Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[Scott]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

[harrry]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Scott, your comparison falls flat. These people are free at any time to leave. In fact the Australian Government will even pay their airfares. Having rejected that the have been relocated to a place which subsribes to the UN convention.

Personally I have sympathy for a few. If their safety was in danger and they can move to a safe country that is fine. It does not in my view have to be Australia...it is Australia's choice to let them stay if Australia provides a place of safety for them elswhere.

[simple1]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Australia has been condemned by UN agencies and others as in breach of international conventions. Quite obvious the Oz government really doesn't care as overriding importance is domestic politics.

[neverdie]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Scott, there appears to be numerous laws that address these issues.

Cast your eyes over this baby, it mentions a few of them. Sorry you will have to copy and paste.

www.unhcr.org/4ee1d32b9.html

[harrry]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Australia has been condemned by UN agencies and others as in breach of international conventions. Quite obvious the Oz government really doesn't care as overriding importance is domestic politics.

Well possibly a few of the countries of the UN who are making these protestation need to look at how well their own country is doing in comparison with Australias intake and take a few more themselves.

Edited February 23, 2014 by harrry

[simple1]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Australia has been condemned by UN agencies and others as in breach of international conventions. Quite obvious the Oz government really doesn't care as overriding importance is domestic politics.

Well possibly a few of the countries of the UN who are maaking these protestation need to look at how well their own country is doing in comparison with Australias intake and take a few more themselves.

We are talking about aspects of Oz Govt policy that does not comply to the UN Conventions that it has ratified, thereby the criticism. What other countries do or don't do is irrelevant in this context.

[samran]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Scott, your comparison falls flat. These people are free at any time to leave. In fact the Australian Government will even pay their airfares. Having rejected that the have been relocated to a place which subsribes to the UN convention..

That doesn't always work. The Iraninans basically aren't allowed back from memory, and others, to use the rohingyas as an example, won't allowed back given their home country, Myanmar, doesn't recognise them as citizens.

[samran]

^ Now, now Samran, don't be like that, the Australian govenrment wouldnt tell fibs

Having said that, Scott Morrison isnt located in PNG and hes information is only as good as what is provided to him, just minutes after the incident which is the nature of media in this day and age.

As an investigor i know,that things arnt always what we first think. Sometimes incidents and crimes take many hundreds hours (if not multiples of that) to thoroughly investigate before a correct determination can be made. Things get extremely complicated when you dealing with foriegn countries, cultures and so forth. NONE of that fits into the 365 day, 24 hour, 60 min and 60 second media requirement of the current day and age.

Like most of them, Morrison probably wouldnt know if he own arse was on fire, lets face it many of the politicians in society are hardly the sharpest tools in the shed.

Any information Morrison receives is carefully analysed and fed back to the public as Morrison Disinformation.

I am fairly sure Morisson would see if his arse is on fire. His love for himself is so great that in his quiet times he likes to sit in front of a mirror. For press conferences he will choose a space that has good reflecting surfaces so at least he knows and can see he has a friend in the room on an intellectual par as himself.

Indeed this is straight from the 'children overboard' playbook.

Let out the false story first (er, sorry, initial reports) and get the bogans and the shock jocks and their moron listeners up in arms.

Then quickly back track so you don't get accused of lying, all the while the real job is done: further vilification and cementing of stereotypes of refugees as bad people. Justifies the further continuation of this c$)tish policy.

[harrry]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Scott, your comparison falls flat. These people are free at any time to leave. In fact the Australian Government will even pay their airfares. Having rejected that the have been relocated to a place which subsribes to the UN convention..

That doesn't always work. The Iraninans basically aren't allowed back from memory, and others, to use the rohingyas as an example, won't allowed back given their home country, Myanmar, doesn't recognise them as citizens.

Given that, those who elect to stay have been given a place of safety in a signatory country to the conventions. They do have a right to safety. If that is the prime objective they should acept that and then as time prgresses work towards normal immigration to another country.

[samran]

If the boats have been intercepted in international waters, isn't it illegal to send the passengers to a country they don't wish to go to? I believe there are some international laws concerning these situations. Otherwise, what is to prevent the hijackers near Africa from intercepting boats and holding the crew? I know this is a big stretch, but maritime laws are still laws.

Scott, your comparison falls flat. These people are free at any time to leave. In fact the Australian Government will even pay their airfares. Having rejected that the have been relocated to a place which subsribes to the UN convention..

That doesn't always work. The Iraninans basically aren't allowed back from memory, and others, to use the rohingyas as an example, won't allowed back given their home country, Myanmar, doesn't recognise them as citizens.

Given that, those who elect to stay have been given a place of safety in a signatory country to the conventions. They do have a right to safety. If that is the prime objective they should acept that and then as time prgresses work towards normal immigration to another country.

Granted. But the terms 'right to safety' doesn't quite gel with the words 'PNG' and 'cared for by G4S'.

Excuse my cynicism, but things like work rights in Malaysia like proposed by the last government or even large UN run refugee camps seem to be a better option.

[Scott]

I am not arguing a point. I am wondering about the laws. When the discussion was about boat people being relocated to Malaysia and now a proposal to send them to Cambodia, not to mention the current PNG relocation, I am wondering if this is legal IF they are intercepted in international waters. The same with turning boats back that are in international waters.

It's slightly off-topic, but I know there are some maritime laws and rules about these situation, including the ones about rendering assistance to boats in distress and then delivering them to the nearest port.

[harrry]

I am not arguing a point. I am wondering about the laws. When the discussion was about boat people being relocated to Malaysia and now a proposal to send them to Cambodia, not to mention the current PNG relocation, I am wondering if this is legal IF they are intercepted in international waters. The same with turning boats back that are in international waters.

It's slightly off-topic, but I know there are some maritime laws and rules about these situation, including the ones about rendering assistance to boats in distress and then delivering them to the nearest port.

I think most are not intercepted until they have entered the extended territorial zone. Ones that need rescuing while still in the official rescuee zone of Indonesia by Australian ships would seem to put an obligation on Indonesia to accept people on its flagged vessels back. Of course I am not suggesting that Australia should not rescue these people that strangely Indonesia, an archapelego with many vessels cannot find tthe ships to do so despite aparently deploying a Frigate to the area to deter Ausralian incursion.

[neverdie]

I am not arguing a point. I am wondering about the laws. When the discussion was about boat people being relocated to Malaysia and now a proposal to send them to Cambodia, not to mention the current PNG relocation, I am wondering if this is legal IF they are intercepted in international waters. The same with turning boats back that are in international waters.

It's slightly off-topic, but I know there are some maritime laws and rules about these situation, including the ones about rendering assistance to boats in distress and then delivering them to the nearest port.

I see what you are saying, such as the Australian authorities are technically detaining people in no mans land technically and forcefully transporting them to somewhere where they don't want to go.

I'm not even sure if they are being intercepted inAustralia. waters, or the outer waters or international waters. what I do understand is the Australian navy has been on several occassions operating WITHIN Indonesian waters and that's a big big Mistake. I wouldn't mind the indos getting their noses out of joint about that. Disgusting.

Scott that link above, outlines a number of laws that are suppose to be adhered to, I'm not sure that's happening though.

[simple1]

A short while ago it was reported that Indo had rescued 50+ asylum seekers at sea and returned them to their territory. Also Indo has rescued other asylum seekers at sea; from reports about equal to Australian efforts in lives saved. However it is difficult to ascertain what's actually happening as Oz government has refused to comment on 'operational matters'.

The deployment of the Indo frigate and other naval assets was in response to six breaches by Oz naval vessels of its territorial waters. I am 100 percent certain if the shoe was on the other foot there would be massive outpouring of anger within Oz calling for a retaliatory response.

Have relations now returned to normal so that Indo again is officially co-operating with Oz on the boat people issue?

[BookMan]

Manus Island: How information is kept 'under control'

I've seen some censorship in my 20-plus years as a journalist reporting from Australia and various countries in the Asia Pacific region.

But what I saw on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea has made me uneasy about press freedom in the Pacific and the Australian Government's approach to reporting on the detention centre.

Last week photographer Nick Moir and I were on the island to report on the aftermath of the riot at the detention centre, which left one asylum seeker dead and about 70 injured.

Within hours of arriving, staff from G4S, the private security company employed by the Australian Government to manage the centre, had manhandled Nick, confiscated his camera and forced him to delete photographs in order to censor news.

Advertisement

This occurred after Nick and I visited the island's hospital more than 14 kilometres from the detention centre and supposedly under the jurisdiction of the PNG Government.

We had gone to the hospital in order to check if appropriate procedures were being taken in relation to secure the body of Reza Berati.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/manus-island-how-information-is-kept-under-control-20140225-33eob.html

[simple1]

Manus Island: How information is kept 'under control'

I've seen some censorship in my 20-plus years as a journalist reporting from Australia and various countries in the Asia Pacific region.

But what I saw on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea has made me uneasy about press freedom in the Pacific and the Australian Government's approach to reporting on the detention centre.

Last week photographer Nick Moir and I were on the island to report on the aftermath of the riot at the detention centre, which left one asylum seeker dead and about 70 injured.

Within hours of arriving, staff from G4S, the private security company employed by the Australian Government to manage the centre, had manhandled Nick, confiscated his camera and forced him to delete photographs in order to censor news.

Advertisement

This occurred after Nick and I visited the island's hospital more than 14 kilometres from the detention centre and supposedly under the jurisdiction of the PNG Government.

We had gone to the hospital in order to check if appropriate procedures were being taken in relation to secure the body of Reza Berati.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/manus-island-how-information-is-kept-under-control-20140225-33eob.html

As you say disturbing. Would be interested in your POV on Oz government approaching Cambo Govt for hosting asylum seekers given the governments very poor human rights record and current minimal legal framework.

Edited February 25, 2014 by simple1

[BookMan]

As you say disturbing. Would be interested in your POV on Oz government approaching Cambo Govt for hosting asylum seekers given the governments very poor human rights record and current minimal legal framework.

This Cambodia thing about housing asylum seekers was certainly a surprise. The government already have PNG solution and they have their turn back the boats policy, so why involve yet another country in Cambodia? I have to wonder if this is more about starting to force countries who accept aid from Australia about showing some reciprocation. Only speculation, I imagine it will become clearer soon enough

If the OZ government was concerned about the welfare of asylum seekers it would close down the PNG option altogether. From that pov I don't think the government cares about Cambodia's human rights record.

The Malaysian solution of a couple of years back would have been a better option than Cambodia, and probably the better of options presented thus far, in relation to offshore resettlement. Be interesting if they started to send asylum seekers who arrive by air in Australia to Manus Island.

[Scott]

That was part of the reason for my earlier query. Can they legally take people who came from country A and traveled to country B on their way to asylum in country C and then arbitrarily send them to a different country? That sounds like it is breaking a number of international laws, rules and agreements.

[simple1]

That was part of the reason for my earlier query. Can they legally take people who came from country A and traveled to country B on their way to asylum in country C and then arbitrarily send them to a different country? That sounds like it is breaking a number of international laws, rules and agreements.

"We're concerned that the net effect of the measures is that for all intents and purposes Australia ceases to be an asylum country under the convention for anybody coming to the country other than by air," UNHCR regional representative Richard Towle told The World Today"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/unhcr-australia-png-refugees-asylum/4845628

Since the report above in 07/2013 there have been a number of comments/observations by UNHCR and others, basically reaffirming the above stance..

Edited February 26, 2014 by simple1

[boomerangutang]

Sorry if this sounds callous, but how about picking up refugees and shipping them back to their countries of origin. If the refugee doesn't have ID or doesn't state where he/she is from, then ship them to the country which is most likely where they originated their journey.

It's probably against Int'l refugee protocol to do that. But why should developed countries have to make such efforts and expense to abide by the letter of the law, when the people they're dealing with are breaking laws left and right?

The US does it, to some extent, when illegal immigrants are picked up near their border with Mexico. China does it, when they pick up N.Koreans - though the N.Korean issue is much different, in my view (N.Koreans should be given safe passage to S.Korea. It's where they want to go, and the S.Koreans don't mind accepting them).

[samran]

Sorry if this sounds callous, but how about picking up refugees and shipping them back to their countries of origin. If the refugee doesn't have ID or doesn't state where he/she is from, then ship them to the country which is most likely where they originated their journey.

It's probably against Int'l refugee protocol to do that. But why should developed countries have to make such efforts and expense to abide by the letter of the law, when the people they're dealing with are breaking laws left and right?

The US does it, to some extent, when illegal immigrants are picked up near their border with Mexico. China does it, when they pick up N.Koreans - though the N.Korean issue is much different, in my view (N.Koreans should be given safe passage to S.Korea. It's where they want to go, and the S.Koreans don't mind accepting them).

I guess what you suggest requires the perceived home country to accept then at the very least. Doesn't always happen. The other simple issue is the whole framework of seeking refugee status is that you don't send them back where they are going to be persecuted. These conventions hark back to the experience of how boatloads of Jews were turned away from the us and canada prior to ww2 and sent back to nazi occupied Europe.

Conceptually and to my mind morally it is simple what the answer should be, but obviously the whole process is muddied by politics and in the modern age, economic migrants and other third countries in between who aren't willing to help resettle refugees. As such it comes down to a handful of western countries to shoulder the burden. But as Ned Kelly said: such is life.

[Scott]

Yes, you are being callous. People coming from Mexico to the US are not seeking asylum. If they did make an asylum claim it would be handled as such. They are also not usually formally deported. If they agree to return voluntarily to Mexico, they are not barred further entry to the US and if there is an immigrant petition for them to legally live in the US, the return will not jeopardize the immigrant petition. If they are formally deported, then they are barred entry and any petition for resettlement will be denied. It saves them and the gov't a lot of time and trouble.

Many countries, particularly in Asia, are not countries of first asylum, therefore they have no treaty obligations to follow the UNHCR protocols. If North Koreans can make it out of China they have a good chance of being resettled in South Korea (or another country).

When being interviewed for refugee status the person has to give specific information about where they are from, if they don't, they can't generally be granted refugee status. Their claim has to be credible and to be credible there has to be information about where they lived and what happened to them. That information can then be verified. For example, if you lived in Iran and converted from Islam to Christianity, you will be persecuted/imprisoned/killed.

Returning people to their home country requires the consent of the home country. Before a country will take them back they want confirmation that they are actually a citizen of the country. Because someone is black, for example, you can't just return them to any ol' African country.

[boomerangutang]

It is such a thorny issue. Some issues which need to be addressed:

>>> is the person a genuine refugee who faces active persecution in country of origin?

>>> or is that person simply looking for better opportunities/lifestyle.

As with so many professions (lawyers, police, consular officers, etc) the bureaucrats assigned to deal with refugee issues, have to gauge whether particular applicants are telling the truth. Some applicants clearly fall on one side of the issue or the other. But for the applicants in the middle (those not clearly prosecuted vs those only looking for better job/benefits) - it's tough. There is no truth serum, and lie-detector tests probably wouldn't be much better.

Australian authorities are trying to take the least painful path through this prickly forest. There is no good solution, so they appear to be trying to develop the least awful solution.

Refugee problems are reflection of overpopulation, religious bigotry, awful governance, diminishing farmland, global warming, and a plethora of other global problems. Mass immigration problems will only get worse for the foreseeable future.

Edited February 26, 2014 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

Bloomberg is just reporting another boat with 200 souls aboard has sunk of Java this morning. Only 25 survivors have been rescued so far. If this is true then, does the Australian Government have a secret policy on these boats we don't know about ? It sure seems to me that there are alot more of these boats sinking recently compared to a couple of years ago.

Australian authorities would not be purposefully sinking any boats. Conspiracy theory #462 - toss it in the trash bin.

Looking down the road: Let's say Iranians and Afghans and other Moslems get settled in PNG or Cambodia. We've seen, a thousand times, what Moslems do when they start residing somewhere. Besides having a lot of babies, they inexorably seek to impose their deist myths on everyone in the vicinity. Will our kids and grandkids be reading headlines in 30 years, of Moslems rioting and killing non-believers in PNG, and insisting on Sharia Law? It's happening now in Nigeria, parts of Europe and nearly all over the M.E. - so why not PNG?

[simple1]

Australian authorities are trying to take the least painful path through this prickly forest. There is no good solution, so they appear to be trying to develop the least awful solution.

Its certainly the most awful solution for those seeking refuge, short of killing them or abandoning them at sea. It would be interesting to know the policy of support for those who are positively assessed, forbidden to apply for resettlement to a third county and released into PNG society; with a strong possibilty of severe descrimination. Whats the likelyhood, if able to escape from PNG, of them applying for aylum on the basis of descrimination/denial of human rights by PNG/Oz Govt?

[BookMan]

Bloomberg is just reporting another boat with 200 souls aboard has sunk of Java this morning. Only 25 survivors have been rescued so far. If this is true then, does the Australian Government have a secret policy on these boats we don't know about ? It sure seems to me that there are alot more of these boats sinking recently compared to a couple of years ago.

Australian authorities would not be purposefully sinking any boats. Conspiracy theory #462 - toss it in the trash bin.

Looking down the road: Let's say Iranians and Afghans and other Moslems get settled in PNG or Cambodia. We've seen, a thousand times, what Moslems do when they start residing somewhere. Besides having a lot of babies, they inexorably seek to impose their deist myths on everyone in the vicinity. Will our kids and grandkids be reading headlines in 30 years, of Moslems rioting and killing non-believers in PNG, and insisting on Sharia Law? It's happening now in Nigeria, parts of Europe and nearly all over the M.E. - so why not PNG?

You are very optimistic expecting anyone resettled in PNG to have a lifespan of another 30 years

[Scott]

Let's exercise care in our posts. In my experience with resettling many Muslims -- and in one year alone that included over 10,000 being resettled -- the key factor is how well the dominant culture is willing to accept them. Whether they integrate or are marginalized has a lot to do with those around them. Some hang on to their culture and traditions harder than others, but once they have a job, a home and their children are in school, assimilation begins.

Asian countries are rather xenophobic, I don't know must about PNG, but what I have read, I think you can expect that refugees will form their own little isolated communities. It does not sound like a society that is very open or welcoming to others and the general level of violence would indicate it's not one that I personally would like to be a part of.

If you wish to perpetuate the stereotype that is essentially not true, then resettle them in hostile, unwelcoming environments. The revolt you fear at home will not be far away.

[coma]

Bloomberg is just reporting another boat with 200 souls aboard has sunk of Java this morning. Only 25 survivors have been rescued so far. If this is true then, does the Australian Government have a secret policy on these boats we don't know about ? It sure seems to me that there are alot more of these boats sinking recently compared to a couple of years ago.

Australian authorities would not be purposefully sinking any boats. Conspiracy theory #462 - toss it in the trash bin.

Looking down the road: Let's say Iranians and Afghans and other Moslems get settled in PNG or Cambodia. We've seen, a thousand times, what Moslems do when they start residing somewhere. Besides having a lot of babies, they inexorably seek to impose their deist myths on everyone in the vicinity. Will our kids and grandkids be reading headlines in 30 years, of Moslems rioting and killing non-believers in PNG, and insisting on Sharia Law? It's happening now in Nigeria, parts of Europe and nearly all over the M.E. - so why not PNG?

Australia blew up boat: asylum seekers

Who said Australia doesn't blow up boats ?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/02/26/10/56/asylum-seekers-say-aust-blew-up-boat

[boomerangutang]

Bloomberg is just reporting another boat with 200 souls aboard has sunk of Java this morning. Only 25 survivors have been rescued so far. If this is true then, does the Australian Government have a secret policy on these boats we don't know about ? It sure seems to me that there are alot more of these boats sinking recently compared to a couple of years ago.

Australian authorities would not be purposefully sinking any boats. Conspiracy theory #462 - toss it in the trash bin.

Looking down the road: Let's say Iranians and Afghans and other Moslems get settled in PNG or Cambodia. We've seen, a thousand times, what Moslems do when they start residing somewhere. Besides having a lot of babies, they inexorably seek to impose their deist myths on everyone in the vicinity. Will our kids and grandkids be reading headlines in 30 years, of Moslems rioting and killing non-believers in PNG, and insisting on Sharia Law? It's happening now in Nigeria, parts of Europe and nearly all over the M.E. - so why not PNG?

Australia blew up boat: asylum seekers

Who said Australia doesn't blow up boats ?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/02/26/10/56/asylum-seekers-say-aust-blew-up-boat

From the alarmist headline, it sounds like Aussies blew up a boat with people on board. The headline should have said 'empty boat.' Furthermore, there was probably good cause to blow up the empty boat. It was likely unseaworthy and/or had been used before for people smuggling - and would be used again.

Australian authorities are in a 'damned if they do / damned if they don't' predicament with the flood of immigrants. Bleeding heart liberals want to see the red carpet put out for anyone showing up - complete with skills training, welfare, housing, medical, schooling, etc. No problem if there were just a few genuine immigrants who have been persecuted. But 80% of Iranians and 95% of Afghans would come charging in to live off the dole in Australia if they could. I don't blame them. Iran and Afghanistan are rather miserable places to try to eke out a living - not to mention nearly any other M.E. country, unless a person is born in to riches.

Part of the reason Australia is a desirable destination is because it's a non-oppressive and rather open-minded society. Freedom of religion and a fair welfare system are other pluses. In Iran or Afghanistan, if a person even thinks out loud about checking out another religion or philosophy - they're ostrasized and/or stoned (in the Biblical sense of the word) forthwith.

[simple1]

Bloomberg is just reporting another boat with 200 souls aboard has sunk of Java this morning. Only 25 survivors have been rescued so far. If this is true then, does the Australian Government have a secret policy on these boats we don't know about ? It sure seems to me that there are alot more of these boats sinking recently compared to a couple of years ago.

Australian authorities would not be purposefully sinking any boats. Conspiracy theory #462 - toss it in the trash bin.

Looking down the road: Let's say Iranians and Afghans and other Moslems get settled in PNG or Cambodia. We've seen, a thousand times, what Moslems do when they start residing somewhere. Besides having a lot of babies, they inexorably seek to impose their deist myths on everyone in the vicinity. Will our kids and grandkids be reading headlines in 30 years, of Moslems rioting and killing non-believers in PNG, and insisting on Sharia Law? It's happening now in Nigeria, parts of Europe and nearly all over the M.E. - so why not PNG?

Australia blew up boat: asylum seekers

Who said Australia doesn't blow up boats ?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/02/26/10/56/asylum-seekers-say-aust-blew-up-boat

From the alarmist headline, it sounds like Aussies blew up a boat with people on board. The headline should have said 'empty boat.' Furthermore, there was probably good cause to blow up the empty boat. It was likely unseaworthy and/or had been used before for people smuggling - and would be used again.

Australian authorities are in a 'damned if they do / damned if they don't' predicament with the flood of immigrants. Bleeding heart liberals want to see the red carpet put out for anyone showing up - complete with skills training, welfare, housing, medical, schooling, etc. No problem if there were just a few genuine immigrants who have been persecuted. But 80% of Iranians and 95% of Afghans would come charging in to live off the dole in Australia if they could. I don't blame them. Iran and Afghanistan are rather miserable places to try to eke out a living - not to mention nearly any other M.E. country, unless a person is born in to riches.

Part of the reason Australia is a desirable destination is because it's a non-oppressive and rather open-minded society. Freedom of religion and a fair welfare system are other pluses. In Iran or Afghanistan, if a person even thinks out loud about checking out another religion or philosophy - they're ostrasized and/or stoned (in the Biblical sense of the word) forthwith.

This topic is in regards to asylum seekers / refugees, not immigrants. Prior to the PNG solution, those released into the community by way of bridging visas were often denied permission to work or upon renewal/extension of the bridging visa declined permission to work. The welfare component is not equivalent to Centrelink payments. Under the Asylum Seeker Assistance (administered by the Red Cross) it is estimated they receive equivalent of 90 percent of payments to Australians under the Newstart scheme. Also they are not provided free housing by the government, but receive rental assistance of up to $81 per week each. Some privately funded organisations do provide assistance with housing. More detail under the heading Asylum seekers at the URL below.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees

Edited February 27, 2014 by simple1