Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[dedja]

you may be white there ...

[dedja]

Wouldn't you have thought either the Government or the Houston Review checked that the detention centres in Nauru and Manus island were utterly rooted before calling for their reinstatement?

[Psyber]

Wouldn't you have thought either the Government or the Houston Review checked that the detention centres in Nauru and Manus island were utterly rooted before calling for their reinstatement?

Well it is only taxpayers money and costs the pollies nothing.
On the other hand it may save us a lot compared to accommodation on the mainland longer term.

I drove past Inverbrackie when I was in the area soon after its planned use was announced.
It looked in pretty good condition from what I saw and rather nice, but they spent money renovating it anyway.

[Bully]

another boat is demanding to be taken to australia.

Demanding to be brought here, does not make it any quicker.

[Psyber]

So much for the assertion that these are poor desperate people risking their lives to get here because their lives are at risk at home:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/lat ... sent-home/

If that were so surely they'd have chosen Nauru over Sri Lanka as the lesser of two evils?

A group of 18 Sri Lankan men left Christmas Island for Colombo on Saturday after asking to be sent home rather than going to the Pacific island for the processing of their asylum seeker claims. "It is a sign of people weighing up their options and they have been misled by people smugglers," Mr Bowen told reporters in Sydney.

Sarah Hansen-young is now on TV claiming their lives are at risk in Sri Lanka.
So, Sarah, if they think that why didn't they take the option of relative safety on Nauru?

[ORDoubleBlues]

So much for the assertion that these are poor desperate people risking their lives to get here because their lives are at risk at home:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/lat ... sent-home/

If that were so surely they'd have chosen Nauru over Sri Lanka as the lesser of two evils?

A group of 18 Sri Lankan men left Christmas Island for Colombo on Saturday after asking to be sent home rather than going to the Pacific island for the processing of their asylum seeker claims. "It is a sign of people weighing up their options and they have been misled by people smugglers," Mr Bowen told reporters in Sydney.

Sarah Hansen-young is now on TV claiming their lives are at risk in Sri Lanka.
So, Sarah, if they think that why didn't they take the option of relative safety on Nauru?

She wouldn't know. She assumes that because that's what she is told that it must be true.

[bulldogproud2]

So much for the assertion that these are poor desperate people risking their lives to get here because their lives are at risk at home:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/lat ... sent-home/

If that were so surely they'd have chosen Nauru over Sri Lanka as the lesser of two evils?

A group of 18 Sri Lankan men left Christmas Island for Colombo on Saturday after asking to be sent home rather than going to the Pacific island for the processing of their asylum seeker claims. "It is a sign of people weighing up their options and they have been misled by people smugglers," Mr Bowen told reporters in Sydney.

Sarah Hansen-young is now on TV claiming their lives are at risk in Sri Lanka.
So, Sarah, if they think that why didn't they take the option of relative safety on Nauru?

She wouldn't know. She assumes that because that's what she is told that it must be true.

Their lives ARE very likely at risk in Sri Lanka:

http://www.rethinkrefugees.com.au/in-th ... rsecution/

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/1 ... iLanka.pdf

18 people may have wanted to go back, but thousands have not wanted to.

Also, the fact that the number of boats bringing asylum seekers to Australia has increased since the opening of Nauru pretty much proves that they are leaving because their lives are in danger. According to the Liberal and Labor parties, numbers should be decreasing. Numbers will not decrease though as the vast majority of asylum seekers don't care where they end up, as long as they get away from the persecution they would be suffering in their country of origin.

Cheers

[Squawk]

Interesting story on Dateline tonight about a prospective Afghanistani assylum seeker who has documented his journey from there to Indonesia and one failed boat trip.

[Psyber]

Their lives ARE very likely at risk in Sri Lanka:

http://www.rethinkrefugees.com.au/in-th ... rsecution/

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/1 ... iLanka.pdf

18 people may have wanted to go back, but thousands have not wanted to.

Also, the fact that the number of boats bringing asylum seekers to Australia has increased since the opening of Nauru pretty much proves that they are leaving because their lives are in danger. According to the Liberal and Labor parties, numbers should be decreasing. Numbers will not decrease though as the vast majority of asylum seekers don't care where they end up, as long as they get away from the persecution they would be suffering in their country of origin.

Cheers

I find that a bit hard to believe.
If their lives are at real risk why would any of them opt to return?
Surely anywhere safe would be a better choice?

[bulldogproud2]

Their lives ARE very likely at risk in Sri Lanka:

http://www.rethinkrefugees.com.au/in-th ... rsecution/

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/1 ... iLanka.pdf

18 people may have wanted to go back, but thousands have not wanted to.

Also, the fact that the number of boats bringing asylum seekers to Australia has increased since the opening of Nauru pretty much proves that they are leaving because their lives are in danger. According to the Liberal and Labor parties, numbers should be decreasing. Numbers will not decrease though as the vast majority of asylum seekers don't care where they end up, as long as they get away from the persecution they would be suffering in their country of origin.

Cheers

I find that a bit hard to believe.
If their lives are at real risk why would any of them opt to return?
Surely anywhere safe would be a better choice?

Psyber, as someone in the medical profession, you should well know the impact on mental health of someone feeling like they have no control over their life, not knowing how long they are going to sit in a detention centre, having no idea what their eventual outcome will be. The fact that these people are now being told they may be in detention for many years may result in some preferring to have certainty over their life and returning, even if it is to a possible death. Very sad situation indeed.

[Psyber]

Psyber, as someone in the medical profession, you should well know the impact on mental health of someone feeling like they have no control over their life, not knowing how long they are going to sit in a detention centre, having no idea what their eventual outcome will be. The fact that these people are now being told they may be in detention for many years may result in some preferring to have certainty over their life and returning, even if it is to a possible death. Very sad situation indeed.

It is sad when people don't get what they want and have landed themselves in limbo, and it causes them distress or even depression.
We should offer them support in dealing with their pain and disappointment while they are in our care and custody.
But that doesn't mean we must give them what they want, if they don't qualify, or it isn't safe for security reasons to do so.

It bothers me when some then blame being in detention for their getting Post-traumatic Stress Disorder when they have reported already going through much more traumatic experiences in the danger they claim to be running from, or the danger they put themselves through to get here on the boats. It leaves behind a taste of opportunism rather than desperation.

They are not totally without the power of choice, anyway, as there are at least two points where they could exercise control:
1. If they genuinely in danger in their home country they could seek asylum through the normal channels rather than get on a boat (or overstay a tourist visa) to try to short cut the process.
2. If not in genuine danger, they could elect to go home when they find the short cut the boat runners sold them does not exist, as some have now done.

[bulldogproud2]

They are not totally without the power of choice, anyway, as there are at least two points where they could exercise control:
1. If they genuinely in danger in their home country they could seek asylum through the normal channels rather than get on a boat (or overstay a tourist visa) to try to short cut the process.
2. If not in genuine danger, they could elect to go home when they find the short cut the boat runners sold them does not exist, as some have now done.

Wishing there was a 'normal' channel available to them, Psyber. Unfortunately, as it is the government that they are fleeing from in many cases, there is no way that they would be allowed to freely leave their country of origin. Not all countries have 'official' channels for departing.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

“Asylum seekers who wish to seek protection in Australia should apply through the proper channels, rather than applying onshore.”
All human beings have a right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, which makes refugee protection a universal and global responsibility. As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and as a member of the international community, Australia shares in this responsibility. There is no reason why Australia should be exempt from receiving and processing onshore asylum claims while expecting other nations to fulfil this responsibility. As a developed nation with well-established systems for refugee status determination and strong settlement support infrastructure, Australia is well-placed to play a leading role in refugee protection, both within our region and at a global level.

Applying for protection onshore is not a means of bypassing the “proper channel” of applying for protection. In fact, applying onshore is the standard procedure for seeking protection. According to the definition in the UN Refugee Convention, refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin. This means that you cannot apply for refugee status if you are inside your own country. In order to be recognised as a refugee, you must leave your country and apply for refugee status onshore in another country. A person experiencing persecution who wished to seek protection in Australia could not, for example, apply for refugee status through the UNHCR office or the Australian consulate or embassy in their own country. They would have to travel to Australia and seek protection after arriving here.

A common misconception about refugee protection is that applying for resettlement from overseas is the “proper channel” for seeking protection. In fact, resettlement of refugees in third countries is the exception rather than the rule. In general, resettlement is only used as a solution for refugees in cases where it’s not possible for them to return home or settle permanently in the country where they first sought asylum. It’s not a matter of resettlement being the only “proper” channel through which to find protection – it’s simply a different solution based on different circumstances. Out of the world’s 15.2 million refugees, UNHCR has identified around 800,000 (approximately five per cent) as being in need of resettlement in coming years. In 2009, just 112,000 refugees (less than one per cent of the world’s refugees) were resettled.

In the 10 years to December 2009, an average of 81,000 refugees were resettled annually. At this rate, it would take 188 years for all of the world’s refugees to be resettled. While there remains a significant gap between resettlement needs and available places, it is not necessary, feasible or even desirable for all of the world’s refugees to be resettled in third countries. For the vast majority of refugees, returning home once the conditions which forced them to leave have improved or settling permanently in the country where they first sought asylum are far more practical and desirable solutions compared to being resettled in a third country.

[Psyber]

... For the vast majority of refugees, returning home once the conditions which forced them to leave have improved or settling permanently in the country where they first sought asylum are far more practical and desirable solutions compared to being resettled in a third country.

So the best strategy to control the pressure to take all comers from everywhere may be to ensure that Australia is not a much more attractive option than other relatively safe countries they have crossed. Perhaps then the majority will apply to stay in one of those, rather than pass on to a third country (Oz) further down the line.
At the moment those other countries seem to encourage them to pass through and on to us at the end of the line.

Surely, also, at some point a sovereign country has a right to set its own policy on who it will accept and under what circumstances.
(Or should we help them find a boat to New Zealand?)

[bulldogproud2]

... For the vast majority of refugees, returning home once the conditions which forced them to leave have improved or settling permanently in the country where they first sought asylum are far more practical and desirable solutions compared to being resettled in a third country.

So the best strategy to control the pressure to take all comers from everywhere may be to ensure that Australia is not a much more attractive option than other relatively safe countries they have crossed. Perhaps then the majority will apply to stay in one of those, rather than pass on to a third country (Oz) further down the line.
At the moment those other countries seem to encourage them to pass through and on to us at the end of the line.

Surely, also, at some point a sovereign country has a right to set its own policy on who it will accept and under what circumstances.
(Or should we help them find a boat to New Zealand?)

We have to remember that it is a very small proportion of asylum seekers who come to Australia (less than 1%). I would definitely hope that Australia never seeks to make life as difficult for asylum seekers as Malaysia and Indonesia do. As these countries are not signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees, any asylum seeker in those countries can be sent to jail, with no rights. They are not able to ever receive citizenship status. As such, no asylum seeker will wish to end up permanently in those countries. I pray and hope that Australia always treats asylum seekers with respect, care and love.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

[quote="Psyber]Surely, also, at some point a sovereign country has a right to set its own policy on who it will accept and under what circumstances.(Or should we help them find a boat to New Zealand?)[/quote]

Yes, the indigenous people of Australia should have had that right 200 years ago!!

[bulldogproud2]

This information may put the asylum seeker/refugee situation in clearer perspective:

“Australia takes more than its fair share of refugees.”
The overwhelming majority of the world’s refugees are situated in the developing world in countries neighbouring their own. In 2009, of the 10.4 million refugees under the mandate of UNHCR, 8.3 million or 80 per cent were hosted by developing countries. Only 17 per cent of the refugees under UNHCR’s mandate live outside their region of origin.

At the end of 2009, Pakistan was hosting over 1.7 million refugees and asylum seekers. Syria and Iran each hosted more than a million refugees and asylum seekers. Germany was the only developed nation to host in excess of half a million refugees. At over 590,000, Germany’s refugee population dwarfed Australia’s total of around 22,500.

Refugees hosted, 2009

Rank
Country
Total

1
Pakistan
1,740,711

2
Iran
1,070,488

3
Syria
1,054,466

4
Germany
593,799

5
Jordan
450,756

6
Kenya
358,928

7
Chad
338,495

8
China
300,989

9
USA
275,461

10
UK
269,363

47
Australia
22,548


Source: UNHCR's "Global Trends".

[Sky Pilot]

thats 22500 too many

[Jimmy_041]

Wow - statistics

Can you please tell me where all of the China's refugees come from?

[Sojourner]

Can you give us the list relevant to Per Capita of Population?