

The UN should butt out and mind their own beeswax.

 

They don't want to live in Papua New Guinea because the lifestyle there isn't what they expected to have when they paid criminal gangs to take them on a boat to Australia, thereby jumping the q of refugees doing it the proper ( and longer way ).

 

Far as I know, any of those complaining can ask to go home anytime they want.

 

If the Aussie government caves on this, the criminal gangs will be using it as a selling point to get more victims and then there will be more news stories of them dying at sea.

 A good point is that by paying a criminal gang to smuggle them and entering illegally they are breaking laws, intentionally and become criminals. Most countries won't accept known criminals as immigrants. Why should Australia?

 

Neighboring Muslim countries, including Bangladesh, with its strong ethnic ties, don't want the Rohingya. Wonder why that might be?

UN has not teeth, and nobody takes notice of them anymore. Australia keep your ground, don't end up like Europe!

35 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And all the Australians of European, African, Asian or American ethnicity and descent should be expelled from Australia as they stole it from the native Australians.

 

How far back do you want to go?

 

Btw, what happened to the scandal of the Australian government being exposed for bribing criminal gangs to not deliver illegal migrants?

 

 

The "native Australians" would agree with that.

 

The British stuffed up Burma in my lifetime, not two hundred years ago. They should have done better.

1 hour ago, CharlesSwann said:

Only according to liberal, overly-sensitive, guilt-salving, virtue-signalling criteria. Those better acquainted with human nature are not duped.

Rubbish. You're claiming  the Australian & Trump Administration asylum seekers vetting process is driven by "liberal, overly-sensitive, guilt-salving, virtue-signalling" - LOL

A troll post has been reported and removed.  

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and they have a "right" to better than that on offer because?

The UN should butt out and mind their own beeswax.

 

They don't want to live in Papua New Guinea because the lifestyle there isn't what they expected to have when they paid criminal gangs to take them on a boat to Australia, thereby jumping the q of refugees doing it the proper ( and longer way ).

 

Far as I know, any of those complaining can ask to go home anytime they want.

 

If the Aussie government caves on this, the criminal gangs will be using it as a selling point to get more victims and then there will be more news stories of them dying at sea.

Australia is a signatory to the relevant UN Refugee / Human Rights Conventions, so UN has every right to comment on Australia's treatment of asylum seekers.

 

The PNG Supreme Court ordered the Oz government to shut down the detention camps as they were considered to be a breach of Human Rights. Nearly all those remaining have been positively vetted as genuine refugees, so why on earth would they want to return to their home countries and face abuse by the authorities. 

 

PNG is recognised as an unsafe country for foreigners, it's why expats live in secure compounds. Refugees released into PNG society have no protection.

 

One can understand why asylum seekers take to the boats and put their lives at risk, at the time they must have seen it as a better than staying in refugee camps for possibly decades, no work, no education for the children etc.

 

Thousands arrive by air every year in Australia on tourist visas etc and then claim asylum; strange you very rarely hear about this matter from the media.

Edited February 14, 20188 yr by simple1

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I assume you're well aware of the facts, so you're indulging in hyperbole.

 

The PNG Supreme Court ordered the Oz government to shut down the detention camps as they were considered to be a breach of Human Rights. Nearly all those remaining have been positively vetted as genuine refugees, so why on earth would they want to return to their home countries and face abuse by the authorities. 

 

PNG is recognised as an unsafe country for foreigners, it's why expats live in secure compounds. Refugees released into PNG society have no protection.

 

One can understand why asylum seekers take to the boats and put their lives at risk, at the time they must have seen it as a better than staying in refugee camps for possibly decades, no work, no education for the children etc.

 

Thousands arrive by air every year in Australia on tourist visas etc and then claim asylum; strange you very rarely hear about this matter from the media.

OK, to cut the hyperbole.

 

People died regularly on boats when they paid criminals to take them to Australian territory.

To stop the boats the Australian government ( both parties ) agree that q jumpers paying criminals should not be allowed to reach the promised land of milk and honey ahead of those that do it the right way.

There is no point making the lives of those on PNG so nice that others will pay criminals to take them on boats so they end up in PNG having a nice life.

Ergo, those on PNG must suffer to dissuade others from paying criminals to take them on dangerous boats so they can get a better life.

So far, the policy is working.

 

Thousands arrive by air every year in Australia on tourist visas etc and then claim asylum; strange you very rarely hear about this matter from the media.

That has nothing to do with the boat people. None of those using planes have died doing so.

Edited February 14, 20188 yr by thaibeachlovers

No no no..We have taken millions. Go to Thailand good luck

1 hour ago, the guest said:

UN has not teeth, and nobody takes notice of them anymore. Australia keep your ground, don't end up like Europe!

yes enough enough

A troll post has been removed.   Continued extremely negative remarks will earn suspensions.  

56 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thousands arrive by air every year in Australia on tourist visas etc and then claim asylum; strange you very rarely hear about this matter from the media.

That has nothing to do with the boat people. None of those using planes have died doing so.

What are you going on about? Everything to do with asylum seekers. Surely you haven't fallen for the furphy of drownings at sea motivating the Pacific Solution.

Edited February 14, 20188 yr by simple1

Australia is right to deny them entry. However they should have been sent straight back to their jump off points in Indonesia. Keep doing that and they will stop coming.

4 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

Australia is right to deny them entry. However they should have been sent straight back to their jump off points in Indonesia. Keep doing that and they will stop coming.

Indonesia won't take them, and are under no obligation to do so.

Short of leaving them to die at sea, the only alternative is what they are doing now.

If the UN truely wanted to be helpful, it could hire ships, to transport the refugees back to

their home or some country that truly wants or needs them. Leave Australia and other countries that do no want or need these people alone. And No,  I am not saying send them to Canada, as we already have enough homeless people in our country who were born there, or got in somehow, and became homeless.

Geezer

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Australia remains ultimately responsible as the state from whom refugees and asylum seekers have sought international protection for their welfare and long-term settlement outside of Papua New Guinea," he added.

What?

so... if you want to seek protection from Monaco... Monaco should pay... great... i think I’ll look into that.... stupid!

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

The United Nations called on Australia on Tuesday to take responsibility for around 800 refugees and asylum seekers stranded in a detention centre on Papua New Guinea

Australia is footing the bill to house asylum seekers for other countries... because aussies are good peoples. The UN should be thanking them for assisting the refugees in their travels to these other countries

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

What stood out the most from this mission ... was a pervasive and worsening sense of despair among refugees and asylum seekers,

Despair because their plan to illegally enter australia is failing?.... one wonders if there level of despair is better or worse than it was when they lived in their homeland.

Edited February 14, 20188 yr by farcanell

As an Australian I think the Oz government is doing a great job. If they don`t like PNG they can go home & the Oz taxpayer will pay for it. They are illegal immigrants & to accept any of them will just encourage others.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indonesia won't take them, and are under no obligation to do so.

Short of leaving them to die at sea, the only alternative is what they are doing now.

Wrong. Indonesia did accept returned boats. Indonesia was not, is not the sole point of departure e.g. a number originated from Sri Lanka