Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[simple1]

This Article recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

You're referencing the Australian Refugee Councils interpretation of the Act ... not the Act itself?

Not say there wrong ... but it is their interpretation.

.

Yes it is the Council's legal interpretation, got any Australia Court ruling, not politicians statement, that contradict their opinion?

EDIT: The UNHCR has also supported this interpretation and has condemed the governments stance. Why debating? 'cause as an Australian I am of the belief the governments direction is contradictory to the values of Australia abiding by their international agreements with the UN. But as you indicated we are not going to agree.

[David48]

This Article recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

You're referencing the Australian Refugee Councils interpretation of the Act ... not the Act itself?

Not say there wrong ... but it is their interpretation.

.

That's why I said it was misleading in post 356 David48. And by clumping both the Act and article by ARC together, on first

glance it can look as if it was quoted just from the Act.

Funny the timing of things ... I was 3/4 the way through posting that comment when a mate of mine, a member here rang ... by the time we finished chatting the debate had moved forward.

To be honest, I don't know why we argue/debate it so fiercely.

Everyone has an opinion ... mines not better then anyone else's ... just sometimes it's different.

.

Posted anyway ...

[Will27]

This Article recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

You're referencing the Australian Refugee Councils interpretation of the Act ... not the Act itself?

Not say there wrong ... but it is their interpretation.

.

Yes it is the Council's legal interpretation, got any Australia Court ruling, not politicians statement, that contradict their opinion?

EDIT: The UNHCR has also supported this interpretation and has condemed the governments stance. Why debating? 'cause as an Australian I am of the belief the governments direction is contradictory to the values of Australia abiding by their international agreements with the UN. But as you indicated we are not going to agree.

Why would there be a court ruling on an interpretation by RCOA?

The UNCHR and others like RCOA are always condemning the govt

on refugees, nothing new there.

[simple1]

This Article recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

You're referencing the Australian Refugee Councils interpretation of the Act ... not the Act itself?

Not say there wrong ... but it is their interpretation.

.

Yes it is the Council's legal interpretation, got any Australia Court ruling, not politicians statement, that contradict their opinion?

EDIT: The UNHCR has also supported this interpretation and has condemed the governments stance. Why debating? 'cause as an Australian I am of the belief the governments direction is contradictory to the values of Australia abiding by their international agreements with the UN. But as you indicated we are not going to agree.

Why would there be a court ruling on an interpretation by RCOA?

The UNCHR and others like RCOA are always condemning the govt on refugees, nothing new there.

We will see if any Human Rights or refugee advocacy group takes this matter of the Australian government defining them as "illegals" to the Supreme Court along with the legitimacy of the agreement with PNG, as previously happened with the proposed agreement with Malaysia.

[Old Croc]

A number of years back I got the call in the middle of the night to fly from Perth to Exmouth, with a small team, to take in to custody a group of Sri Lankans who had been dropped off at a remote NW beach by people smugglers.

They arrived illegally and undocumented and were subsequently detained in custody. They were not, and never became, asylum seekers. The smugglers had sold them, and their families, the lie that they could enter and work for big money in Australia. They were job seekers.

Some of the refugee advocates would argue, illogically, that their arrival was not illegal.

Some other illegal (bypassing Immigration controls) boat arrivals I dealt with over the years included - ships deserters, stowaways, drug smugglers landing their cargo on remote beaches, hundreds of fishermen illegally in Australian waters, private yacht crew, and of course, boat loads of people who later made refugee claims.

By Australian law, all these people arrived illegally even when their status later changed (e.g. by claiming asylum) and they were treated appropriately.

[simple1]

A number of years back I got the call in the middle of the night to fly from Perth to Exmouth, with a small team, to take in to custody a group of Sri Lankans who had been dropped off at a remote NW beach by people smugglers.

They arrived illegally and undocumented and were subsequently detained in custody. They were not, and never became, asylum seekers. The smugglers had sold them, and their families, the lie that they could enter and work for big money in Australia. They were job seekers.

Some of the refugee advocates would argue, illogically, that their arrival was not illegal.

Some other illegal (bypassing Immigration controls) boat arrivals I dealt with over the years included - ships deserters, stowaways, drug smugglers landing their cargo on remote beaches, hundreds of fishermen illegally in Australian waters, private yacht crew, and of course, boat loads of people who later made refugee claims.

By Australian law, all these people arrived illegally even when their status later changed (e.g. by claiming asylum) and they were treated appropriately.

Interesting post and all seems to be prefectably acceptable based on the scenarios you outlined. Given you have been hands on, what's your thoughts regarding Scott Morrison issuing a directive that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are now to be known as ''illegals''.

[Will27]

A number of years back I got the call in the middle of the night to fly from Perth to Exmouth, with a small team, to take in to custody a group of Sri Lankans who had been dropped off at a remote NW beach by people smugglers.

They arrived illegally and undocumented and were subsequently detained in custody. They were not, and never became, asylum seekers. The smugglers had sold them, and their families, the lie that they could enter and work for big money in Australia. They were job seekers.

Some of the refugee advocates would argue, illogically, that their arrival was not illegal.

Some other illegal (bypassing Immigration controls) boat arrivals I dealt with over the years included - ships deserters, stowaways, drug smugglers landing their cargo on remote beaches, hundreds of fishermen illegally in Australian waters, private yacht crew, and of course, boat loads of people who later made refugee claims.

By Australian law, all these people arrived illegally even when their status later changed (e.g. by claiming asylum) and they were treated appropriately.

Interesting post and all seems to be prefectably acceptable based on the scenarios you outlined. Given you have been hands on, what's your thoughts regarding Scott Morrison issuing a directive that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are now to be known as ''illegals''.

Come on now, Morrisons directive was that they be called "illegal maritime arrivals", not illegals.

From the ABC's FActCheck

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

• The claim: Scott Morrison says people illegally enter Australia when they come without a valid visa and says the term 'illegal entry' is used in international conventions.
• The verdict: Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the United Nations people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

Yes Old Croc, would be interested to see your take on it.

[simple1]

A number of years back I got the call in the middle of the night to fly from Perth to Exmouth, with a small team, to take in to custody a group of Sri Lankans who had been dropped off at a remote NW beach by people smugglers.

They arrived illegally and undocumented and were subsequently detained in custody. They were not, and never became, asylum seekers. The smugglers had sold them, and their families, the lie that they could enter and work for big money in Australia. They were job seekers.

Some of the refugee advocates would argue, illogically, that their arrival was not illegal.

Some other illegal (bypassing Immigration controls) boat arrivals I dealt with over the years included - ships deserters, stowaways, drug smugglers landing their cargo on remote beaches, hundreds of fishermen illegally in Australian waters, private yacht crew, and of course, boat loads of people who later made refugee claims.

By Australian law, all these people arrived illegally even when their status later changed (e.g. by claiming asylum) and they were treated appropriately.

Interesting post and all seems to be prefectably acceptable based on the scenarios you outlined. Given you have been hands on, what's your thoughts regarding Scott Morrison issuing a directive that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are now to be known as ''illegals''.

Come on now, Morrisons directive was that they be called "illegal maritime arrivals", not illegals.

From the ABC's FActCheck

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

• The claim: Scott Morrison says people illegally enter Australia when they come without a valid visa and says the term 'illegal entry' is used in international conventions.
• The verdict: Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the United Nations people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

Yes Old Croc, would be interested to see your take on it.

Old Croc, as we are discussing Asylum Seekers, from Will27's link even the lawyers disagree amongst themselves. Just to save any misunderstanding, do you concur to use the definition below?

"An asylum seeker is a person who is seeking protection as a refugee and is still waiting to have his/her claim assessed"

Use of 'illegal' to describe asylum seekers

Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said.

Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".

[Will27]

A number of years back I got the call in the middle of the night to fly from Perth to Exmouth, with a small team, to take in to custody a group of Sri Lankans who had been dropped off at a remote NW beach by people smugglers.

They arrived illegally and undocumented and were subsequently detained in custody. They were not, and never became, asylum seekers. The smugglers had sold them, and their families, the lie that they could enter and work for big money in Australia. They were job seekers.

Some of the refugee advocates would argue, illogically, that their arrival was not illegal.

Some other illegal (bypassing Immigration controls) boat arrivals I dealt with over the years included - ships deserters, stowaways, drug smugglers landing their cargo on remote beaches, hundreds of fishermen illegally in Australian waters, private yacht crew, and of course, boat loads of people who later made refugee claims.

By Australian law, all these people arrived illegally even when their status later changed (e.g. by claiming asylum) and they were treated appropriately.

Interesting post and all seems to be prefectably acceptable based on the scenarios you outlined. Given you have been hands on, what's your thoughts regarding Scott Morrison issuing a directive that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are now to be known as ''illegals''.

Come on now, Morrisons directive was that they be called "illegal maritime arrivals", not illegals.

From the ABC's FActCheck

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

• The claim: Scott Morrison says people illegally enter Australia when they come without a valid visa and says the term 'illegal entry' is used in international conventions.
• The verdict: Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the United Nations people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

Yes Old Croc, would be interested to see your take on it.

Old Croc, as we are discussing Asylum Seekers, from Will27's link even the lawyers disagree amongst themselves. Just to save any misunderstanding, do you concur to use the definition below?

"An asylum seeker is a person who is seeking protection as a refugee and is still waiting to have his/her claim assessed"

Use of 'illegal' to describe asylum seekers

Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said.

Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".

And from the same link:

Professor Schloenhardt told ABC Fact Check that it is acceptable to refer to people coming to Australia without visas (including those who are not asylum seekers) as "illegal immigrants".

[simple1]

@Will27 - It appears from reading your latest link that their is a "conflict" in definition/protocol between Australian Immigration Law and the UN Convention on Refugees, may be this is the essence of the discussion, your thoughts?

[BookMan]

Here is another take on the matter

Mary Crock, a law professor at Sydney University and a specialist in immigration and refugee law, told PolitiFact: "The bottom line in the refugee convention is that it prohibits signatory states from imposing penalties on refugees for their illegal entry to the country. Refugees can’t be called illegal because the presumption has to be that they could be legitimate refugees."

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/03/scott-morrison/asylum-seekers-arriving-boat-are-illegally-enterin/

[NeverSure]

With all due respect, what is it that would cause a country to give its sovereignty over to the UN? The UN is a nasty bunch, populated by too many countries known to have revolting human rights records themselves. Many countries refuse to sign their resolutions, or withdraw as signatories after they see how they would lose control of their own countries.

Australia is a sovereign nation. Why isn't it free to make its own decisions regarding how its country is run? How could it find itself bound by a motley group of other countries with different values?

If Australia continues to believe that the UN is of some importance, it will have more and more problems, all of them at odds with the core beliefs of most Australian citizens.

Why don't you tell the UN to F off, and run your country as you see fit?

[Scott]

The thread is about Refugees. It's not about some sovereign abstraction. No country gives over it's sovereignty to the UN. It makes some agreements to abide by a certain set of standards. Some countries abide by them and some don't. It is about making an effort to treat people equitably and fairly. The level of compliance varies greatly from country to country.

Stay on topic, please.

[Old Croc]

Politicians of all persuasions like to play games with terminology with the harder parts of their portfolios to appease the public.

I've arrested literally hundreds of people, unlawfully in, or in the process of entering Australia. I've used search warrants to enter premises and, on rare occasions, used force and even handcuffs to take them to a place of detention. We were never allowed to use the term "arrest" to the "client" or anyone else, instead we had to state they were "detained in custody". In fact, anyway you looked at it, they were being arrested. I am for the use of more honest terminology.

Some asked my thoughts on Morrison. I don't like the guy at all. He used hysteria and even lies to hoodwink the public during the election campaign, but he was not alone within his party.

I've had quite a few people claim refugee status to me, and that immediately changed their status from illegal entrant, visitor or whatever, to that of asylum seeker. This new status didn't change the manner of their entry despite others, elsewhere, insisting it did.

The matter of holding refugee seekers in detention while identity checks, health and other processing is completed is another argument.

[David48]

^^ Good post from someone in the 'front line'.

BTW Old Croc ... brink back the old avatar!

[Will27]

Here is another take on the matter

Mary Crock, a law professor at Sydney University and a specialist in immigration and refugee law, told PolitiFact: "The bottom line in the refugee convention is that it prohibits signatory states from imposing penalties on refugees for their illegal entry to the country. Refugees can’t be called illegal because the presumption has to be that they could be legitimate refugees."

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/03/scott-morrison/asylum-seekers-arriving-boat-are-illegally-enterin/

I think this statement is contradictory as a lot seem to be. On one hand, she says "their illegal entry" and then she says they can't be called illegal. Again, they're being called "illegal maritime arrivals", not illegals and there is a difference.

I think it's reasonably clear that they are "illegal maritime arrivals" under The UN Refugee Convention.

What's also clear is that asylum seekers not be penalised for their entry or presence. And it's clear that based on the Migration Act, the boat arrivals are deemed to be unlawful. So in effect, Morrison is saying that it is the means of getting to Australia without a visa or any other authorisation which is illegal.

Food for thought:

"Former foreign minister Bob Carr said the asylum seeker problem became the "biggest" issue against the Labor government. "It was bigger than carbon pricing," he told Sky News on Sunday. "My advice to my former colleagues is absolutely crystal clear - you stick to the (PNG) Solution." Carr warned new Labor leader Bill Shorten not to allow backbenchers to freelance and attack Tony Abbott's asylum seeker policy as inhumane.

"The electorate will read that ... as Labor going weak on the subject," he said."

I think Morrison is playing a smart game as it is showing to the public that the govt is still being tough on boat arrivals which the general majority of the population of Australia I think, agree with.

[thaibeachlovers]

Australian Government quote ?

My error, looks like it was not a generalised policy, but specifically aimed at Syrians arriving by sea. I have just seen that 500 Syrian refugees have been permitted entry to Australia under the agreed annual intake with the UNHCR program of 13,500 refugees; URL below. Out of two million Syrian refugees the UNHCR has only be able to place 10,000 since the conflict started, so not surprising they are seeking other avenues.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/500-syrian-refugees-heading-to-australia/4998002

I see from your post that officials are still using the word "illegals" An article damning this practice by the SMH below.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/are-they-illegals-no-and-scott-morrison-should-know-better-20131022-2vz6a.html

The article you refer to in the SMH is was written by Jane McAdam who founded the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. I'd suggest she has a vested interest.

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention also refers to arrivals as "Illegals". Australia's Immigration laws also refer to people without visa's as unlawful.

People who arrive here by boat without visa's arrive here illegally. They're illegal maritime arrivals who are claiming asylum. And again,

they're detainees, not clients.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

Out of interest I reviewed Article 31 & the wording does not support Australia's position on the treatment of boat arrivals

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states parties from imposing penalties on refugees who, when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This Article recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

What seems to have been lost here, is that Australia is trying to prevent arrival by boat to stop the death of people at sea. If they were against illegal entry per se, they would also send illegals entering by AIR to PNG, but they do not and have not said that they will.

Will those that support the right of boat arrivals to remain in Oz please explain how they would stop people dying at sea in unseaworthy boats.

One reply deleted to allow posting.

[samran]

What seems to have been lost here, is that Australia is trying to prevent arrival by boat to stop the death of people at sea. If they were against illegal entry per se, they would also send illegals entering by AIR to PNG, but they do not and have not said that they will.

Will those that support the right of boat arrivals to remain in Oz please explain how they would stop people dying at sea in unseaworthy boats.

One reply deleted to allow posting.

I personally think that the line of 'preventing people dying at sea' is a soothing line to cover up (from both sides of politics) the real intention of 'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'.

If they were serious about people not getting on boats, they'd be working with other 'developed countries', like they did post Vietnam war and Cambodia, camps and refugee processing centres in places like Malaysia and Indonesia to house and process asylum seekers. You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.

But that is hard work, requires lots of diplomacy and doesn't fit well into a three line slogan which seems to work on the more feeble minded amongst us. And when you do get something up (again see Malaysia solution) you get opposition to that cause having something which might work stopping boats is less perferable than actually having the boats come, cause you can't cause a scare campaign when no boats are coming.

[thaibeachlovers]

<You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.>

Like it's Australia's responsibility to help them when they haven't even arrived in Oz, LOL.

[samran]

<You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.>

Like it's Australia's responsibility to help them when they haven't even arrived in Oz, LOL.

you asked what is going to 'stop people dying at sea?'

I gave you a serious answer. One which as worked during the Vietnam war era and beyond. You pooh-pooh the suggestion with a typical bogan like response where Australia's national interests somehow mysteriously stop at the border.

Unless you engage your neighbours, all they are going to do is say 'look guys, Australia is that way...keep moving and we won't arrest you'. Which has what has been happening.

So we do something to make it less our problem, before they get on the boat. Probably a bit hard for some to understand this though.

[canman]

What seems to have been lost here, is that Australia is trying to prevent arrival by boat to stop the death of people at sea. If they were against illegal entry per se, they would also send illegals entering by AIR to PNG, but they do not and have not said that they will.

Will those that support the right of boat arrivals to remain in Oz please explain how they would stop people dying at sea in unseaworthy boats.

One reply deleted to allow posting.

I personally think that the line of 'preventing people dying at sea' is a soothing line to cover up (from both sides of politics) the real intention of 'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'.

If they were serious about people not getting on boats, they'd be working with other 'developed countries', like they did post Vietnam war and Cambodia, camps and refugee processing centres in places like Malaysia and Indonesia to house and process asylum seekers. You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.

But that is hard work, requires lots of diplomacy and doesn't fit well into a three line slogan which seems to work on the more feeble minded amongst us. And when you do get something up (again see Malaysia solution) you get opposition to that cause having something which might work stopping boats is less perferable than actually having the boats come, cause you can't cause a scare campaign when no boats are coming.

'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'. Translation for the non-antipodean's:

The majority of Australians do not wish illegal boat arrivals to continue. The politicians understand that and therefor legislate for the majority. There's a word for it ummm........................Oh yeah; democracy.

[samran]

What seems to have been lost here, is that Australia is trying to prevent arrival by boat to stop the death of people at sea. If they were against illegal entry per se, they would also send illegals entering by AIR to PNG, but they do not and have not said that they will.

Will those that support the right of boat arrivals to remain in Oz please explain how they would stop people dying at sea in unseaworthy boats.

One reply deleted to allow posting.

I personally think that the line of 'preventing people dying at sea' is a soothing line to cover up (from both sides of politics) the real intention of 'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'.

If they were serious about people not getting on boats, they'd be working with other 'developed countries', like they did post Vietnam war and Cambodia, camps and refugee processing centres in places like Malaysia and Indonesia to house and process asylum seekers. You'd be working to lobby to give them work rights in places like Malaysia (see Malaysia solution) so that there was less an incentive to go any further.

But that is hard work, requires lots of diplomacy and doesn't fit well into a three line slogan which seems to work on the more feeble minded amongst us. And when you do get something up (again see Malaysia solution) you get opposition to that cause having something which might work stopping boats is less perferable than actually having the boats come, cause you can't cause a scare campaign when no boats are coming.

'how big a pr!ck can I be to reffo's close to election time as that plays well with the punters'. Translation for the non-antipodean's:

The majority of Australians do not wish illegal boat arrivals to continue. The politicians understand that and therefor legislate for the majority. There's a word for it ummm........................Oh yeah; democracy.

Got no problem with democracy. I'm hardly some sort of lefty kumbaya singer, given I work in mining, oil and gas, and am probably more of an economic hard head than those who claim to be on the 'right', but are basically social conservatives who like their government gravy middle class welfare as much as the next dole bludger.

What I do have issues with is mispreresenting policy so it is suitable for the consumption of the feeble minded. And I do have problems locking up otherwise innocent men, women and children for indefinete periods of time just cause they chose a boat, rather than plane to arrive. Massively inconsistent.

[Farma]

Article 31 keeps getting quoted here.

What i find interesting in the article 31 blurb is the following

when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened,

Note the word directly

Apart from a few Sri Lankans and possibly an Indonesian or 2 I can't see how the rest can claim they came direct to Australia without stopping off in another counry.

[Bikkii]

Article 31 keeps getting quoted here.

What i find interesting in the article 31 blurb is the following

when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened,

Note the word directly

Apart from a few Sri Lankans and possibly an Indonesian or 2 I can't see how the rest can claim they came direct to Australia without stopping off in another counry.

True. Unfortunately every other country in the region just waves them on with a smile saying" Australia, that way". about time a few other countries ie Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand opened there arms to some of these people. And one thing for sure, Singapore has far better infrastucture than Australia has.

[simple1]

Article 31 keeps getting quoted here.

What i find interesting in the article 31 blurb is the following

when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened,

Note the word directly

Apart from a few Sri Lankans and possibly an Indonesian or 2 I can't see how the rest can claim they came direct to Australia without stopping off in another counry.

True. Unfortunately every other country in the region just waves them on with a smile saying" Australia, that way". about time a few other countries ie Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand opened there arms to some of these people. And one thing for sure, Singapore has far better infrastucture than Australia has.

Just to put things in perspective, according to UNHCR:

Australia has about 60k asylum seekers/refugees awaiting processing/placement

Malaysia - 221k asylum seekers/refugees awaiting processing/placement

Thailand - 605k awaiting processing/placement (including stateless persons)

[Tep]

The majority of Australians do not wish illegal boat arrivals to continue. The politicians understand that and therefor legislate for the majority. There's a word for it ummm........................Oh yeah; democracy.

It is not Democracy. It is majoritarian parliamentary politics. The same system that gave Mahathir to Malaysia for so long. What you call Democracy is actually crude populism and demagoguery. What you call Democracy is merely enables bigotry. This bigotry has been expressed often in this and other similar discussions including the dehumanising reference to 'illegals'. As mentioned by others, bilateral and preferably multilateral engagement with neighbouring countries and selected other countries is the sensible, humane and democratic way of addressing the issues.

[Bcgardener]

 

 

 

The majority of Australians do not wish illegal boat arrivals to continue. The politicians understand that and therefor legislate for the majority. There's a word for it ummm........................Oh yeah; democracy.

 

It is not Democracy. It is majoritarian parliamentary politics. The same system that gave Mahathir to Malaysia for so long. What you call Democracy is actually crude populism and demagoguery. What you call Democracy is merely enables bigotry. This bigotry has been expressed often in this and other similar discussions including the dehumanising reference to 'illegals'. As mentioned by others, bilateral and preferably multilateral engagement with neighbouring countries and selected other countries is the sensible, humane and democratic way of addressing the issues.

Last time I checked the current government was given a significant mandate by the people of Australia to govern on their behalf. One of the major election issues was boat people. I too think that is what you call democracy.

Too many governments in Australia have pondered to loud in your face minorities to the overall detriment of Australia. A democracy is government by majority. The overwhelmingly political correctness that exists in Australia has been driven by these outspoken minorities and this has certainly been one of the reasons that this current boat people problem continues. We are spending hundreds of millions on foreigners when an Australian pensioner has to wait years for '' non essential'' surgery in our under funded hospitals. I really don't care how many drown. The took an unnecessary risk and paid the price.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[David48]

Last time I checked the current government was given a significant mandate by the people of Australia to govern on their behalf. One of the major election issues was boat people. I too think that is what you call democracy.

+1

[David48]

Just to put things in perspective, according to UNHCR:

Australia has about 60k asylum seekers/refugees awaiting processing/placement

Malaysia - 221k asylum seekers/refugees awaiting processing/placement

Thailand - 605k awaiting processing/placement (including stateless persons)

simple1 ... it's a Strawman argument without a Reference ^^.

I've often quoted the fact that, based on population, Australia take a little under the average refugees per population. Referance

On a per population basis we take more then the USA or NZ but less then the UK or Malaysia.

Why not compare Australia to say a country like India. Heck, they took 185,118 refugees ... that's getting close to 10% of Australia's population!

But, on a per capita basis, India takes less then 1/6^th what Australia accepts.

[David48]

I remember having a discussion here about the various policies of the political parties vying for election in the recent Federal campaign.

One of the main issues was the 'Boat People'.

Some here said that both major parties have reprehensible policies.

May I point out that the only major political party who had a strong stance to increase the refugee intake, have 'on-shore' processing ... a policy really of not turning anyone way was the Green Party.

Greens Policy

How did the Greens go in the recent Federal Election? ...

There was a nationwide swing of 3.34% against the Greens in the House of Representatives, with their primary vote falling to 8.42%. A little over half a million voters who had supported the Greens at the previous election deserted them.

Swings were registered against the Greens in every state and territory. Some of the severest were recorded in Green strongholds, such as Tasmania (8.73%) and the ACT (5.95%).

There was also little joy to be found in the Greens' Senate vote. Across every state and territory, the Greens' primary vote took a battering (-4.39%). In Tasmania, the Greens recorded an 8.64% swing against them, while in South Australia its primary vote was almost halved (7.07% in 2013 compared to 13.30% in 2010).

Here

Australia Voted ... Australians chose to decline the Greens policy.

simple1 ... may I ask you a direct question?

Do you think that you represent what the majority of Australians desire for their Refugee solution?

EDIT ... forgot the reference.