Court rules Australia can send asylum seekers to Nauru

[webfact]

Court rules Australia can send asylum seekers to Nauru

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — More than 260 asylum seekers face the prospect of being deported from Australia to Nauru after Australia's highest court rejected a challenge to the legality of the government's refugee policy.

A Bangladeshi woman, who cannot be named, had gone to the High Court to challenge the legality of Australia paying the tiny Pacific nation to detain asylum seekers who attempt to reach Australian shores by boat.

The court ruled on Wednesday that the deal is legal.

The woman had been sent to Nauru but was brought back to Australia in 2014 because for medical help due to pregnancy complications. She gained a court injunction preventing her return to Nauru pending her court challenge.


Rights advocates have urged the government to let her and another 266 asylum seekers stay in Australia.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-03

[ezzra]

A Bangladeshi woman, who probably didn't have a pot to piss n back home, is now suing the Australian

government, the leniency that those unwanted people by the majority of Aussies have access to more

Australian government funded help and assistant than true Aussies who fought and built this country.....

[Farma]

High court also ruled the plaintiff should pay the costs of the Government in this case. @9NewsAUS

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/03/10/34/high-court-throws-out-challenge-to-australias-immigration-detention-on-nauru#EeivwtVUZ71gK9f8.99

[RickBradford]

These migrants are much more grounded in reality than most of the governments they deal with.

They know precisely how to get to Australia (or another target country), know exactly what they want when they get there, and exactly how to exploit the system to their advantage and milk it to the full.

In this case, Australia has shown some reality and common sense of its own; if only the "progressive" utopian fantasists running the EU could do the same.......

[simple1]

A Bangladeshi woman, who probably didn't have a pot to piss n back home, is now suing the Australian

government, the leniency that those unwanted people by the majority of Aussies have access to more

Australian government funded help and assistant than true Aussies who fought and built this country.....

Basically the woman's case was a test case for those who had been transferred to Oz for medical / mental / sexual abuse issues, due to insufficient treatment facilities on Nauru. One of the outcomes of the case is 80 children will now be removed from Oz & sent back to detention on Nauru for whom the Oz government policy of indefinite offshore detention will apply. It's a great shame Oz government could not put in-place a work around for the effected children.

BTW approx 75% of asylum seekers on Nauru have been positively vetted as genuine refugees.

Edited February 3, 2016 by simple1

[Ulic]

Well, they were fleeing war and persecution and Nauru it is safe

but boring. They had choices of places to stop at on the way to

Australia but they past those places. There choice. When they

passed safe harbour they became migrants as far as I am

concerned.

[realenglish1]

Hey that is a grea Idea Get an uninhabited Island and send Asylum seeking Syrians there. Then any wood-be terrorists will live in paradise minus the virgins

[Chicog]

Economic migrants, plain and simple.

Bangladesh isn't a war zone, just an overpopulated crap hole.

We should be teaching them to stop having children, not taking their surplus.

[Saradoc1972]

A Bangladeshi woman, who probably didn't have a pot to piss n back home, is now suing the Australian

government, the leniency that those unwanted people by the majority of Aussies have access to more

Australian government funded help and assistant than true Aussies who fought and built this country.....

Basically the woman's case was a test case for those who had been transferred to Oz for medical / mental / sexual abuse issues, due to insufficient treatment facilities on Nauru. One of the outcomes of the case is 80 children will now be removed from Oz & sent back to detention on Nauru for whom the Oz government policy of indefinite offshore detention will apply. It's a great shame Oz government could not put in-place a work around for the effected children.

BTW approx 75% of asylum seekers on Nauru have been positively vetted as genuine refugees.

I agree it's not pretty, but it's the only way they can uphold their "No Way" policy. And if they didn't they'd get swarmed in no time at all.

It was Tony Abbot who years ago insisted on a policy that even children go into those detention camps outside Oz, because otherwise

Australia would see boat after boat full of children and young adults, many of them drowning. They could do more for them on Nauru.

If they made exceptions for pregnant women they have to get into hospital on the mainland, then guess what would happen.

They won't allow New Zealand to take in some of of the genuine refugees because they might get citizenship there in 6 y and might then make it to Oz.

While a lot of the boat-people they got might be true asylum seekers, allowing them in would only mean everyone would try coming by boat and as can

be seen it's hard finding a new country for those they already got, genuine refugee or not. Australia is actually quite generous with granting asylum if it's

applied for in the way they allow, but this is something they cannot allow, would be the same situation like in Europe.

And the whole thing works because it is so consistent. It's really No Way and hence they only get a boat here and there. It just works.

[simple1]

It was Tony Abbot who years ago insisted on a policy that even children go into those detention camps outside Oz, because otherwise Australia would see boat after boat full of children and young adults, many of them drowning. They could do more for them on Nauru.

If they made exceptions for pregnant women they have to get into hospital on the mainland, then guess what would happen.

They won't allow New Zealand to take in some of of the genuine refugees because they might get citizenship there in 6 y and might then make it to Oz.

Rudd enacted the PNG Solution with children held in offshore detention, not the Liberals. Only positively vetted refugees would have been eligible for re-settlement in NZ. IMO its terribly mean spirited to deny transfer to NZ, as NZ allocated the space to Syrian refugees who would also eventually have access to Oz.

Its interesting the estimated 6k a year people claiming asylum after arriving by air are not transferred offshore & very rarely mentioned.

In response to another poster, Bangladesh has held Bengali Rohingya in appalling conditions in detention camps for twenty plus years, no wonder some are trying to escape.

Edited February 3, 2016 by simple1

[Saradoc1972]

It was Tony Abbot who years ago insisted on a policy that even children go into those detention camps outside Oz, because otherwise Australia would see boat after boat full of children and young adults, many of them drowning. They could do more for them on Nauru.

If they made exceptions for pregnant women they have to get into hospital on the mainland, then guess what would happen.

They won't allow New Zealand to take in some of of the genuine refugees because they might get citizenship there in 6 y and might then make it to Oz.

Rudd enacted the PNG Solution with children held in offshore detention, not the Liberals. Only positively vetted refugees would have been eligible for re-settlement in NZ. IMO its terribly mean spirited to deny transfer to NZ, as NZ allocated the space to Syrian refugees who would also eventually have access to Oz.

Its interesting the estimated 6k a year people claiming asylum after arriving by air are not transferred offshore & very rarely mentioned.

In response to another poster, Bangladesh has held Bengali Rohingya in appalling conditions in detention camps for twenty plus years, no wonder some are trying to escape.

I did not know who enacted that procedure, I only remember reading about Abbot having been defending it for that reason and the likely consequences.

Airport procedures are different, likely because travelers need a passport and a visa (if from countries in question), the numbers are manageable and the airline would be under obligation to effect deportation. I only know the German procedure where asylum-seekers at airports are detained in transit and decided upon within 3 weeks. And often enough let into Germany because customs failed to manage. (Sigh)

On a more general note: let's face it, the world is a rather messy place outside the so-called western countries and maybe Russia, some developing countries, depending on the individual situation. There are easily 2 billion people living in grinding poverty, political oppression, war-like scenarios including criminality, or ethnic or religious persecution, the latter universally where Islam holds sway. I suppose we both grew up with TV-spots and billboards showing half-starved black children asking for donations against hunger, but transporting those people out of Africa or where-ever was never the question.

What we can do is help and try to alleviate a situation. What we cannot do us take everybody in who got on his feet, the supply of refugees is endless and you normally won't even get the poorest of the poor that way. Just read an article where some city official decried how Germany had not managed anything towards integration, but only avoided homelessness. The Hungarian PM Victor Orbán said "If you are overrun, you can't offer sanctuary to anybody.", and he is right, whatever your take on him is.

[Baerboxer]

Be fair, it's better than a government paying people traffickers to smuggle them back or to somewhere else.

What happened to that case btw? Seems to have gone stone cold dead.

[farcanell]

Good news for the average Australian

Australia is already statistically amongst the top migrant taking countries, but we can't take everybody, and nor can we be seen to be a soft target for anyone with a paddle

A lot of people simply look at a map and accuse Australia of not doing enough, because of its size... What they don't realize is that a great deal of the country is uninhabitable desert and badlands with no water, whilst other areas, which are habitable, simply have no infrastructure to support migrants.

Edited February 3, 2016 by farcanell

[Throatwobbler]

Let's hope that if the posters above are ever in a time of need that they are shown the equal compassion that they offer. I really hope Karma is a bitch. Expect to be flamed by posters saying that they come to our countries and can't speak our language by people who struggle to say more than 10 words in Thai.

[farcanell]

Let's hope that if the posters above are ever in a time of need that they are shown the equal compassion that they offer. I really hope Karma is a bitch. Expect to be flamed by posters saying that they come to our countries and can't speak our language by people who struggle to say more than 10 words in Thai.

Having revisited the thread, I fail to see any great lack of compassion, but I do see informed information as to why Australia must make the hard decisions, before the country is over run by the unfortunate displaced migrant community..... Instead of spouting the usual karma rubbish, try to understand the situation a little

As I and other posters have mentioned, Australia, by and large, is quite compassionate in regards to migrants, being a country that is high on the statistic lists for accepting migrants, not many first world countries can claim the same... The USA, for example, is way down at the bottom of the list, while the EU has simply not been able to manage their border control.... And casual discussions with Brits and Scott's see them lamenting the fact that their home country has been invaded by foreigners.

As to the rubbish about coming to Thailand with little to no Thai speaking skills... Money speaks louder than words, and we come with money, so are welcomed... Perhaps that's karma rewarding us.

[simple1]

Good news for the average Australian

Australia is already statistically amongst the top migrant taking countries, but we can't take everybody, and nor can we be seen to be a soft target for anyone with a paddle

A lot of people simply look at a map and accuse Australia of not doing enough, because of its size... What they don't realize is that a great deal of the country is uninhabitable desert and badlands with no water, whilst other areas, which are habitable, simply have no infrastructure to support migrants.

You sure? Oz currently accepts 190k migrants p.a. In addition currently 13,750 refugees are resettled p.a. (plus a one off intake of 12,000 Syrians) & by 2018 18,750 refuges p.a. will be resettled.

With regards to Australia's worldwide ranking on refugee intake, there is a fair amount of bullshit baffles brains by the politicians. The facts are...

Australia assisted 0.43% of the refugees recognised or resettled in 2014. It was ranked 22nd overall, 28th per capita and 46th relative to total GDP.

[simple1]

It was Tony Abbot who years ago insisted on a policy that even children go into those detention camps outside Oz, because otherwise Australia would see boat after boat full of children and young adults, many of them drowning. They could do more for them on Nauru.

If they made exceptions for pregnant women they have to get into hospital on the mainland, then guess what would happen.

They won't allow New Zealand to take in some of of the genuine refugees because they might get citizenship there in 6 y and might then make it to Oz.

Rudd enacted the PNG Solution with children held in offshore detention, not the Liberals. Only positively vetted refugees would have been eligible for re-settlement in NZ. IMO its terribly mean spirited to deny transfer to NZ, as NZ allocated the space to Syrian refugees who would also eventually have access to Oz.

Its interesting the estimated 6k a year people claiming asylum after arriving by air are not transferred offshore & very rarely mentioned.

In response to another poster, Bangladesh has held Bengali Rohingya in appalling conditions in detention camps for twenty plus years, no wonder some are trying to escape.

I did not know who enacted that procedure, I only remember reading about Abbot having been defending it for that reason and the likely consequences.

Airport procedures are different, likely because travelers need a passport and a visa (if from countries in question), the numbers are manageable and the airline would be under

obligation to effect deportation. I only know the German procedure where asylum-seekers at airports are detained in transit and decided upon within 3 weeks.

<snip>

The situation in EU countries is off topic.

Those arriving by air and claiming asylum would usually have a valid visa, however the 6k p.a. I mentioned claiming asylum after entry, make claims such as being persecuted for religious reasons which can take years, not weeks, to address as extremely difficult to verify. As I indicated very different treatment to 'boat people' who are vilified for political agendas.

Edited February 3, 2016 by simple1

[Saradoc1972]

Its interesting the estimated 6k a year people claiming asylum after arriving by air are not transferred offshore & very rarely mentioned.

Airport procedures are different, likely because travelers need a passport and a visa (if from countries in question), the numbers are manageable and the airline would be under

obligation to effect deportation. I only know the German procedure where asylum-seekers at airports are detained in transit and decided upon within 3 weeks.

The situation in EU countries is off topic.

Those arriving by air and claiming asylum would usually have a valid visa, however the 6k p.a. I mentioned claiming asylum after entry, make claims such as being persecuted for religious reasons which can take years, not weeks, to address as extremely difficult to verify. As I indicated very different treatment to 'boat people' who are vilified for political agendas.

The situation you describe does not sound off topic, but rather much the same as in Europe. Including difficulty and length of procedures.

I remember a news-clip how one clergyman in Germany was testing his flock if they were actually Christians or earnest converters (here, in German, sorry).

I also remember how Poland was testing candidates for asylum for homosexuality by "phallometric testing". Just look that one up, it's in English.

6k? Well, that's about the weight class of Iceland.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been removed along with replies. The topic is about Australia and the situation with Australia's procedure regarding asylum seekers.

[bkktrapper]

Bangladeshis taking all the jobs and then claiming the dole like afrcans too.

That's why oz is ruined because third word scumbags

[Prbkk]

The likely removal of the sexually abused child back to Nauru, ignoring the pleas of his doctors who broke the law to blow the whistle on the case, is shameful and disgraceful. Australia put that child in danger and now plans to return him to the source of him trauma , in the same place his abuser resides.

A measure of decency and humanity needs to be part of Australia's program.

[simple1]

Bangladeshis taking all the jobs and then claiming the dole like afrcans too.

That's why oz is ruined because third word scumbags

Complete nonsense

[farcanell]

Good news for the average Australian

Australia is already statistically amongst the top migrant taking countries, but we can't take everybody, and nor can we be seen to be a soft target for anyone with a paddle

A lot of people simply look at a map and accuse Australia of not doing enough, because of its size... What they don't realize is that a great deal of the country is uninhabitable desert and badlands with no water, whilst other areas, which are habitable, simply have no infrastructure to support migrants.

You sure? Oz currently accepts 190k migrants p.a. In addition currently 13,750 refugees are resettled p.a. (plus a one off intake of 12,000 Syrians) & by 2018 18,750 refuges p.a. will be resettled.

With regards to Australia's worldwide ranking on refugee intake, there is a fair amount of bullshit baffles brains by the politicians. The facts are...

Australia assisted 0.43% of the refugees recognised or resettled in 2014. It was ranked 22nd overall, 28th per capita and 46th relative to total GDP.

Your right about the bullshit baffles brains bit...,.. And indeed statistics can be skewed to say a variety of different things

But.... Wiki ranks Australia as 23rd overall, although using your figures of 22nd overall, (which was probably better researched than wiki) out of 222 countries listed, that puts Australia in the top 10%... Whilst not wishing to teach anyone to suck eggs, this means that 90% of the world does less for immigrants/ refugees than does Australia...

I personally regard that as high on the list of migrant taking countries, per my origional statement

Elsewhere I commented that the US was low on the list, and I must apologies for that, as the same chart put them (USA) at 40th on the list, so within the top 20%

[Steely Dan]

These migrants are much more grounded in reality than most of the governments they deal with.

They know precisely how to get to Australia (or another target country), know exactly what they want when they get there, and exactly how to exploit the system to their advantage and milk it to the full.

In this case, Australia has shown some reality and common sense of its own; if only the "progressive" utopian fantasists running the EU could do the same.......

Weaken the Kuffar by using their systems against them.