Australia Intercepts Boats Carrying More Than 300 Asylum Seekers

[News_Editor]

Australia intercepts boats carrying more than 300 asylum seekers < br /> 2012-05-07 18:48:28 GMT+7 (ICT) SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA (BNO NEWS) -- The Australian Navy on Sunday intercepted three boats carrying more than 300 asylum seekers combined, the government said on Monday. It follows a series of intercepted people smuggling vessels in recent weeks.HMAS Wollongong, operating under the control of Australia's Border Protection Command, intercepted two vessels which sought assistance north of Christmas Island. "The (first) vessel was initially detected Saturday by a RAAF maritime patrol aircraft," said Korena Flanagan, a spokeswoman for Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare.Flanagan said the first vessel was carrying 103 passengers and two crew members on board. The second vessel, which received assistance from HMAS Wollongong after the first vessel was intercepted, was carrying 138 people on board. It was not immediately clear how many crew members were on board the second vessel.Later on Sunday, ACV Triton, also operating under the control of Border Protection Command, intercepted a third suspected people smuggling vessel north of the Ashmore Islands. "Initial indications suggest there are 64 passengers and four crew on board," Flanagan said.The spokeswoman said the more than 300 asylum seekers were transferred to Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean northwest of mainland Australia. "Border Protection Command will now make arrangements for the passengers to be transferred to Christmas Island, where they will undergo initial security, health and identity checks and their reasons for travel will be established," she said.So far this year, the Australian Navy has intercepted 2,359 irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs), most of them coming from Afghanistan and Iran who use Indonesia as a transit region. As of March 31, a total of 4,197 people are being held in immigration facilities while 1,712 people have been approved for a residence determination to live in the community.Australia's Migration Act 1958 requires people who are not Australian citizens and who are unlawfully in Australia to be detained. This law has been heavily criticized by the United Nations and human rights organizations as many asylum seekers are in detention for months. In 2010, a total of 4,612 irregular maritime arrivals were intercepted by the Australian Navy.However, the boat journeys made by asylum seekers are not without risk. In December 2010, at least 30 people were killed when a boat carrying more than 90 asylum seekers sank off the coast of Christmas Island. Forty-two people were rescued, while an unknown number of people remain missing.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-05-07

[David48]

This subject certainly creates a great divide and passionate debate here in Australia.

Interestingly, opinions in the west and north west of Sydney are strongly against acceptance of same and this comes from recent immigrants who have jumped through the hurdles of coming the 'legal' way.

For the past few years Australia has received a large increase on those trying to seek refugee status here and the majority of those have claimed to be of Afghani origin.

While it appears that Australia is slow in processing the claims of the refugees, it is common practise for the seekers to burn their identity papers. Some have been found out to be Pakistanis.

What is a disturbing trend is that more and more children and being sent because recently the Australian Government relaxed the detention laws in relation to minors.

The children are being financed and sent with the hope that the parents will be accepted after the children are.

Is it wrong ...

Edited May 7, 2012 by David48

[Steely Dan]

If you import the third world you become the third world, let those without papers go back and get some for starters. Those who obeyed the rules and went through legal channels are far more likely to integrate and should be treated differently from economic migrants.

[Scott]

(Snipped)

What is a disturbing trend is that more and more children and being sent because recently the Australian Government relaxed the detention laws in relation to minors.

The children are being financed and sent with the hope that the parents will be accepted after the children are.

It is very difficult to process a refugee claim without verification of the Country of Origin. In the asylum claim there needs to be enough information to establish the facts and the credibility.

The problem of unaccompanied minor children--also known as anchor's--since resettlement for them paves the way for the rest of the family, is a real challenge. The refugee claim needs to be assessed first and if there is evidence that the child is a refugee, then resettlement should follow post haste. If the child is not deemed to be a refugee, then barring other factors, he/she should be returned to the family as quickly as possible. Children should not be held in detention any longer than absolutely necessary. If at all possible, they should be with their parents.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Scott

[softgeorge]

This subject certainly creates a great divide and passionate debate here in Australia.

Interestingly, opinions in the west and north west of Sydney are strongly against acceptance of same and this comes from recent immigrants who have jumped through the hurdles of coming the 'legal' way.

For the past few years Australia has received a large increase on those trying to seek refugee status here and the majority of those have claimed to be of Afghani origin.

While it appears that Australia is slow in processing the claims of the refugees, it is common practise for the seekers to burn their identity papers. Some have been found out to be Pakistanis.

What is a disturbing trend is that more and more children and being sent because recently the Australian Government relaxed the detention laws in relation to minors.

The children are being financed and sent with the hope that the parents will be accepted after the children are.

Is it wrong ...

yes

[Travel2003]

If you import the third world you become the third world, let those without papers go back and get some for starters. Those who obeyed the rules and went through legal channels are far more likely to integrate and should be treated differently from economic migrants.

Go back to where?

This has been the problem the last 30+ years or so.

Where can you send someone without legal papers?

The last country they legaly came from has the responsibility to check their papers.

If the papers are in order in that country, then good bye.

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

[Steely Dan]

If you import the third world you become the third world, let those without papers go back and get some for starters. Those who obeyed the rules and went through legal channels are far more likely to integrate and should be treated differently from economic migrants.

Go back to where?

This has been the problem the last 30+ years or so.

Where can you send someone without legal papers?

The last country they legaly came from has the responsibility to check their papers.

If the papers are in order in that country, then good bye.

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

And funnily enough it's mainly the Anglo-sphere that's on the receiving end, never for instance Saudi Arabia. Perhaps if the Country where the boats are registered was obliged to take responsibility that would focus a few minds.

[folium]

If you import the third world you become the third world, let those without papers go back and get some for starters. Those who obeyed the rules and went through legal channels are far more likely to integrate and should be treated differently from economic migrants.

Go back to where?

This has been the problem the last 30+ years or so.

Where can you send someone without legal papers?

The last country they legaly came from has the responsibility to check their papers.

If the papers are in order in that country, then good bye.

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

And funnily enough it's mainly the Anglo-sphere that's on the receiving end, never for instance Saudi Arabia. Perhaps if the Country where the boats are registered was obliged to take responsibility that would focus a few minds.

Apparently not quite true for 31 million aspiring migrants.

A 2012 survey by Gallup found roughly 640 million adults would like to migrate to another country permanently if they had the chance. Nearly one-quarter (23%) of these respondents, which translates to more than 150 million adults worldwide, named the United States as their desired future residence, while an additional 7% of respondents, representing an estimated 45 million, chose the United Kingdom. The other top desired destination countries (those where an estimated 25 million or more adults would like to go) were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Germany and Spain.

Saudi came in 5th only just behind France in terms of popularity for aspiring migrants.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-Million-Adults-Worldwide-Migrate.aspx

There is also a huge difference between aspiration and execution!

Edited May 7, 2012 by folium

[Travel2003]

If you import the third world you become the third world, let those without papers go back and get some for starters. Those who obeyed the rules and went through legal channels are far more likely to integrate and should be treated differently from economic migrants.

Go back to where?

This has been the problem the last 30+ years or so.

Where can you send someone without legal papers?

The last country they legaly came from has the responsibility to check their papers.

If the papers are in order in that country, then good bye.

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

And funnily enough it's mainly the Anglo-sphere that's on the receiving end, never for instance Saudi Arabia. Perhaps if the Country where the boats are registered was obliged to take responsibility that would focus a few minds.

So, if 600 are using a Bahamas registered boat, from Indonesia to Aus.

The Aussies should send the 600 to Bahamas?

;-)

[koheesti]

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

I don't see how it is the responsibility of the "receiving" country to prove anyone's identity. It's pretty simple, if I want to go to any country, it is MY responsibility and mine only to prove who I am at the border. If I can't, they can send back to where I came from. IF I tried being clever by destroying my documents, then if I have to sit in some refugee camp for months or years, it's my own dam_n fault.

[Travel2003]

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

I don't see how it is the responsibility of the "receiving" country to prove anyone's identity. It's pretty simple, if I want to go to any country, it is MY responsibility and mine only to prove who I am at the border. If I can't, they can send back to where I came from. IF I tried being clever by destroying my documents, then if I have to sit in some refugee camp for months or years, it's my own dam_n fault.

You dont see the point.

The papers are destroyed in order to not be caughty lying that one is not from a country where refugees flee from.

The receiving country is stuck with the person until she (receiving country) can prove where the seeker is from, then they can ship the seeker to the his/her home country.

Until this has been clear, the receiving country MUST keep the person, according to UNHCR

[Steely Dan]

Saudi came in 5th only just behind France in terms of popularity for aspiring migrants.

http://www.gallup.co...de-Migrate.aspx

There is also a huge difference between aspiration and execution!

Indeed.

[Scott]

There are a handful of people whose country of origin can't be determined, but it is really quite rare. During the refugee processing, they need to list their family members and where they are from. If you don't do that, then you forgo the right to eventually have them join you. These people don't live in a vacuum. There are letters and phone calls to somewhere.

There are also NGO's on the ground (including the Red Cross/Red Crescent) that can verify information and conditions in the country. The tribal areas along the Pakistan/Afghan border would be challenging. The problem is that before returning people, the country you are returning them to has to agree to accept them.

There were Vietnamese boat people who left Vietnam for China (most were ethnic Chinese), then returned to Vietnam to take a boat to another country for resettlement. Some of these people manged to get through the net because Vietnam refused to accept them because they had long ago left Vietnam for China. Some of these did languish in refugee camps because they were determined not to be refugees and not eligible for resettlement.

[chooka]

A little humour on the subject

[koheesti]

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

I don't see how it is the responsibility of the "receiving" country to prove anyone's identity. It's pretty simple, if I want to go to any country, it is MY responsibility and mine only to prove who I am at the border. If I can't, they can send back to where I came from. IF I tried being clever by destroying my documents, then if I have to sit in some refugee camp for months or years, it's my own dam_n fault.

You dont see the point.

The papers are destroyed in order to not be caughty lying that one is not from a country where refugees flee from.

The receiving country is stuck with the person until she (receiving country) can prove where the seeker is from, then they can ship the seeker to the his/her home country.

Until this has been clear, the receiving country MUST keep the person, according to UNHCR

I understand that. Regardless, the "refugee" has NO rights to enter any country (in this case Australia) and Australia should have no obligation to take them in. If the UNHRC "demands" Australia keeps them, then keep them in a camp on an isolated island indefinitely, in basic conditions as a deterrent to other lying "refugees". IF the country of origin (of the ship/plane) can be determined then the refugees need to be returned there where they can sit and wait to be identified. In this case, it is Indonesia where the refugees likely had documents to enter and leave. It would probably take a very long time to determine who these refugees are but that is not Australia's responsibility. In this case, Australia's responsibility is to keep its citizens safe by not allowing potential security threats or undesirables into the country just because they thought they were being clever by destroying their documents en route.

Edited May 8, 2012 by koheesti

[Travel2003]

If they get rid of their papers after that, it is the receiving countries responsibility to prove their identity.

I don't see how it is the responsibility of the "receiving" country to prove anyone's identity. It's pretty simple, if I want to go to any country, it is MY responsibility and mine only to prove who I am at the border. If I can't, they can send back to where I came from. IF I tried being clever by destroying my documents, then if I have to sit in some refugee camp for months or years, it's my own dam_n fault.

You dont see the point.

The papers are destroyed in order to not be caughty lying that one is not from a country where refugees flee from.

The receiving country is stuck with the person until she (receiving country) can prove where the seeker is from, then they can ship the seeker to the his/her home country.

Until this has been clear, the receiving country MUST keep the person, according to UNHCR

I understand that. Regardless, the "refugee" has NO rights to enter any country (in this case Australia) and Australia should have no obligation to take them in. If the UNHRC "demands" Australia keeps them, then keep them in a camp on an isolated island indefinitely, in basic conditions as a deterrent to other lying "refugees". IF the country of origin (of the ship/plane) can be determined then the refugees need to be returned there where they can sit and wait to be identified. In this case, it is Indonesia where the refugees likely had documents to enter and leave. It would probably take a very long time to determine who these refugees are but that is not Australia's responsibility. In this case, Australia's responsibility is to keep its citizens safe by not allowing potential security threats or undesirables into the country just because they thought they were being clever by destroying their documents en route.

Exactly what Aus does.

They keep them in camps.

Regardles that you think Aus should have no obligations, it is irrelevant, as this is an international agreement.

They are kept until it can be determined what country they come from.

Security threats and undesirables?

Wow, that does not exactly help the already right wing racist image Aus have buildt up the last years (under Mr. Howard).

Some nice reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Tampa

[doggie888888]

A little humour on the subject

It is much needed! Thanks for making me smile.

[David48]

@ Travel2003

Maybe one of the things that the Australians don't like can be understood by one particular.

A boat load of refugees had made it's way into Australian waters.

The Australian Navy located the boat.

Upon being spotted by the Navy boat, the refugee boat's engine was scuttled and a large quantity of petrol was splashed about the boat.

As the Navy vessel was in the process of boarding the boat, one of the refuges lit the petrol casing an explosion and the death of 5 of those on the boat.

The Navy, putting the safety of it's crew at risk, rescued all that they could.

Later the navy was on trial with the accusation that they, the Navy, attempted to save their own crew first before attempting to save the lives of the refugees.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-01/lighter-boat-asylum-seekers-brahimi/3862384

[David48]

Then you have those who have come to Australia seeking Aslyum who do this ...

Protesters at Villawood Detention Centre

Edited May 8, 2012 by David48

[David48]

If you have the time ... a balanced view maybe at ...

The Leaky Boats (Documentary)

[Steely Dan]

If you have the time ... a balanced view maybe at ...

The Leaky Boats (Documentary)

Exactly, should have been on Liveleak rather than Youtube mind you.

[folium]

If you have the time ... a balanced view maybe at ...

The Leaky Boats (Documentary)

What an outstanding programme, and judging by the senior military and political figures who contribute to it, probably a very accurate portrayal of how an immigration issue gets ruthlessly exploited and misrepresented.

Putting the issue in further context are the links below, which seems to show that the Poms are the real issue in terms of illegal immigrants in Australia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4226949.stm

http://www.news.com.au/national/taxpayers-wear-burden-of-60000-illegal-immigrants/story-e6frfkvr-1226200664868#ixzz1rBJ8ER00

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/stop-the-planes/

[Travel2003]

@ Travel2003

Maybe one of the things that the Australians don't like can be understood by one particular.

A boat load of refugees had made it's way into Australian waters.

The Australian Navy located the boat.

Upon being spotted by the Navy boat, the refugee boat's engine was scuttled and a large quantity of petrol was splashed about the boat.

As the Navy vessel was in the process of boarding the boat, one of the refuges lit the petrol casing an explosion and the death of 5 of those on the boat.

The Navy, putting the safety of it's crew at risk, rescued all that they could.

Later the navy was on trial with the accusation that they, the Navy, attempted to save their own crew first before attempting to save the lives of the refugees.

http://www.abc.net.a...brahimi/3862384

It is a very sad story indeed, which doesnt change the facts.

[koheesti]

@ Travel2003

Maybe one of the things that the Australians don't like can be understood by one particular.

A boat load of refugees had made it's way into Australian waters.

The Australian Navy located the boat.

Upon being spotted by the Navy boat, the refugee boat's engine was scuttled and a large quantity of petrol was splashed about the boat.

As the Navy vessel was in the process of boarding the boat, one of the refuges lit the petrol casing an explosion and the death of 5 of those on the boat.

The Navy, putting the safety of it's crew at risk, rescued all that they could.

Later the navy was on trial with the accusation that they, the Navy, attempted to save their own crew first before attempting to save the lives of the refugees.

http://www.abc.net.a...brahimi/3862384

It is a very sad story indeed, which doesnt change the facts.

Just one example in a long list that leads me to use the term "undesirables". You can call such talk a product of "right wing rage" but it doesn't change the facts.

There are proper refugees in the world. You know, the ones that don't need to sneak into a country or destroy all identification. That's obviously suspicious and people who do that should be kept out. I can't just show up in any country I want, destroy my passport then stay indefinitely while the local taxpayers pay my way.

[folium]

Just one example in a long list that leads me to use the term "undesirables". You can call such talk a product of "right wing rage" but it doesn't change the facts.

There are proper refugees in the world. You know, the ones that don't need to sneak into a country or destroy all identification. That's obviously suspicious and people who do that should be kept out. I can't just show up in any country I want, destroy my passport then stay indefinitely while the local taxpayers pay my way.

So who makes the grade for being "proper refugees"?

I hope you would include the passengers of the SS Exodus which attempted to take refugees without documentation to "illegally" enter Palestine in 1947, even though the organizers had deliberately picked a ship that was basically unseaworthy to put further moral pressure on the British.

The Brits even used Cyprus as their version of Nauru to detain refugees.

Desperate people will do desperate things and governments rarely come out of such impossible positions looking good.

[oldsailor35]

One of the problems with migrants of middle eastern origin to Australia today is that they do not want to assimilate into the community, but want to keep things just like the country that they have fled.Living in 'ghettos' of their own race , religion and sometimes backward culture. Whereas those who came just after the war and into the 60's from all over Europe, mixed with the Australian communities and made an effort to belong to their new country, culture and its population, and brought all the good things in life from their home land to share with us, not demanding that we adopt them as the mid eastern migrants do.

[David48]

<snip>

Later the navy was on trial with the accusation that they, the Navy, attempted to save their own crew first before attempting to save the lives of the refugees.

http://www.abc.net.a...brahimi/3862384

It is a very sad story indeed, which doesnt change the facts.

Umm ... what 'facts' are you referring to?

[David48]

One of the problems with migrants of middle eastern origin to Australia today is that they do not want to assimilate into the community ...

You know oldsailor35 sometimes we vehemently disagree on some subjects and then some we are in total accord.

I agree with all your above post.

A case in point ...

At one stage, 10% of Australians population were Chinese (born overseas) and they came to work the Gold Rush of the 1800's

Many went home afterwards and many stayed.

Those who stayed are, in the main very well accepted by the majority of the population.

We eat regularly Chinese food, like to celebrate their Chinese New Year and celebrate their Culture with regular visits to a ChinaTown in the larger cities.

They have managed to retain their unique Cultural Identity and be accepted into the Australian Culture at the same time ... no mean feat.

[David48]

Where we have issues with some of the nations who try and enter Australia is that Culturally and Religiously they are so different to us.

Take the case of the person screaming out to the world ... I'm a desperate Refugee, so desperate that I have travelled a long distance from my homeland to seek asylum in your country.

Well, what they have actually done is to bypass those countries where they could live with easier Visas to get and in a country which practises the same Religion as them.

What they have chose to do is to bypass those (Asian) countries in favour of trying to enter Australia which holds a stronger Economic promise and a strong welfare support system.

Should we have a refugee program into Australia ... absolutely ... 100%

And come to think of it ... we do already and currently accepting refugees from a wide variety of nations.

Should we, as a nation, accept the queue jumpers who arrive in boats ...

Should we, as a nation, restrict the accepted refugee intake to just one or two countries ...

Because every 'boat person' taken is one less refugee sitting in a camp somewhere, patiently waiting their turn.

[Scott]

The UNHCR has five categories for who is considered a refugee. People seeking refugee status must meet the criteria of being persecuted for one of the five reasons. Discrimination doesn't usually count unless it cumulatively amounts to persecution. The five are:

--race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group that is particularly targeted.

Most Western countries have signed the conventions on the rights of refugees and agrees to consider those in the above categories. Countries may add additional groups/individuals if they want.

For a lot of people coming from places like Afghanistan, they face a life of hardship and uncertainty, but they are economic migrants looking for a better life. They are not refugees. As such, they should be returned to their country of origin, after having been screened.

A lot of NGO money goes into trying to make conditions better for people being returned.