Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[bulldogproud2]

The way the government handled (or failed to handle) the situation regarding the first asylum seekers dying at sea under their watch has been totally unacceptable. For Abbott to say that he would make no comment on the matter just sort of shows his level of concern. I guess that because they don't live in a seat where they can cast votes for the Liberal Party, their lives meant nothing to Abbott.

[smac]

A quick few words make a difference?

Yet to hear a plan that would satisfy most humans, doubt we ever will.

[bulldogproud2]

A quick few words make a difference?

Yet to hear a plan that would satisfy most humans, doubt we ever will.

I heard one of the best from Robin De Crispegny (not sure I got the spelling right) a couple of weeks ago. If the reason the government wants to stop the boats is to ensure that people don't get killed at sea (as has been stated time and again by politicians) then they should fly the asylum seekers over from Indonesia rather than have them take to the waters in the first place.

[smac]

Sure. That works. We'll have 23 page application forms for that.

[bulldogproud2]

Sure. That works. We'll have 23 page application forms for that.

Well, if their only reason for turning back boats is for safety reasons (as they say), it would be much safer to not have them travel on the seas at all.

The idea of 'turning the boats back' will cause a lot more deaths than it will save. For starters, many of the boats are not made in a way that is easy to tow and are likely to break up whilst being towed. Secondly, there is a large risk that if they are ordered to be towed back, they will sabotage she boats, possibly setting them on fire. They would much rather die at sea than have to face the persecution they would suffer on going back to what they are fleeing from.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

One of the best articles to be written on the worldwide situation re asylum seekers this year:

http://theconversation.com/all-the-king ... oats-13447

[Bully]

or the boat people could blame the Australian government for its sinking in another countries waters/boarders like yesterday.

Yeah - we sank 50 metres of the coast of Indonesia , but its the Australian governments fault......

[The Apostle]

Sure. That works. We'll have 23 page application forms for that.

In a language they don't understand...

[The Apostle]

or the boat people could blame the Australian government for its sinking in another countries waters/boarders like yesterday.

Yeah - we sank 50 metres of the coast of Indonesia , but its the Australian governments fault......

^ This!

[bulldogproud2]

or the boat people could blame the Australian government for its sinking in another countries waters/boarders like yesterday.

Yeah - we sank 50 metres of the coast of Indonesia , but its the Australian governments fault......

The Australian Government had taken responsibility for searching for the boat, so, yesssssssss, it was their task.
That was the policy that the Abbott government brought in - to look after boats in Indonesian waters as well as Australian. Remember, he did promise to tow them back to the Indonesian coastline.

If the government doesn't want the responsibility, then it should never have taken it on as policy, should it????

[Bully]

or the boat people could blame the Australian government for its sinking in another countries waters/boarders like yesterday.

Yeah - we sank 50 metres of the coast of Indonesia , but its the Australian governments fault......

The Australian Government had taken responsibility for searching for the boat, so, yesssssssss, it was their task.
That was the policy that the Abbott government brought in - to look after boats in Indonesian waters as well as Australian. Remember, he did promise to tow them back to the Indonesian coastline.

If the government doesn't want the responsibility, then it should never have taken it on as policy, should it????

yes, look after boats in Indonesian waters. Not be blamed for them sinking before the refugees basically left the motel rooms in another country

cheers

[Psyber]

A quick few words make a difference?
Yet to hear a plan that would satisfy most humans, doubt we ever will.

I heard one of the best from Robin De Crispegny (not sure I got the spelling right) a couple of weeks ago. If the reason the government wants to stop the boats is to ensure that people don't get killed at sea (as has been stated time and again by politicians) then they should fly the asylum seekers over from Indonesia rather than have them take to the waters in the first place.

I don't want my taxes paying for free flights for whomsoever wants to line up to come here for whatever reason they have.
I want them adequately assessed to determine whether they are genuinely asylum seekers before they are allowed to come.

Presumably the Indonesian government could stop them getting on unsafe boats in Indonesia in the first place if they gave a damn.
So, why is it our responsibility to rescue people who voluntarily got on an unsafe boat which started to founder 50 metres off the Indonesian shore?
Do we really believe the Indonesian navy, or customs service, doesn't have a boat that could do that?

Then, I'm not a soft touch, I don't want my taxes paying for other people's paid maternity leave or subsidising other people's child care costs either.

[bulldogproud2]

A quick few words make a difference?
Yet to hear a plan that would satisfy most humans, doubt we ever will.

I heard one of the best from Robin De Crispegny (not sure I got the spelling right) a couple of weeks ago. If the reason the government wants to stop the boats is to ensure that people don't get killed at sea (as has been stated time and again by politicians) then they should fly the asylum seekers over from Indonesia rather than have them take to the waters in the first place.

I don't want my taxes paying for free flights for whomsoever wants to line up to come here for whatever reason they have.
I want them adequately assessed to determine whether they are genuinely asylum seekers before they are allowed to come.

Presumably the Indonesian government could stop them getting on unsafe boats in Indonesia in the first place if they gave a damn.
So, why is it our responsibility to rescue people who voluntarily got on an unsafe boat which started to founder 50 metres off the Indonesian shore?
Do we really believe the Indonesian navy, or customs service, doesn't have a boat that could do that?

Then, I'm not a soft touch, I don't want my taxes paying for other people's paid maternity leave or subsidising other people's child care costs either.

Psyber, there are a number of reasons for why Australia needs to do more than Indonesia re asylum seekers.
Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Refugees therefore has no global responsibility.
Having said that, it currently houses over 50 times the number of refugees and asylum seekers that Australia does. However, these people will never be able to work in Indonesia as that is illegal under Indonesia's policy. Thus, Indonesia will always be a temporary location for asylum seekers.
Yes, Australia should definitely assess all asylum seekers before allowing them into the country - no qualms there at all. It would be stupid to do otherwise. Having said that, 96% of asylum seekers coming by boat have been proven to be legitimate refugees over the past forty years.
A reason it has become Australia's responsibility to look after those who come on unsafe boats is twofold: firstly, we are a signatory to the UN Convention. Secondly, the Australian government has asked for it to be their resposibility as part of the regional solution.
In relation to the use of taxpayer funds, a much cheaper solution for Australia would be to have the asylum seekers processed in Indonesia and then flown out here to live in the community. Saves the billions of dollars currently being used in housing them in detention centres.
Cheers

[dedja]

In relation to the use of taxpayer funds, a much cheaper solution for Australia would be to have the asylum seekers processed in Indonesia and then flown out here to live in the community. Saves the billions of dollars currently being used in housing them in detention centres.

The most sensible suggestion I've seen.

The public is not informed that the vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum. It seems to be a convenient oversight for those opposed to them.

It is also convenient to call them illegal immigrants when they are actually seeking asylum which is a lawful exercise.

Guess which party and which (now) PM is infamous for using the term?

[Jimmy_041]

In relation to the use of taxpayer funds, a much cheaper solution for Australia would be to have the asylum seekers processed in Indonesia and then flown out here to live in the community. Saves the billions of dollars currently being used in housing them in detention centres.

The most sensible suggestion I've seen.

The public is not informed that the vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum. It seems to be a convenient oversight for those opposed to them.

It is also convenient to call them illegal immigrants when they are actually seeking asylum which is a lawful exercise.

Guess which party and which (now) PM is infamous for using the term?

I agree, but how many would wait their turn?
They wouldn't and their actions are proof they want to jump the line

[bulldogproud2]

In relation to the use of taxpayer funds, a much cheaper solution for Australia would be to have the asylum seekers processed in Indonesia and then flown out here to live in the community. Saves the billions of dollars currently being used in housing them in detention centres.

The most sensible suggestion I've seen.

The public is not informed that the vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum. It seems to be a convenient oversight for those opposed to them.

It is also convenient to call them illegal immigrants when they are actually seeking asylum which is a lawful exercise.

Guess which party and which (now) PM is infamous for using the term?

I agree, but how many would wait their turn?
They wouldn't and their actions are proof they want to jump the line

We won't know until they are given the opportunity to do so.
Also, unfortunately at the moment, there is no actual 'line' or 'queue'. Strange how they are always accused of queue-jumping but no queue has ever existed.
Even in the refugee camps, there is no ordered listing of who gets out when. Representatives from the country who decide to accept them actually go over to the refugee camps and select them through meetings. As a result, some refugees spend only a few months in refugee camps whilst the vast majority never get out of the camp. It is only 10% of people in refugee camps who ever get settled in countries other than their own.

Cheers

[Psyber]

In relation to the use of taxpayer funds, a much cheaper solution for Australia would be to have the asylum seekers processed in Indonesia and then flown out here to live in the community. Saves the billions of dollars currently being used in housing them in detention centres.

The most sensible suggestion I've seen.
The public is not informed that the vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum. It seems to be a convenient oversight for those opposed to them.
It is also convenient to call them illegal immigrants when they are actually seeking asylum which is a lawful exercise.
Guess which party and which (now) PM is infamous for using the term?

It would certainly make some sense at first glance.
We would need to work out how to do the processing rather than trust Indonesian officials to do it.
We would also need to make it clear in advance that not having papers would cause some delay in resettlement, that not being properly identifiable and assessed by some other method if the papers were genuinely lost, would slow progress too, and that the needed potential for good citizenship would be measured, at least in part, by being reasonable and patient about these necessary steps.

[bulldogproud2]

In relation to the use of taxpayer funds, a much cheaper solution for Australia would be to have the asylum seekers processed in Indonesia and then flown out here to live in the community. Saves the billions of dollars currently being used in housing them in detention centres.

The most sensible suggestion I've seen.
The public is not informed that the vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum. It seems to be a convenient oversight for those opposed to them.
It is also convenient to call them illegal immigrants when they are actually seeking asylum which is a lawful exercise.
Guess which party and which (now) PM is infamous for using the term?

It would certainly make some sense at first glance.
We would need to work out how to do the processing rather than trust Indonesian officials to do it.
We would also need to make it clear in advance that not having papers would cause some delay in resettlement, that not being properly identifiable and assessed by some other method if the papers were genuinely lost, would slow progress too, and that the needed potential for good citizenship would be measured, at least in part, by being reasonable and patient about these necessary steps.

Agreeing pretty much with your well-made points there, Psyber. However, when you talk about papers being 'lost', that is not quite what happens. They do not have papers at all to start with. When fleeing from persecution, you don't have time to suddenly apply for a passport! It is not that papers are lost, it is that the asylum seekers do not have them in the first place.

Cheers

[Q.]

In relation to the use of taxpayer funds, a much cheaper solution for Australia would be to have the asylum seekers processed in Indonesia and then flown out here to live in the community. Saves the billions of dollars currently being used in housing them in detention centres.

The most sensible suggestion I've seen.

The public is not informed that the vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum. It seems to be a convenient oversight for those opposed to them.

It is also convenient to call them illegal immigrants when they are actually seeking asylum which is a lawful exercise.

Guess which party and which (now) PM is infamous for using the term?

I agree, but how many would wait their turn?
They wouldn't and their actions are proof they want to jump the line

There is no 'line'.

[Jimmy_041]

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