Australia admits returning migrants

[webfact]

Australia handed over 41 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka

(BBC) Australia has acknowledged it has returned 41 asylum seekers to the Sri Lankan authorities at sea.

The transfer took place on Sunday.

Rights groups had raised concerns that more than 200 Sri Lankans may have been handed over earlier, including Tamils who say they face persecution at home.

The government has not commented on possible earlier cases, but says everyone was subject to "enhanced screening" to ensure compliance with Australia's international obligations.

The government says only four of those returned on Sunday were Tamils.

Refugee campaigners say Australian actions are a violation of international law.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28189316


-- BBC 2014-07-07

[shirtless]

They are not asylum seekers they are economic refugees , You seek asylum in the first country you cross into.

[submaniac]

People who are entering the country illegally are deported to their country of residence. Sounds just like what any other country does (or should do).

[fresnoboy]

Hooray for Australia !

If only the USA would do the same !

[Scott]

If you are going to return people who are claiming asylum, then rescind your agreement on the refugee conventions. The repatriation of asylum seekers who have been screened and determined not to be a genuine refugee is generally overseen by the UN.

It's a bit suspicious to do it in secretly.

[soistranger]

I met refugees in bangkok from pakistan who had ed visas and still considered taking the trip to christmas island worse off oz gov will house a refugee before they house a homeless aussie.

[Scott]

If they are on an education visa, they are not refugees.

[submaniac]

I think most countries are rethinking the U.N..convention, because it has been horribly abused. In the 1980's and 1990's it was popular to come to the United States from Mexico and claim political asylum as a refugee. Needless to say the U.S. government (which is actually not a party to the U.n. Convention on refugees but only a party to the protocol) put a stop to that. (If you try to do that these days you will find yourself immediately deported and banned permanently from ever immigrating to the U.S.) I'm surprised that Australia has been as tolerant as they have been (until recently at least). I mean it so easy to claim one is being repressed, but very few countries legitimately do things that reach the level of oppression. Mostly it's just people seeking a better economic future, which by any means is not a legitimate grounds for asylum.

[chooka]

Sri Lanka is no longer considered a conflict area and the Sri Lankan Government has assured Australia that no person is a risk of persecution in their country. Sri Lankans no longer meet the criteria to be considered as asylum seekers. They are now just considered as economic migrants so they are required to go through the normal channels. Apply to immigrate.

[Johnnie99]

Why isn't anyone doing anything about the countries from which these illegal immigrants depart?

It's very rarely their country of origin, and as is mentioned, the first 'safe' country should be that in which asylum is claimed, according to international law.

Shouldn't the intermediary countries be sanctioned?

[MK1]

I don’t mind the part about sending them back but doing it behind closed doors, out of mind out of sight, means the government is doing it for political-gain, just like the 2001 Tampa affair, rather than for its original intended purpose.

Edited July 7, 2014 by MK1

[simple1]

Sri Lanka is no longer considered a conflict area and the Sri Lankan Government has assured Australia that no person is a risk of persecution in their country. Sri Lankans no longer meet the criteria to be considered as asylum seekers. They are now just considered as economic migrants so they are required to go through the normal channels. Apply to immigrate.

Whilst it was only one person out of the 50+, he was positively assessed as 'in fear of persecution upon return". However, allegedly that individual agreed to be returned to Sri Lanka, rather than being transferred to Manas Island & likely having to stay in PNG for the rest of his life.

The Sri Lanka government assertion that no returnees are persecuted flies in the face of numerous reports of detention and torture. Perhaps they are just talking to returnees mutually agreed as economic refugees

[simple1]

I met refugees in bangkok from pakistan who had ed visas and still considered taking the trip to christmas island worse off oz gov will house a refugee before they house a homeless aussie.

I guess you are unaware of the "PNG Solution"

[Scott]

The criteria to be a refugee is not oppression, it is persecution and it applies for a limited number of reasons. Not all countries can be considered a country of first asylum because they do not recognize people fleeing from anywhere as refugees. China for example.

Some countries will house displaced persons in camps, but doesn't recognize them as refugees or asylum seekers. Thailand is an example.

There is no reason that economic migrants shouldn't be returned to their home country. They should and it should be done reasonably quickly, but screening is essential and transparency is important. Abiding by agreed upon principles is also necessary.

In this case it seems the screening was speedy, but it lacked transparency and may be violating international principles.

[simple1]

If you are going to return people who are claiming asylum, then rescind your agreement on the refugee conventions. The repatriation of asylum seekers who have been screened and determined not to be a genuine refugee is generally overseen by the UN.

It's a bit suspicious to do it in secretly.

Oz government is claiming fast tracking of assessments whilst at sea via video link; allegedly this is occuring in international waters. I concur that if Oz government wishes to not comply with ratified and signed agreements, it should be "up front" and cancel such agreements and deal with any loss of reputation as one of the world leaders of a fair and just society (that government constantly claims), otherwise pure hypocrisy

[tezzainoz]

Sri Lanka is no longer considered a conflict area and the Sri Lankan Government has assured Australia that no person is a risk of persecution in their country. Sri Lankans no longer meet the criteria to be considered as asylum seekers. They are now just considered as economic migrants so they are required to go through the normal channels. Apply to immigrate.

some of my best friends in Australia come from Sri. Lanka and they come and go home every year with no problem

But do gooders need a reason to exist so they will always be on their soap box demanding something

[godden]

Don't come knocking on my door

[Scott]

If you are going to return people who are claiming asylum, then rescind your agreement on the refugee conventions. The repatriation of asylum seekers who have been screened and determined not to be a genuine refugee is generally overseen by the UN.

It's a bit suspicious to do it in secretly.

Oz government is claiming fast tracking of assessments whilst at sea via video link; allegedly this is occuring in international waters. I concur that if Oz government wishes to not comply with ratified and signed agreements, it should be "up front" and cancel such agreements and deal with any loss of reputation as one of the world leaders of a fair and just society (that government constantly claims), otherwise pure hypocrisy

I don't necessarily agree with what Australia is doing, however, they have made certain agreements and they need to abide by them or scrap them (or renegotiate) them. I do not envy Australia, they are in a very difficult position when it comes to migrants. Every country has to weigh it's humanitarian obligations with the needs of its own citizens.

Australia has long been a leader in many aspects of human rights and the welfare of others. I hope that it doesn't lose those qualities.

[jacky54]

Well done Australia, to do otherwise only encourages thousands more. If only the UK had the same sense.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacky54

[Old Croc]

If you are going to return people who are claiming asylum, then rescind your agreement on the refugee conventions. The repatriation of asylum seekers who have been screened and determined not to be a genuine refugee is generally overseen by the UN.

It's a bit suspicious to do it in secretly.

Oz government is claiming fast tracking of assessments whilst at sea via video link; allegedly this is occuring in international waters. I concur that if Oz government wishes to not comply with ratified and signed agreements, it should be "up front" and cancel such agreements and deal with any loss of reputation as one of the world leaders of a fair and just society (that government constantly claims), otherwise pure hypocrisy

I don't like what the Government is doing in secret in international waters, it is wrong on many levels.

However, fast tracking of erroneous claims has been a standard practice at Australian airports for decades. It sorts out the idiots, and their sometimes farcical, claims without going to great expense for the taxpayers. I could write a book with some of the stories I've heard!

Despite what was said elsewhere the UN is rarely involved in on-shore processing and the removal of failed applicants.

As far as Sri Lankan boat arrivals are concerned, virtually all I've been involved with, have come for economic reasons.

I recall a group of SL youths found wandering on a beach near Coral Bay some years ago. Not one claimed asylum, they all stated they had come to get jobs so they could send money back to their families. The people smugglers had sold a lie to many families in villages for sizable fees. The kids were dumped on a remote beach where they could have perished if they hadn't been found by fishermen.

(However, I should point out that many Tamil Sri Lankans have been found to be refugees, mainly when the civil war was continuing, and are now living in Australia.)

[soistranger]

If they are on an education visa, they are not refugees.

One of them had a ed visa and the other had a piece of paper claiming refugee status in thailand. Both were very interested in the cambodia deal they could do a year in detention sittin on there heads by the look of them.

[chooka]

I don’t mind the part about sending them back but doing it behind closed doors, out of mind out of sight, means the government is doing it for political-gain, just like the 2001 Tampa affair, rather than for its original intended purpose.

The Abbot Government is full of deceit. The want the people of Australia to believe that the moment they took power the boats ceased. Nothing is being released to the media to keep the people in the dark.

[tingtongteesood]

I have always said that if they do not try and claim asylum in the first safe country then they have an ulterior motive. Send them back where they came from and tell them to go to the first safe country instead. When they pass through 10 different countries they could have tried at but don't because they are going for the benefits sponging pot at the end of the rainbow, send them back to where they came from, no questions asked....

[JDGRUEN]

IMO any country that stays in an UN sponsored agreement to take in any and all asylum seekers and give up their sovereign right to determine who is a genuine asylum seeker and who is not themselves is derelict in their duty to look out for the welfare of their own citizens. The internal activity of a nation should not be the purview of the UN or any other world body... It is not working - there is wholesale fraud involved with these migrants going to Australia and to the U.S.A. Common sense has to prevail some where along the line.

[NeverSure]

If you are going to return people who are claiming asylum, then rescind your agreement on the refugee conventions. The repatriation of asylum seekers who have been screened and determined not to be a genuine refugee is generally overseen by the UN.

It's a bit suspicious to do it in secretly.

Oz government is claiming fast tracking of assessments whilst at sea via video link; allegedly this is occuring in international waters. I concur that if Oz government wishes to not comply with ratified and signed agreements, it should be "up front" and cancel such agreements and deal with any loss of reputation as one of the world leaders of a fair and just society (that government constantly claims), otherwise pure hypocrisy

The US hasn't signed that agreement nor most of the other noteworthy UN treaties and conventions. I don't suppose it would be called "one of the world's leaders."

The people would have a conniption fit (known in the South as a hissy fit ) If the government gave up its sovereignty to an international group.

The UN headquarters are in the US. Big mistake because of diplomatic immunity and so darned many "diplomats."

Two popular bumper stickers in the US are "Get US out of the UN" and "Get the UN out of US."

[oldsailor35]

Why isn't anyone doing anything about the countries from which these illegal immigrants depart?

It's very rarely their country of origin, and as is mentioned, the first 'safe' country should be that in which asylum is claimed, according to international law.

Shouldn't the intermediary countries be sanctioned?

And still the "tree huggers" condemn Australia. Many of these so called refugees arrive from Indonesia, so how can they be refugees.

[oldsailor35]

I don’t mind the part about sending them back but doing it behind closed doors, out of mind out of sight, means the government is doing it for political-gain, just like the 2001 Tampa affair, rather than for its original intended purpose.

Absolutely not. The Australian government have to show some guts, which is something the previous government sorely lacked. They have to send the message of what will happen if there is a " break and entering" attempt by anyone, and certainly Sri Lankan Tamils who are looking for something better with more "freebies"

[Old Croc]

Why isn't anyone doing anything about the countries from which these illegal immigrants depart?

It's very rarely their country of origin, and as is mentioned, the first 'safe' country should be that in which asylum is claimed, according to international law.

Shouldn't the intermediary countries be sanctioned?

And still the "tree huggers" condemn Australia. Many of these so called refugees arrive from Indonesia, so how can they be refugees.

Claimants who travel through countries that are signatories to the Convention can be refused on the grounds they did not seek asylum at their first opportunity.

Indonesia, and most Asian and middle east countries are not signatories.

[oldsailor35]

Hearty congratulations to the Australian govt., on their handling of these illegal gate crashers. They just have to keep it up.

[Scott]

The UNHCR (High Commission on Refugees) is located in Geneva, not in New York.