Over 70 Asylum Seekers Detained In Indonesia After Boat Capsizes

[News_Editor]

Over 70 asylum seekers detained in Indonesia after boat capsizes 2012-04-22 13:49:23 GMT+7 (ICT) MALANG, INDONESIA (BNO NEWS) -- More than 70 asylum seekers from the Middle East have been detained by Indonesian authorities after their boat capsized on Friday night, officials said on Saturday.The ill-fated boat was struck by a powerful wave two days after the vessel's engine broke down. Late on Friday night, locals from Wonogoro beach on the eastern coast of the island of Java said dozens of people were seen being washed up onto the shore.Malang police chief Rinto Djatmono told the Jakarta Globe that 43 of the illegal immigrants, including three children and one woman, were located and questioned. On Saturday morning, another 30 people were detained, but several more are still believed to be missing and may have drowned. According to reports, up to 100 people were on board at the time of the accident.Specific details about the accident, including the exact location, remain uncertain. It was also not immediately clear how far and how long the survivors had to swim before they reached the shore.Earlier this month, Indonesian authorities rescued 120 asylum seekers, believed to be from Afghanistan and Iran, as their sinking boat was trying to reach Australia. The Singapore-registered MT Hermia tanker rescued the men and docked in the port city of Merak, located in the province of Banten in western Java, where the illegal immigrants initially refused to disembark as they wanted to continue to Australia.Indonesia is commonly used as a transit region for asylum seekers trying to reach Australia illegally. Over 200 people are believed to have died in December 2011 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 2012-04-22

[Colin Yai]

From what I have read previously its quite obvious that the "people Smugglers" are charging big money to facilitate this ever increasing problem ,it makes one wonder if the Economic migrants are fleeing persecution and poverty just how do they come by their boat fares?

[Scott]

We may have posters who are more up-to-date on the ins and outs of these situations, but some years back, it was actually more difficult for true, political refugees to get out of a country than economic migrants. A lot of Refugees will go by land to the nearest country that will either allow transit or will accept and not repatriate them. For example, Iranians often make their way to Turkey.

The boat people, which may have some true refugees, but the % is probably rather small and would include either families or parents who are trying to get their children to safety. Generally, however, the family of economic migrants will get the money together to put a young person on the boat in the hopes that they will be able to find a job, send back enough money and eventually have the family join them. These young people are called 'anchors'. Once anchored, the person makes an application for the family--if the anchor is a genuine refugee, then the family members are usually also refugees--since most of these countries punish the entire immediate family. If the anchor isn't, but gets citizenship/residency, and has the money, they can sponsor the family as immigrants.

With unaccompanied minor children, if they are allowed to stay then the parents, in the past, were allowed to join them. Most governments didn't want minor children being separated from the family. If the minor isn't a refugee, then they should be returned to their family right away.

People with significant amounts of money do not usually take these boat journeys. They go by plane. Arrangements are made with a 3rd party from a Western Country to secure a 2nd passport and the two will transit through the same country. In the transit area, the old passport is exchanged for the new one and the person gets on a flight with a new identity. The Westerner will continue on to another country. Again, this was the method some years back and probably doesn't work as smoothly as it did.

I might add that immigration officers were in on the scheme. One person I know who was eventually detained, was informed that he was to exit through a very specific immigration stand at a certain time.

[Colin Yai]

We may have posters who are more up-to-date on the ins and outs of these situations, but some years back, it was actually more difficult for true, political refugees to get out of a country than economic migrants. A lot of Refugees will go by land to the nearest country that will either allow transit or will accept and not repatriate them. For example, Iranians often make their way to Turkey.

The boat people, which may have some true refugees, but the % is probably rather small and would include either families or parents who are trying to get their children to safety. Generally, however, the family of economic migrants will get the money together to put a young person on the boat in the hopes that they will be able to find a job, send back enough money and eventually have the family join them. These young people are called 'anchors'. Once anchored, the person makes an application for the family--if the anchor is a genuine refugee, then the family members are usually also refugees--since most of these countries punish the entire immediate family. If the anchor isn't, but gets citizenship/residency, and has the money, they can sponsor the family as immigrants.

With unaccompanied minor children, if they are allowed to stay then the parents, in the past, were allowed to join them. Most governments didn't want minor children being separated from the family. If the minor isn't a refugee, then they should be returned to their family right away.

People with significant amounts of money do not usually take these boat journeys. They go by plane. Arrangements are made with a 3rd party from a Western Country to secure a 2nd passport and the two will transit through the same country. In the transit area, the old passport is exchanged for the new one and the person gets on a flight with a new identity. The Westerner will continue on to another country. Again, this was the method some years back and probably doesn't work as smoothly as it did.

I might add that immigration officers were in on the scheme. One person I know who was eventually detained, was informed that he was to exit through a very specific immigration stand at a certain time.

Thank you for your very detailed opinion Scott, Although being more or less a newcomer in comparison to others and In this I could well be quite mistaken, but you appear to me to be the only Mod who takes "time out " to put their opinion across with a simple easy to follow explanation of their views on any given subject

[Scott]

Thanks Colin, but I hope you are not confusing my post with an opinion. I am simply trying to shed some light on the mechanics of how people get to where they are going.

As I have stated before, I am very much in favor of giving full protection to people who meet the criteria of being a political refugee. They have often stood up for what they believe in spite of great odds. They are quite frequently well-educated people who flee because they have to.

The economic migrants leave because of poverty and the chance for a better life. They are more often than not, poorly educated and ill- equipped to be successful in a developed country. There are also groups--everything from terrorists, drug traffickers and those in trafficking in women and children who make attempts to get their employees, for lack of a better term, on the ground to set up the networks they need for their nefarious activities.

Countries that accept refugees (and those for whom they have determined to accept for humanitarian reasons) do so with certain numbers in mind. They have services available to help them resettle, receive training and get jobs. Assimilation is a big part of that--or it least it should be.

Western countries that return illegal immigrants spend a fair amount of money for programs inside the countries from which people flee to see that people at risk of fleeing have social programs to keep them in their own country.

My opinion depends on a lot of variables, but I do know that developed countries must control immigration for the benefit of the country--socially, economically and culturally.

[Colin Yai]

Yeah Scott I understand, more by the way of an explanation ,Immigration is by now quite a controversial subject as every one is well aware ,but IMHO any host Country who is good enough to give shelter and sustenance to "asylum seekers" then those receiving it should at least try and assimilate into its Culture , which hitherto would appear to be not the case ,much to the Chagrin of many of the indigenous population. who's Country it concerns .