Australia Intercepts Boats Carrying More Than 300 Asylum Seekers

[edwinclapham]

I fully agree Scott!

I am delighted to see the ethnics Hmongs for example living amongst us here in Australia. A life of freedom away from persecution in Laos.

Contributing to our society honestly.

As anyone told the Vietnamese that the war is over, no need to send your unaccompanied children over through dangerous terrain/sea to languish in the detention centres?

[Travel2003]

<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?

Are you kidding me?

The fact that you are stuck with them until you can prove where they are from.

I think we all understand your view on immigrants in general.

I pressume you are NOT located in Thailand.

;-)

[Travel2003]

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.

Spot on.

And this is why economic migrants will destroy their papers, to try to hide where they are from.

In the mean time the receiving country is stuck with them until they can finally prove where they are from.

[koheesti]

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.

In 2012 it is a much different world than it was 65 years ago in 1947. With the desperate refugees in the world immediately following WWII there was no worry of Nazis or the Japanese trying to sneak into Western countries in order to attack them.

[koheesti]

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.

Assimilation is tough because the world is getting smaller. There is less necessity to assimilate as in the past. Today you can move to the other side of the planet and still fly home regularly, watch TV channels in your native language via satellite or Internet. Read newspapers and magazines in your local language.

It is like the problem that exchange students are having today in their host countries. For example, Americans studying abroad in Europe now spend less time with people from their host nation and more time socializing with friends back home on Facebook or talking (and seeing them) via Skype. Technology and progress is great, but it does have its drawbacks.

[koheesti]

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.

Spot on.

And this is why economic migrants will destroy their papers, to try to hide where they are from.

In the mean time the receiving country is stuck with them until they can finally prove where they are from.

So it has been established - these undesirables destroying their documents ARE NOT refugees after all.

[Scott]

The situation for refugees hasn't changed much over the years. If people are screened, then there are assurances that they are being persecuted. They are not likely to be 'the enemy'. Their enemies are in their Country of Origin.

Australia is a member of the UN and signed the Conventions on the Rights of Refugees. You have every right to call on the UN as well as the NGO's that you fund to verify the Country of Origin.

During the screening process, people will have to give basic information about where they are from, members of their family and information about the conditions that caused them to leave--to determine if they are a refugee. The boat left from somewhere, it's not like a bus that stops here and there picking up passengers.

Most don't destroy their travel documents. They don't need a travel document to get on these boats.

[Scott]

Quote:

"So it has been established - these undesirables destroying their documents ARE NOT refugees after all."

As I said, most won't have documentation to begin with. What documents do you need for these journeys?

Determining if they are a refugee is done during the screening process. Do they claim persecution for the 5 convention reasons? Is the claim credible?

A huge amount of the information can be verified about conditions in the country.

By the way, my guess is that the % of those who are even within sniffing distance of being a refugee is very, very small.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Scott

[softgeorge]

The situation for refugees hasn't changed much over the years. If people are screened, then there are assurances that they are being persecuted. They are not likely to be 'the enemy'. Their enemies are in their Country of Origin.

Australia is a member of the UN and signed the Conventions on the Rights of Refugees. You have every right to call on the UN as well as the NGO's that you fund to verify the Country of Origin.

During the screening process, people will have to give basic information about where they are from, members of their family and information about the conditions that caused them to leave--to determine if they are a refugee. The boat left from somewhere, it's not like a bus that stops here and there picking up passengers.

Most don't destroy their travel documents. They don't need a travel document to get on these boats.

Or they simply order false documents and passports from Bangkok. Anyone remember this thread? -

Thai, Australia Police Bust Human Trafficking Ring

The heading was totally incorrect but the story related to boat people obtain false I.D's enroute to Australia. I have nothing against people seeking refugee status in Australia and Australia should take some of these people in. I do object however to those who do not have the courtesy to wait thier turn and simply push in ahead of those who are doing the right thing. You have people who have waited up to two years whilst being processed and when the boat people push in these other people are pushed back. Then when these selfish, inconsiderate people who have pushed in front of genuine refugees are not proceessed in double quick time, or the menu is not of thier liking or they were given a standard Nokia mobile phone for free instead of the upto date iphone they riot and burn thier accomadation. They scream if you do not submit to our demands asap then you are racist. They don't like Australians now and will never accept thier hosts and choose to build thier own exclusive societies within and established Australian one.

Edited May 9, 2012 by softgeorge

[Will27]

IMO, the "Rudd" Government is to blame for the huge numbers of boats arriving.

Like or loathe him, John Howard reduced the number of unauthorised boat

arrivals to just about nothing.

This is because the Govt introduced TPV's (Temporary Protection Visa's)

Which the Rudd Govt abolished when they came to power. As soon as the

visa was abolished, the flood-gates opened.

Everything else we're told by the Gillard Govt is a smoke-screen. They blame

the opposition when the so called Malaysian solution falls over, but where is

their plan B? They don't have one.

And yet the the Govt crucify people on pensions to try and save a few dollars while these

unauthorised arrivals are costing us millions, more likely billions.

End of rant

Regards

Will

[folium]

Just to inject a few relevant bits of information and some of the concerns re the "boat people" heading for Australia:

Australia is being swamped by people in boats. Approximately 2000 boat people sought asylum in Australia in 2009. On average 50,000 people over-stay their visas each year, & some 95% of asylum seekers arrive in Australia by plane.

The numbers coming to Australia are higher than other countries. During 2008, 88,800 refugees were resettled in various countries throughout the world including Australia, while another 839,000 applied for asylum. Only 4,750 of these claims were made in Australia: this is 0.57% of all asylum claims. In the same period France received 35,400 claims, the USA received 49,600 and South Africa 207,000.

Australia receives more refugees than most other countries. From 2007 to 2008 asylum seeker numbers rose by 122 per cent in Italy, 121 per cent in Norway, 89 per cent in the Netherlands, 70 per cent in Turkey, 53 per cent in Switzerland, 30 per cent in Canada and 20 per cent in France. In the same period, Australia had only a 19 per cent increase.

Australia hosts more refugees than most other countries. Developing countries host four-fifths of the world’s refugees. According to the UN’s global statistics on asylum seekers the major refugee hosting countries at the end of 2008 were Pakistan (1,780,900); Syria (1,105,700); Iran (980,100); Germany (582,700); Jordan (500,400); Chad (330,500); Tanzania (321,900 ); Kenya (320,600); China (301,000) and the United Kingdom (292,100 ). Australia comes in 32nd out of 71 countries resettling refugees – slightly behind Kazakhstan, Guinea, and Djibouti.

Temporary protection visas and the ‘Pacific Solution’ stopped the boats. Unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia increased after the introduction of temporary protection visas (TPV’s) in 1999 (48 per cent more asylum seekers arrived by boat in 2001 than in 1999). Boat arrivals only started decreasing in 2003 when global asylum seeker numbers started dropping, not because of TPV’s and the Pacific Solution.

People who come by boat are ‘illegals’. Anyone who comes to Australia seeking protection – regardless of whether they come on a boat or on a plane – has a right under international and Australian law to apply for that protection. As an asylum seeker, they have legal status.

There are terrorists on the boats. There is no evidence for this. All asylum seekers are subject to rigorous security checks upon arrival and they are held in detention. In the entire period of the Howard and Rudd Governments not one asylum seeker was found to be a security risk to the country. Anyone who has been charged with terror related activities was either born here or arrived on a plane with a valid visa.

Edited May 9, 2012 by folium

[Scott]

The statistics are difficult to evaluate because they include large numbers of people for whom resettlement is not an option in the conventional sense. Many of these are people fleeing a particular situation and once it ends (such as armed conflict), the intention is for them to return to their place of origin.

[folium]

Seems that students are more of a problem than "boat people":

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/illegal-students-double-number-of-boatpeople/story-e6frgcjx-1226178882908

And a very level-headed view here especially the last 4 paragraphs:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/illegal-students-double-number-of-boatpeople/story-e6frgcjx-1226178882908

And here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/australia-fear-boat-people-asylum-seekers

[Will27]

Just to inject a few relevant bits of information and some of the concerns re the "boat people" heading for Australia:

Australia is being swamped by people in boats. Approximately 2000 boat people sought asylum in Australia in 2009. On average 50,000 people over-stay their visas each year, & some 95% of asylum seekers arrive in Australia by plane.

The numbers coming to Australia are higher than other countries. During 2008, 88,800 refugees were resettled in various countries throughout the world including Australia, while another 839,000 applied for asylum. Only 4,750 of these claims were made in Australia: this is 0.57% of all asylum claims. In the same period France received 35,400 claims, the USA received 49,600 and South Africa 207,000.

Australia receives more refugees than most other countries. From 2007 to 2008 asylum seeker numbers rose by 122 per cent in Italy, 121 per cent in Norway, 89 per cent in the Netherlands, 70 per cent in Turkey, 53 per cent in Switzerland, 30 per cent in Canada and 20 per cent in France. In the same period, Australia had only a 19 per cent increase.

Australia hosts more refugees than most other countries. Developing countries host four-fifths of the world’s refugees. According to the UN’s global statistics on asylum seekers the major refugee hosting countries at the end of 2008 were Pakistan (1,780,900); Syria (1,105,700); Iran (980,100); Germany (582,700); Jordan (500,400); Chad (330,500); Tanzania (321,900 ); Kenya (320,600); China (301,000) and the United Kingdom (292,100 ). Australia comes in 32nd out of 71 countries resettling refugees – slightly behind Kazakhstan, Guinea, and Djibouti.

Temporary protection visas and the ‘Pacific Solution’ stopped the boats. Unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia increased after the introduction of temporary protection visas (TPV’s) in 1999 (48 per cent more asylum seekers arrived by boat in 2001 than in 1999). Boat arrivals only started decreasing in 2003 when global asylum seeker numbers started dropping, not because of TPV’s and the Pacific Solution.

People who come by boat are ‘illegals’. Anyone who comes to Australia seeking protection – regardless of whether they come on a boat or on a plane – has a right under international and Australian law to apply for that protection. As an asylum seeker, they have legal status.

There are terrorists on the boats. There is no evidence for this. All asylum seekers are subject to rigorous security checks upon arrival and they are held in detention. In the entire period of the Howard and Rudd Governments not one asylum seeker was found to be a security risk to the country. Anyone who has been charged with terror related activities was either born here or arrived on a plane with a valid visa.

Stat's can tell you whatever you want them to. I could "poke holes" in most of those above.

The bottom line is that the boat arrivals had virtually dried up under the Howard Govt and

when the TPV's were abolished, they came flooding back again.

Maybe it's just a coincidence

Regards

Will

[Scott]

With economic migrants--and I am guessing that what we are dealing with is largely economic migrants--there are two factors: A push and a pull. The conditions where they come from act to 'push' them out of their own country--these can include economic hardship, armed conflict, ethnic strife etc..etc.. There is also the 'pull' factor and that is what makes them head toward point 'A' rather than point 'B'.

You have identified a possible change in the pull factor, TPV. There may have conditions that made leaving their home country less appealing.

[bigbamboo]

A vexed question but central to the issue are why refugees are fleeing and why they are choosing to bypass the nearest point of relief.

There is a clear distinction to be made.

In the first instance it is for genuinine humanitarian reasons to escape persecution. In the second it is pure opportunism.

[Scott]

Persons who have a reasonably genuine claim to be a UN recognized Refugee, must make it to a country that is a signatory to the UN conventions on Refugees or at least one that is known to be sympathetic and unlikely to repatriate them.

Thailand is not a signatory, and thus returning the Hmong or the Rohyingas is not a violation of any international agreements. North Koreans, for example, if they are caught in China will be returned. In Thailand, and others who don't recognize refugees, the UN sometimes can get an agreement not to return, but it is not binding. In Thailand, for example, they are considered "Persons of Concern". Most get a small stipend directly from the UN.

[Travel2003]

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.

True.

A proper refugee in Aus is the following.

Guys, do we need a plumber??? We have a plumber from a Taliban controlled area. No? Ok, send the undesirable person back. After all, he might be a security threat.

Guys, we need a lawyer? Always room for that. Ohhh, you poor person from same place as the plumber, welcome to Aus.

Yep, selecting the refugees.

Do a little research online. I dare you all.

[Travel2003]

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.

Spot on.

And this is why economic migrants will destroy their papers, to try to hide where they are from.

In the mean time the receiving country is stuck with them until they can finally prove where they are from.

So it has been established - these undesirables destroying their documents ARE NOT refugees after all.

My God, I thought we all already agreed upon that.

[David48]

Lost at sea: 37 of 3237 boatpeople had passports

ASYLUM-SEEKERS are discarding their passports at soaring rates, sparking renewed calls for boatpeople to be penalised for destroying their identity documents in a bid to help their refugee claims.

Of the 3237 asylum-seekers who admitted to flying to Indonesia on a passport, 3200 did not have any travel documents when they arrived in Australia.

People-smugglers routinely advise their clients to discard their identity documents before arriving in Australia.

Full Article below

Reason for reproduction of the full article is that sometimes the direct link is blocked and the information cannot be verified.

[David48]

continued from above over page ...

• by: Paul Maley, National security correspondent
  
• From: The Australian
  
• January 30, 2012 12:00AM
  

The refugee status assessment process operates primarily on a risk model, meaning there can be significant advantages to inventing false identities and claims of persecution.

The absence of documentation also makes it extremely hard to deport failed asylum-seekers, because receiving countries are reluctant to accept those whose nationality is not clear. But it complicates the refugee status assessment process, contributing to the length of time asylum-seekers are held in detention.

The figures showing some 3200 asylum-seekers arrived from Indonesia without documentation - revealed in Senate estimates - cover the period from July 1, 2010, to October 17 last year.

The information is based on admissions made by asylum-seekers during their initial entry interviews with officials.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the admissions raised serious questions about the validity of many asylum claims.

"It frustrates our assessment process and is done on the assumption that they will receive the benefit of the doubt," Mr Morrison said of the practice of dumping documentation.

"A person's document, if you are a refugee, should be the most important document you hold, because it proves your case. The destruction of those documents raises totally reasonable suspicions about those claims."

Under Coalition policy there would be a presumption against granting refugee status in cases where it could be reasonably assumed the applicant had deliberately destroyed their identity documents.

The policy would not apply to boatpeople who lost their passports under legitimate circumstances: for instance, if they were taken by overseas authorities.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen suggested the Coalition's policy was unworkable and defended Australia's refugee status process as "rigorous".

"People will only be granted protection visas after their claims have been thoroughly tested and they are found to have a genuine fear of persecution," said a spokeswoman for Mr Bowen.

"Mr Morrison should clarify if he would send someone found to be a refugee back to their home country in breach of the Refugee Convention because they didn't have a passport."

The Senate estimates figures also show people-smugglers have been operating well outside Indonesia in the past three years.

Although Indonesia is still far and away favoured as the final staging point for boatpeople since late 2008, 10 vessels have sailed directly from Sri Lanka and four from Malaysia. Another two have sailed directly from the east coast of India, with one launching from Chennai and the second from Pondicherry.

Three boats have sailed from Vietnam, with one leaving directly from Saigon.

Source:- http://www.theaustra...u-1226256747251

Edited May 9, 2012 by David48

[Scott]

Destroying documents always leads to suspicion. People facing persecution often have their documents confiscated in their Country of Origin, however, those with a genuine asylum claim will try to bring documents showing they were incarcerated or other forms of mistreatment.

Those arriving by air will often destroy their passport because they may never make it far enough to claim asylum. The airlines are forced to put them back on a flight before they are ever allowed to enter the country.

The criteria is that the person meets the standard of persecution and it is a result of one of the 5 reasons given earlier. Lots of people and groups are discriminated against, but that discrimination has to reach a certain level to be considered persecution.

For example: Are you or your family denied work because of your religion/politics/group? Are you denied the right to own property, or has your property been confiscated? Are you or children denied basic education/health care because of it? Have you been incarcerated or detained because of it?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Scott

[koheesti]

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.

Spot on.

And this is why economic migrants will destroy their papers, to try to hide where they are from.

In the mean time the receiving country is stuck with them until they can finally prove where they are from.

So it has been established - these undesirables destroying their documents ARE NOT refugees after all.

My God, I thought we all already agreed upon that.

Looks like now you have. Good job!

[maidu]

they can send back to where (they) came from.

problem is, often it's not known where they came from. Plus, it would then become the responsibility and expense of the intercepting authority to send them back, and all sorts of problems could arise on the journey and at the dumping off point (refugees might say: "this is not my home!" or authorities at the arrival point might say: "we don't know them, and certainly don't want these scruffy people to disembark!").

What a nest of problems. Sorry to say, it's the type of problems that will be getting larger as time rolls by. Overpopulation is at it's base, but it comprises so many other problems, not least: 'man's inhumanity to man'.

There's a science fiction short story by Larry Niven (my #1 favorite sci-fi writer), which describes a large island on another planet. from a distance, there is a black ring around the island. Closer up, it's seen that the black ring is actually comprised of 30 to 40 feet deep mass of desperate people. No resources, and all are desperate to escape the island which is devoid of habitat - though the only escape is in to the vast sea.

[Scott]

It isn't all that difficult to ascertain the Country of Origin. There will be a small percent for whom they can't, but it is very, very small. It could get dicey with people from the Tribal areas along the Pakistan/Afghan border, for example.

The difficulty is getting the agreements in place with the Country of Origin and physically returning them, especially if it is against their will. The airlines aren't too fond of people being loaded on a plane kicking and screaming.

There is a fair amount of bureaucratic red-tape involved in it, but it's better for all concerned to return them.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply deleted.

The topic is not about the US or KFC.