Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[Q.]

Well, then apply for refugee status and wait for the reply
Shouldn't take long if there's no queue or line

Applying onshore is actually the standard procedure. You cannot apply for refugee status from within your own country.

[Psyber]

Well, then apply for refugee status and wait for the reply
Shouldn't take long if there's no queue or line

Applying onshore is actually the standard procedure. You cannot apply for refugee status from within your own country.

You still have to enter the country illegally to then apply for refugee status on shore.
Going back a few pages I posted this reference about illegal entry as distinct from it being illegal to seek asylum:

The core issue in the debate about the illegality or not of those entering Oz by boat rather than by plane.
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-me ... y-enterin/

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."

The problem is with language and it’s touched on in Crock’s own reference to "illegal entry". Section 14 of Australia’s Migration Act specifies that "a non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen [ie, a non-citizen holding an appropriate visa] is an unlawful non-citizen".

Section 228B spells out that "a non-citizen seeking protection or asylum" but without a valid visa has "no lawful right to come to Australia", regardless of Australia’s protection obligations. Prior to 1994, an unlawful non-citizen was known in law as an "illegal entrant".

And article 31 of the UN convention says a refugee who enters a country without authorisation does so illegally, although nations that have signed the convention "shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence".

[bulldogproud2]

Unfortunately some of that information is incorrect, Psyber.

Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they
immigrants.
The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) 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. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be
considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal 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 enter Australia to seek asylum.
In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into
Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply
by arriving on boats or without authorisation.
Australian and international law make these
allowances because it is not always safe or
practicable for asylum seekers to obtain travel
documents or travel through authorised channels.
Refugees are, by definition, persons fleeing
persecution and in most cases are being persecuted
by their own government. It is often too dangerous
for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or
approach an Australian Embassy for a visa, as such
actions could put their lives, and the lives of their
families, at risk. Refugees may also be forced to flee
with little notice due to rapidly deteriorating
situations and do not have time to apply for travel
documents or arrange travel through authorised
channels. Permitting asylum seekers to entry a
country without travel documents is similar to
allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed
limit in an emergency – the action would be
ordinarily be considered illegal, but the
circumstances warrant an exception.
It is also incorrect to refer to asylum seekers as migrants. A migrant is someone who chooses to leave
their country to seek a better life. They decide where they migrate to and they can return whenever they
like. Refugees are forced to leave their country and cannot return unless the situation that forced them
to leave improves. Some are forced to flee with no warning; significant numbers of them have suffered
torture and trauma. The concerns of refugees are human rights and safety, not economic advantage

[Q.]

When refugees flee their home country they do so by crossing borders without authorisation. That's essentially why the convention exists.

[bulldogproud2]

When refugees flee their home country they do so by crossing borders without authorisation. That's essentially why the convention exists.

Yes, and as for arranging a passport.

Wife: There are soldiers in our village looking for us, my love. We better get away from here.
Husband: Oh, no, we can't go yet. We have to arrange our passport first.

As if!!!!!

[Jimmy_041]

I got to Page 1 of Article 31

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence. (emphasis added)

Major fail.
Indonesians qualify
Afghans and Lebanese need to get some bigger boats

There's a whole lot more but I have work to do

[Q.]

I got to Page 1 of Article 31

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence. (emphasis added)

Major fail.
Indonesians qualify
Afghans and Lebanese need to get some bigger boats

There's a whole lot more but I have work to do

The term "coming directly" covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection could not be assured. It is clear from the travaux préparatoires, however, that the term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short time without having applied for or received asylum there. The drafters of the Convention introduced the term "coming directly" not to exclude those who had transited another country, but rather to exclude those who "had settled temporarily" in one country, from freely entering another (travaux préparatoires A/CONF.2/SR 14 p.10). No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly", and each case will have to be judged on its merits. The issue of "coming directly" is also related to the problem of identifying the country responsible for examining an asylum request and granting adequate and effective protection.

http://www.alhr.asn.au/refugeekit/factsheet_3.html

[bulldogproud2]

I got to Page 1 of Article 31

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence. (emphasis added)

Major fail.
Indonesians qualify
Afghans and Lebanese need to get some bigger boats

There's a whole lot more but I have work to do

The term "coming directly" covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection could not be assured. It is clear from the travaux préparatoires, however, that the term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short time without having applied for or received asylum there. The drafters of the Convention introduced the term "coming directly" not to exclude those who had transited another country, but rather to exclude those who "had settled temporarily" in one country, from freely entering another (travaux préparatoires A/CONF.2/SR 14 p.10). No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly", and each case will have to be judged on its merits. The issue of "coming directly" is also related to the problem of identifying the country responsible for examining an asylum request and granting adequate and effective protection.

http://www.alhr.asn.au/refugeekit/factsheet_3.html

This also includes transiting through any country which is not a signatory to the UN Convention, therefore not guaranteeing protection.

Cheers

[Jimmy_041]

I got to Page 1 of Article 31

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence. (emphasis added)

Major fail.
Indonesians qualify
Afghans and Lebanese need to get some bigger boats

There's a whole lot more but I have work to do

The term "coming directly" covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection could not be assured. It is clear from the travaux préparatoires, however, that the term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short time without having applied for or received asylum there. The drafters of the Convention introduced the term "coming directly" not to exclude those who had transited another country, but rather to exclude those who "had settled temporarily" in one country, from freely entering another (travaux préparatoires A/CONF.2/SR 14 p.10). No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly", and each case will have to be judged on its merits. The issue of "coming directly" is also related to the problem of identifying the country responsible for examining an asylum request and granting adequate and effective protection.

http://www.alhr.asn.au/refugeekit/factsheet_3.html

I just love it when you speak French Morticia

[Q.]

I just love it when you speak French Morticia

I'm pulling out the big guns.

[Sky Pilot]

Why wasn't the Australian Navy swanning around the Thames?

[Jimmy_041]

I just love it when you speak French Morticia

I'm pulling out the big guns.

[Q.]

I don't always wear black.

[Jimmy_041]

Why wasn't the Australian Navy swanning around the Thames?

When it should have been 50m off Java
Can you imagine what the Indos would say if we had a gunboat 50m off their shores

[bulldogproud2]

Why wasn't the Australian Navy swanning around the Thames?

When it should have been 50m off Java
Can you imagine what the Indos would say if we had a gunboat 50m off their shores

and yet that is exactly Abbott's policy - to tow boats right back to the coastline!!
I guess he has to have that policy. Otherwise, they get towed back to Indonesian waters and then straight back into international waters and the chase begins all over again lol
Cheers

[Psyber]

Meantime, it seems, from the reports I've been reading, that the Indonesian military is herding the refugees on to the leaky boats.
(It sounds even better in Latin" "Indonesian bellicus est grex refugium in ut effluo navis.")

[Jimmy_041]

Meantime, it seems, from the reports I've been reading, that the Indonesian military is herding the refugees on to the leaky boats.
(It sounds even better in Latin" "Indonesian bellicus est grex refugium in ut effluo navis.")

You crack me up sometimes

It's even better in Welsh: "y fyddin Indonesia yn bugeilio y ffoaduriaid ar y cychod sy'n gollwng"

[Psyber]

One of my favourite games with schoolmates in my early teens was translating limericks like "The boy stood on the burning deck..." into Latin.
"Puer stetit in pupo incenda..." works with the English limerick rhythm although "Puer in pupo incenda stetit..." would be correct Latin word order.

[Jimmy_041]

Why wasn't the Australian Navy swanning around the Thames?

When it should have been 50m off Java
Can you imagine what the Indos would say if we had a gunboat 50m off their shores

and yet that is exactly Abbott's policy - to tow boats right back to the coastline!!
I guess he has to have that policy. Otherwise, they get towed back to Indonesian waters and then straight back into international waters and the chase begins all over again lol
Cheers

How come they are all saying "towing them back" never has been the Coalition policy?
Turn them around - yes
Agree, they'll just turn around again
And, how do they turn them around?

BTW, how much do you reckon the Indonesian police, army, navy etc get paid by the smugglers?
It is more of an Indonesian problem than ours.
We are just suffering the consequences

[Q.]

What exactly are we suffering?