Indonesia rescues 120 asylum seekers who refuse to disembark

[News_Editor]

Indonesia rescues 120 asylum seekers who refuse to disembark

2012-04-10 04:29:45 GMT+7 (ICT)

JAKARTA, INDONESIA (BNO NEWS) -- Indonesian authorities on Sunday rescued 120 asylum seekers from the Middle East, but officials are still trying to convince them to disembark from the vessel, local media reported on late Monday.

The Singapore-registered MT Hermia tanker rescued 120 men believed to be from Afghanistan and Iran in Indonesian waters on Sunday as their sinking boat was trying to reach Australia. The tanker is currently docked in the port city of Merak, located in the province of Banten in western Java.

Banten province maritime police chief Budi Hermawan told the Jakarta Globe that some 100 police officers surrounded the tanker after it arrived, awaiting the people to disembark, but the asylum seekers insisted that they did not want to get down as they want to reach Australia.

While security officials detained four men of Indonesian appearance, apparently crew members in charge of the boat, Hermawan said officials from the police, immigration and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) were trying to negotiate the disembarkment of the immigrants.

Indonesia is commonly used as a transit region for asylum seekers trying to reach Australia illegally. Over 200 people are believed to have died last December when a boat carrying people mostly from Afghanistan and Iran sank in Indonesian waters. Only 47 people survived the incident.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-04-10

[Scott]

It's a tough call for the people living in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iran. As the Western military withdrawal continues, there is likely to be an increase in people seeking a new place to live.

It's a bit of a Catch 22 for everyone involved.

[Steely Dan]

It's a tough call for the people living in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iran. As the Western military withdrawal continues, there is likely to be an increase in people seeking a new place to live.

It's a bit of a Catch 22 for everyone involved.

But they still set their sights on Australia. If their lives were truly in great danger I wonder why they don't settle for Indonesia?

[Colin Yai]

It's a tough call for the people living in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iran. As the Western military withdrawal continues, there is likely to be an increase in people seeking a new place to live.

It's a bit of a Catch 22 for everyone involved.

But they still set their sights on Australia. If their lives were truly in great danger I wonder why they don't settle for Indonesia?

I'll take a wild guess ,maybe its cos they do not have the equivalent of Australia's Centrelink (social security) in Indonesia !!.

[Scott]

I don't think that Indonesia is a resettlement country.

I haven't kept up on the in's and out's of the refugee situation, but some countries do not accept refugees for resettlement.

[55Jay]

They were shark food if they sank. Same if they get sent back to origin. Darn their bad luck to breakdown and get "rescued" by fellow Muslims, they were hoping for the Great Satan.

[Colin Yai]

I don't think that Indonesia is a resettlement country.

I haven't kept up on the in's and out's of the refugee situation, but some countries do not accept refugees for resettlement.

According to the article ,The Police did not refuse them permission to disembark ,it was they themselves who refused ,I would have thought if it was Against Indonesian policy to accept them they would have been refused entry and simply told to "move on".

[Steely Dan]

I know this may sound callous, but perhaps Australia should opt not to resettle refugees or it's relatively low population would result in enormous financial strain being put on it's taxpayers, which in turn may lead to knock on public order problems. All it takes is one bad apple and you have a financial disaster. To give a UK example, according to a group known as the taxpayers alliance radical cleric Abu Hamza has so far cost Britain 2.75 million pounds in wellfare payments, council housing, NHS and prison bills.

Aside from this there 'should' be a clear principle in the E.U where asylum seekers are processed in the first E.U Country they enter, instead of being allowed to make a bee line for the Country with the most generous social provision. Australia has some trade links to ASEAN and I don't see why similar agreements can't be entered into with neighboring Countries Granted this would still no doubt cost Australia money, but if the expectation of being able to choose where to apply for asylum was removed then this might separate the persecuted from the economic migrants.

[Scott]

Getting refugee status in Australia is not an easy affair. They hardly have an open door policy.

The point is to provide protection for genuine refugees, who are fleeing for reasons mentioned under the Geneva convention protocols. Those who are economic migrants can be returned to their country of origin once they are determined not to be genuine refugees.

[Colin Yai]

Getting refugee status in Australia is not an easy affair. They hardly have an open door policy.

The point is to provide protection for genuine refugees, who are fleeing for reasons mentioned under the Geneva convention protocols. Those who are economic migrants can be returned to their country of origin once they are determined not to be genuine refugees.

Many so called"asylum seekers" travel through two or more Country's before risking life and limb to get to the "gravy train" of the UK social security system , Australia according to my many Aussie mates here tell me its just the same there , if they are so persecuted in their own Countrys why not claim asylum at their first port of entry? . Edited April 10, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

I know this may sound callous, but perhaps Australia should opt not to resettle refugees or it's relatively low population would result in enormous financial strain being put on it's taxpayers, which in turn may lead to knock on public order problems. All it takes is one bad apple and you have a financial disaster. To give a UK example, according to a group known as the taxpayers alliance radical cleric Abu Hamza has so far cost Britain 2.75 million pounds in wellfare payments, council housing, NHS and prison bills.

Aside from this there 'should' be a clear principle in the E.U where asylum seekers are processed in the first E.U Country they enter, instead of being allowed to make a bee line for the Country with the most generous social provision. Australia has some trade links to ASEAN and I don't see why similar agreements can't be entered into with neighboring Countries Granted this would still no doubt cost Australia money, but if the expectation of being able to choose where to apply for asylum was removed then this might separate the persecuted from the economic migrants.

Far from being Callous Dan its the simple truth ,which more and more cannot be either written or spoken due to "Political correctness" or fear of being branded an "extremist", millions think the same as me but Ain't the guts to air their opinions in public. Edited April 10, 2012 by Colin Yai

[harrry]

I feel the only fair way is for the UN to process all claims for resettlement. THe individuals (or families ) should then be randomly allocated to an asylum country which should have the right of refusal. If refused the next random country..

THis should ensure that only those in a degree of danger and not just economic refugees get asylum. IE..the seekers do not select the country but still have safe refuge.

[kevjohn]

All the Asylum seekers have been removed from the tanker.

Read here

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/asylum-seekers-forced-off-tanker-in-java/story-e6frf7jx-1226323117350

[Steely Dan]

All the Asylum seekers have been removed from the tanker.

Read here

http://www.heraldsun...x-1226323117350

Every single one of them Male, I guess females have no need to escape persecution in their sharia controlled utopias.

"But some of us have paid $5000 to go to Australia. We don't want to be in Indonesia."

Tis also high time human traffickers were treated the same as drug dealers, follow the money trail and you are on the right track for solving the problem.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Colin Yai]

All the Asylum seekers have been removed from the tanker.

Read here

http://www.heraldsun...x-1226323117350

Every single one of them Male, I guess females have no need to escape persecution in their sharia controlled utopias.

"But some of us have paid $5000 to go to Australia. We don't want to be in Indonesia."

Tis also high time human traffickers were treated the same as drug dealers, follow the money trail and you are on the right track for solving the problem.

The Guy Said it himself they are not seeking Asylum in any ANY Country, they just want to reach Australia!!. Edited April 10, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

I feel the only fair way is for the UN to process all claims for resettlement. THe individuals (or families ) should then be randomly allocated to an asylum country which should have the right of refusal. If refused the next random country..

THis should ensure that only those in a degree of danger and not just economic refugees get asylum. IE..the seekers do not select the country but still have safe refuge.

That,s the problem they are not fleeing from "oppression" and claiming "Asylum " in any random Country but specifying Australia and are quite prepared to pay mega bucks" (for them) to get there, maybe they can get a refund from the people smugglers!

[Thaddeus]

It's a tough call for the people living in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iran. As the Western military withdrawal continues, there is likely to be an increase in people seeking a new place to live.

It's a bit of a Catch 22 for everyone involved.

But they still set their sights on Australia. If their lives were truly in great danger I wonder why they don't settle for Indonesia?

I'll take a wild guess ,maybe its cos they do not have the equivalent of Australia's Centrelink (social security) in Indonesia !!.

Nah, it's the beaches, got to be the beaches.

[Scott]

The reason that people are screened for refugee status is to determine whether or not they are in need of protection from persecution. Those that are not found to be refugees will ultimately be repatriated.

Do you think that reaching Australia is the gravy train? It's not. It's years of being locked up in a detention center, being screened and probably rejected as a genuine refugee, and probably returned to your home country.

Thailand, for example, is not a signatory to the UN protocols on Refugees. Thailand does not grant refugee status to people and seldom resettles people. A lot of refugees transit the country.

The situation in Indonesia is similar, I believe. If there are any refugees on the boat, they may never get a chance to voice their claim. In Australia, they would.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Scott

[Colin Yai]

The reason that people are screened for refugee status is to determine whether or not they are in need of protection from persecution. Those that are not found to be refugees will ultimately be repatriated.

Do you think that reaching Australia is the gravy train? It's not. It's years of being locked up in a detention center, being screened and probably rejected as a genuine refugee, and probably returned to your home country.

Thailand, for example, is not a signatory to the UN protocols on Refugees. Thailand does not grant refugee status to people and seldom resettles people. A lot of refugees transit the country.

The situation in Indonesia is similar, I believe. If there are any refugees on the boat, they may never get a chance to voice their claim. In Australia, they would.

So in essence Scott what you are saying is that the Afghans who paid a reported 5,000 US to risk their lives on a rotting hulk ,(some sink during the journey) to be Imprisoned for years in a detention center (that,s if they don't burn it down) whilst they are being processed to probably have their refugee status turned down and probably returned to the Country from whence they came , yeah it sound's about right Edited April 10, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Scott]

Having spent quite a number of years working in Refugee Status Determination--screening, the answer is yes.

My comments are about people who are true refugees, not economic migrants, not anchors (get one in and the rest of the family can follow). For both groups, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of hope where they are, so they leave. They leave for delusional reasons because they have heard all kinds of wonderful stories about the great treatment and fairness in Western Countries. By the way, the open door policy of Europe doesn't help discourage people leaving.

True refugees will endure the hardship of detention and screening and countries will resettle them.

It's the roll of the dice with the economic migrants. Many of them think that if they can spin a good, sad story, countries will let them in. Most, including Australia, will not.

I believe most of them headed toward Australia end up in detention on Christmas Island.

[Scott]

By the way, I doubt very, very few, if any, are refugees.

[F4UCorsair]

Why Australia?? Let me think for a microsecond. Because the government is a soft cock bunch of labor wannabees, being supported in a minority government by the bleeding heart, chardonnay socialist, and way to the left wing wanke_r Greens.

It's only one of the reasons why the Liberals will sweep to power next year with a similar majority to the recent Queensland elections, 78 LNP seats to 7 Labor and a couple of independents, NO Greens. At least the Libs are listening to what the voters are saying, whereas labor is doing what they think best for themselves, bringing in people who will largely be on social security benefits, and therefore labor voters. Labor has never been able to manage money.

Scott said, "It's the roll of the dice with the economic migrants. Many of them think that if they can spin a good, sad story, countries will let them in. Most, including Australia, will not.

I believe most of them headed toward Australia end up in detention on Christmas Island. ".

Not true Scott. Very few are refused, and we even have some who are such a security risk that NO country will take them, and we're stuck, keeping them for the rest of their miserable lives. The lunatic Greens want them all released into the community, and to take more than we already are, and experience has shown that crime rates among these groups are significantly higher than others.

[Colin Yai]

By the way, I doubt very, very few, if any, are refugees.

In Other words Scott they are lying to achieve a better standard of living (economic migrants)

[Colin Yai]

Why Australia?? Let me think for a microsecond. Because the government is a soft cock bunch of labor wannabees, being supported in a minority government by the bleeding heart, chardonnay socialist, and way to the left wing wanke_r Greens.

It's only one of the reasons why the Liberals will sweep to power next year with a similar majority to the recent Queensland elections, 78 LNP seats to 7 Labor and a couple of independents, NO Greens. At least the Libs are listening to what the voters are saying, whereas labor is doing what they think best for themselves, bringing in people who will largely be on social security benefits, and therefore labor voters. Labor has never been able to manage money.

Scott said, "It's the roll of the dice with the economic migrants. Many of them think that if they can spin a good, sad story, countries will let them in. Most, including Australia, will not.

I believe most of them headed toward Australia end up in detention on Christmas Island. ".

Not true Scott. Very few are refused, and we even have some who are such a security risk that NO country will take them, and we're stuck, keeping them for the rest of their miserable lives. The lunatic Greens want them all released into the community, and to take more than we already are, and experience has shown that crime rates among these groups are significantly higher than others.

Well written Corsair ,of course you must realize that to many this will be construed as "extremist ranting" as today speaking the truth as it really is often offends , obviously you are a fair dinkum Aussie , I am in almost daily contact with 3 others who hold the exact same view as yourself in every detail.

[Scott]

<snip>

Not true Scott. Very few are refused, and we even have some who are such a security risk that NO country will take them, and we're stuck, keeping them for the rest of their miserable lives. The lunatic Greens want them all released into the community, and to take more than we already are, and experience has shown that crime rates among these groups are significantly higher than others.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "Very few are refused..." Later you say "The lunatic Greens want them all released into the community,..."

So basically, what you are saying is they are being held in detention centers. They have either been screened out as refugees or are awaiting screening. If they were genuine refugees, then once screened, they would released from detention and allowed to resettle. If not, they are usually held in detention pending repatriation to their home country.

It sounds like a big part of the problem is the internal politics in the country. Screening should be done reasonably quickly as well as the return of economic migrants. It's not in the best interest of anyone to be held in detention for prolonged periods of time. The message gets across when they start returning economic migrants to their home country.

[Steely Dan]

Why Australia?? Let me think for a microsecond. Because the government is a soft cock bunch of labor wannabees, being supported in a minority government by the bleeding heart, chardonnay socialist, and way to the left wing wanke_r Greens.

It's only one of the reasons why the Liberals will sweep to power next year with a similar majority to the recent Queensland elections, 78 LNP seats to 7 Labor and a couple of independents, NO Greens. At least the Libs are listening to what the voters are saying, whereas labor is doing what they think best for themselves, bringing in people who will largely be on social security benefits, and therefore labor voters. Labor has never been able to manage money.

Scott said, "It's the roll of the dice with the economic migrants. Many of them think that if they can spin a good, sad story, countries will let them in. Most, including Australia, will not.

I believe most of them headed toward Australia end up in detention on Christmas Island. ".

Not true Scott. Very few are refused, and we even have some who are such a security risk that NO country will take them, and we're stuck, keeping them for the rest of their miserable lives. The lunatic Greens want them all released into the community, and to take more than we already are, and experience has shown that crime rates among these groups are significantly higher than others.

Sadly this is exactly what happens in Europe. Left wing parties flood their Countries with immigrants knowing full well said immigrants vote for them. There is invariably an increase in crime as a direct result too and I'm not even talking about benefits fraud per se but rape, honor killings and the like. This has the knock on effect of causing those fed up with what's going on to leave thus exacerbating the demographic effect. Australia should really take heed of what has happened in Europe where major cities such as Oslo, Malmo, Marseilles, Amsterdam and Brussels have been ruined by a criminal influx parasitic to the local population - at least Australia can make it's own decisions unlike Europe where the unelected Eurabian community politicians seek to dismantle the nation states one by one.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Colin Yai]

Basically Scott I would think as well as calling them Economic Migrants one could accurately call them "defectors" from the Stone age "system" that prevails in their respective Country's , maybe just maybe they have seen what the outside"infidel" world has to offer , odd thing is though when many arrive at "the promised land" they enthuse the quality,s of Allah and want Sharia law imposed in their new homeland!

[Scott]

That's a discussion I am not going to get into, but you opinion is not without merit and I am sure would be echoed by many.

The only reason I am interested in this article is because true refugees need the full protection of the international community. The criteria for being a refugee is pretty stringent....I am not talking about discriminatory practices, but about persecution. Returning them can means death or years in imprisonment. Most refugees who flee persecution are quite happy with their resettlement country and take pains to assimilate. Generally, they are grateful people.

Other groups who leave for a variety of misguided reasons are a whole different kettle of fish. Many are poorly educated, their motivation in going to a new country is primarily financial and other than poverty, their homeland remains a beacon of all that is good in life. Also, many of them do not leave voluntarily, but are forced to go by the family....and I doubt the ones thrown in the boat are the most cherished child to begin with.

[harrry]

That's a discussion I am not going to get into, but you opinion is not without merit and I am sure would be echoed by many.

The only reason I am interested in this article is because true refugees need the full protection of the international community. The criteria for being a refugee is pretty stringent....I am not talking about discriminatory practices, but about persecution. Returning them can means death or years in imprisonment. Most refugees who flee persecution are quite happy with their resettlement country and take pains to assimilate. Generally, they are grateful people.

Other groups who leave for a variety of misguided reasons are a whole different kettle of fish. Many are poorly educated, their motivation in going to a new country is primarily financial and other than poverty, their homeland remains a beacon of all that is good in life. Also, many of them do not leave voluntarily, but are forced to go by the family....and I doubt the ones thrown in the boat are the most cherished child to begin with.

But as I proposed this would be alleviated if they were once assessed and decided as refugees they got sent to a country decided at random. They would have safety....they just could not chose where,,It may be economically better than their source or worse. but if their concern is safety this is of little importance..

[Colin Yai]

That's a discussion I am not going to get into, but you opinion is not without merit and I am sure would be echoed by many.

The only reason I am interested in this article is because true refugees need the full protection of the international community. The criteria for being a refugee is pretty stringent....I am not talking about discriminatory practices, but about persecution. Returning them can means death or years in imprisonment. Most refugees who flee persecution are quite happy with their resettlement country and take pains to assimilate. Generally, they are grateful people.

Other groups who leave for a variety of misguided reasons are a whole different kettle of fish. Many are poorly educated, their motivation in going to a new country is primarily financial and other than poverty, their homeland remains a beacon of all that is good in life. Also, many of them do not leave voluntarily, but are forced to go by the family....and I doubt the ones thrown in the boat are the most cherished child to begin with.

Fair enough Scott, but are you saying that Multiculturalism in Europe has been a success story? and they fully appreciate there better standard of living provided by the Infidel? , lets not play silly games cos we both know its been an Abject failure ,when one protests against Radical Islam in Europe one runs a grave risk of physical violence or even worse.