U.N. urges Australia to take responsibility for refugees

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Vatman said:

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.

Under the UN Convention for refugees for which Australia is a signatory, the positively vetted asylum seekers are not 'illegals'. Australia passed specific domestic legislation, contrary to the UN Conventions, that defined them as 'illegals". In addition the large majority of those remaining in PNG and Nuara have been vetted as refugees, again why would they return to their home countries to face abuse, perhaps death. No doubt you can explain why asylum seekers who arrive by air and then claim asylum seeker status, are not treated as 'illegals'.

[steven100]

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

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

These boats were from Sri Lanka,  the illegal immigrants were from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other parts of the Middle east, they travel by land in groups as coordinated by their smugglers, they board boats in Sri Lanka and sail to Indonesia. Indonesian police are aware of who the smugglers are and they benefit from the smugglers.  Why do you think none are caught in Indonesia ... because the Indonesian police are on the take thats why. Australian authorities have know this for ages. They know indonesia is playing games with Australia over stopping the boats. To think otherwise would be very naive.

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, steven100 said:

These boats were from Sri Lanka,  the illegal immigrants were from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other parts of the Middle east, they travel by land in groups as coordinated by their smugglers, they board boats in Sri Lanka and sail to Indonesia. Indonesian police are aware of who the smugglers are and they benefit from the smugglers.  Why do you think none are caught in Indonesia ... because the Indonesian police are on the take thats why. Australian authorities have know this for ages. They know indonesia is playing games with Australia over stopping the boats. To think otherwise would be very naive.

There are thousands of asylum seekers / refugees detained in Indonesia, Indo government has assisted with the arrest of people smugglers. Yes, Indo police and others are well know for corruption.

[Thechook]

They were given 75 million dollars and are free to leave but they refuse to go.  The looney leftards and other assorted weird nutters are telling them to stay put.

[CG1 Blue]

As a Brit I have watched from afar and applauded the Aussie government.  If only EU governments didn't cave in so easily under pressure from the left. Please stay strong on this Aussies!

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

As a Brit I have watched from afar and applauded the Aussie government.  If only EU governments didn't cave in so easily under pressure from the left. Please stay strong on this Aussies!

 

Do keep up...

 

In Australia it was a left leaning government, Labor, that implemented the offshore detention and processing camps. Later the PNG Supreme Court ruled the detention camps were contrary to the PNG Constitution, breaching Human Rights, and instructed the Australian government to close down the detention camps.

[Khun Han]

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

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

 

So why did they sail past Malaysia and Indonesia?

[Thechook]

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

So why did they sail past Malaysia and Indonesia?

More free stuff in Australia

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, Thechook said:

They were given 75 million dollars and are free to leave but they refuse to go.  The looney leftards and other assorted weird nutters are telling them to stay put.

 

They are not looney leftards or weird nutters. They are George Soros and his band of manipulative globalists, who want to water down every sovereign nation into an easily-compliant and cheap mass-labour pool.

[Khun Han]

13 hours ago, simple1 said:

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

 

Sri Lanka to Australia. Wow! That's a lot of safe haven second and third world countries passed on their journey.

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, Thechook said:

More free stuff in Australia

 

Nah, you don't say .

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

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

INDONESIA and Australia were locked in a stand-off after an Australian vessel went to the aid of an asylum-seeker boat off Indonesia's main island of Java but Jakarta said it would not accept receiving those on board.

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/indonesia-refuses-to-accept-boat-people-rescued-by-australia/news-story/c33c0bafe52b7f9cd38a4b0559beda06

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

Do keep up...

 

In Australia it was a left leaning government, Labor, that implemented the offshore detention and processing camps. Later the PNG Supreme Court ruled the detention camps were contrary to the PNG Constitution, breaching Human Rights, and instructed the Australian government to close down the detention camps.

Labour only did so because they knew that they'd get a hiding in the election if they didn't do something. Didn't save them though.

[farcanell]

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

Under the UN Convention for refugees for which Australia is a signatory, the positively vetted asylum seekers are not 'illegals'. Australia passed specific domestic legislation, contrary to the UN Conventions, that defined them as 'illegals". In addition the large majority of those remaining in PNG and Nuara have been vetted as refugees, again why would they return to their home countries to face abuse, perhaps death. No doubt you can explain why asylum seekers who arrive by air and then claim asylum seeker status, are not treated as 'illegals'.

Two topics... one of them is off topic... ie, asylum seekers by air, which has nothing to do with this thread... just chaff to muddy the waters. So as it’s off topic, let’s discard that. (I’m sure that your more informed, living in Oz, watching the daily news etc... and you may have the right of it. However, this is not extensively covered here)

 

so... back on topic... vetted as refugees and set to be relocated to the US (is that who did the vetting? The US?), but being housed, clothed watered and fed by the Australian tax payer, whilst trump tries to wriggle out of a US agreement to take these refugees

 

Obama’s administration made a deal... they got something in return for accepting the refugees, now they need to keep their end of the bargain, and as such, it’s really the US that should be subject to attack regards this matter... even this OP recognizes that trump is stalling, and in doing so, causing more hardship for the refugees that they have agreed to accept, plus the Australian taxpayer

[simple1]

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

INDONESIA and Australia were locked in a stand-off after an Australian vessel went to the aid of an asylum-seeker boat off Indonesia's main island of Java but Jakarta said it would not accept receiving those on board.

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/indonesia-refuses-to-accept-boat-people-rescued-by-australia/news-story/c33c0bafe52b7f9cd38a4b0559beda06

The end result was Indo did accept boats turned around by the Oz Navy, this is what matters, same comment concerning other matters you raised. BTW the political party is spelt Labor, not Labour

[simple1]

27 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Two topics... one of them is off topic... ie, asylum seekers by air, which has nothing to do with this thread... just chaff to muddy the waters. So as it’s off topic, let’s discard that. (I’m sure that your more informed, living in Oz, watching the daily news etc... and you may have the right of it. However, this is not extensively covered here)

 

so... back on topic... vetted as refugees and set to be relocated to the US (is that who did the vetting? The US?), but being housed, clothed watered and fed by the Australian tax payer, whilst trump tries to wriggle out of a US agreement to take these refugees

 

Obama’s administration made a deal... they got something in return for accepting the refugees, now they need to keep their end of the bargain, and as such, it’s really the US that should be subject to attack regards this matter... even this OP recognizes that trump is stalling, and in doing so, causing more hardship for the refugees that they have agreed to accept, plus the Australian taxpayer

Off topic - disagree - however If you feel so strongly use the 'report' function.

 

Oz did the vetting, then US insisted they carry out their own vetting which can take up to 2/3 years. So far 85 people held in offshore detention have been relocated to the US.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The end result was Indo did accept boats turned around by the Oz Navy, this is what matters, same comment concerning other matters you raised. BTW the political party is spelt Labor, not Labour

I wasn't aware that Australia had adopted American spelling, but a google check says you are correct.

[simple1]

10 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Sri Lanka to Australia. Wow! That's a lot of safe haven second and third world countries passed on their journey.

Which countries would be defined as safe countries on route that fully comply to UN criteria?

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Which countries would be defined as safe countries on route that fully comply to UN criteria?

Surely it is somewhat ironical then, that those residing in PNG are claiming it isn't safe, when they chose to use a method of travel that ensured they ended up in PNG.

[farcanell]

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Off topic - disagree - however If you feel so strongly use the 'report' function.

 

Oz did the vetting, then US insisted they carry out their own vetting which can take up to 2/3 years. So far 85 people held in offshore detention have been relocated to the US.

I don’t feel strongly enough to report anything.... that’s a very simplistic response, as I polititely pointed out that you were talking about two separate issues, one of which is off topic, and deliberately designed to dirty the waters. (IMO)

 

im not sure why you think the issue of asylum seekers arriving by air is relevant, as the topic is;

 

“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.”

 

no where, except by you, is air arrivals mentioned.... so... off topic... 

 

on topic, as mentioned in the OP, is that the US is dragging its feet in honoring a deal made between Australia and its ally, the USA... so again... bad USA, good Aussies.

[farcanell]

23 hours ago, simple1 said:

No doubt you can explain why asylum seekers who arrive by air and then claim asylum seeker status, are not treated as 'illegals'.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

 

here ya go simple 1... this is the Australian governments answer to your question... hope it helps

[CG1 Blue]

12 hours ago, simple1 said:

Do keep up...

 

In Australia it was a left leaning government, Labor, that implemented the offshore detention and processing camps. Later the PNG Supreme Court ruled the detention camps were contrary to the PNG Constitution, breaching Human Rights, and instructed the Australian government to close down the detention camps.

I'm talking about the frank speaking Aussie politicians who aren't afraid to talk about the problems caused by mass immigration from certain parts of the world.  You won't like this of course, as your head is firmly buried in the sand so you don't see the problems.

 

Also the tough asylum policy seems to work, and deters people from making the dangerous journey - thus saves lives. Under this policy military vessels patrol Australian waters and intercept migrant boats, towing them back to Indonesia or sending asylum seekers back in inflatable dinghies or lifeboats.

 

I say good on them.

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

 

here ya go simple 1... this is the Australian governments answer to your question... hope it helps

Thanks, I'm well aware of the issues and have read before. It is interesting the doco undermines many members POV. Info below has been posted previously, but always ignored e.g.

 

"there is no orderly queue for asylum seekers to join".

 

Although those who come to Australia by boat seeking Australia’s protection are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non-citizens’, they have a right to seek asylum under international law and not be penalised for their mode of entry.

[paulinbk]

Its too late. Was in a West Sydney hospital in Sydney last week, was overrun. They hit the jackpot here. Free medical, food, housing, transport. 

Lefties all wanting us to pay half our salary to them.

[ncc1701d]

I consider myself left on most issues, but it would be far cheaper to load them up on a military transport and fly them back to where they came from. Vetting needs to be much faster.

[Credo]

2 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

I consider myself left on most issues, but it would be far cheaper to load them up on a military transport and fly them back to where they came from. Vetting needs to be much faster.

The problem is some of the countries will not take back people forcibly repatriated.   The second thing is, there's a good chance a military transport plane entering foreign air space would have dire consequences.   

 

[ncc1701d]

10 hours ago, Credo said:

The problem is some of the countries will not take back people forcibly repatriated.   The second thing is, there's a good chance a military transport plane entering foreign air space would have dire consequences.   

 

So Australia should take them because their Home Countries won’t? 

 

There arediffetent foreign military ships and aircraft - you name it, all over the planet for all sorts of reasons. So not sure why there would be dire consequences. Perhaps if it was done illegally - but no one is advocating that.

[CharlesSwann]

On 14/02/2018 at 11:46 AM, simple1 said:

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

To explain for you: in any group of people there will be those who are duped for the above reasons (in this case, those who, as you claim, classified the asylum-seekers as genuine) and those who are not duped (in this case, those who are denying them entry). As you can see, that corresponds to the reality of the situation.

There will also be another group in favour of immigration of any type - those of immigrant stock themselves who have an agenda to promote more immigration to salve their own consciences.

[simple1]

42 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

To explain for you: in any group of people there will be those who are duped for the above reasons (in this case, those who, as you claim, classified the asylum-seekers as genuine) and those who are not duped (in this case, those who are denying them entry). As you can see, that corresponds to the reality of the situation.

There will also be another group in favour of immigration of any type - those of immigrant stock themselves who have an agenda to promote more immigration to salve their own consciences.

Still disagree within the context of the OP. Oz and US immigration and security agency staff will have very strict guidelines to follow.

[roobaa01]

the only responsiblility for australia is to send the illegals home, god bless oz.

 

wbr

roobaa01