Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[Jimmy_041]

or they are right next door (eg) Mexicans and Canadians seeking refuge in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

Ha ha look at No 144 in Country of Origin

[bulldogproud2]

If, and when, they prove persecution, then we take it from there as potential refugees.
Until they can prove refugee status, then they will have to wait to cross our borders.
Jumping on a boat, which they paid a considerable amount of money to do, is not proof.
BTW, what would you do with a "refugee" from Somalia who has been involved in mass murder, or a Taliban gunman who has killed Aussie soldiers? Just let him in?

We are only 34th because of the distance to travel. Most just go next door. Why not stay in Indonesia or Malaysia? Very nice places; better than Pakistan, yet they receive more than anyone. Benny hit the nail on the head why people come here: because its a nice place. That's half the problem - are they genuine refugees or just coming here because it's a better place? Or is it because the snakeheads in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka have us on the brochures (which is what I reckon is the true reason they pick Australia)


To be honest, any rioters on Manus Island should be shipped back home.
Just because you didn't get what you want doesn't entitle you to break laws, cause damage or hurt other people.
Don't like it?: go home. It wont change if you are given refugee status.

Jimmy, sounds like a few two-way bets you are having. Firstly, you say that you will accept any Rwandan who has walked to avoid genocide. Surely, then, you must accept any person from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or Sri Lanka who has done the same but via a different mode of transport?
By all means, check that they are genuine first but you have to apply the same principles to those from other countries that you do to Rwanda. Currently, we will NEVER allow any asylum seeker into Australia who travels by boat. This includes the over 90% who are proven to be genuine and gain refugee status.
Secondly, you have a go at the Iranian Minister for criticising Australia's treatment of asylum seekers. If, as you seem to believe, they are not worthy of refugee status and are only 'economic migrants' then, surely he has a right to criticise Australia, does he not? After all, if they are just economic migrants, then the Iranian Goverment are not doing anything to harm these people. I think we have to accept that there is every possibility they are genuine in their attempts to gain refugee status.
Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

or they are right next door (eg) Mexicans and Canadians seeking refuge in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

Ha ha look at No 144 in Country of Origin

Sorry, I was wrong. We are as low as 47th on the list!
So, using the argument that asylum seekers only travel for 'lifetyle' reasons, you are telling me that you would rather be in any of the 46 countries listed ahead of Australia?? Enjoy your time in some of those countries in the top ten!! *grins*

Oh, btw, those 39 would have been those deported back from Australia.

Cheers

[Jimmy_041]

Seems there are 33 other countries that are a 'nicer place' than Australia.

They don't stay in the aforementioned countries because they aren't signatories to the convention.

China, Yemen, Cambodia, PNG and the Philippines are all signatories and closer

[Jimmy_041]

or they are right next door (eg) Mexicans and Canadians seeking refuge in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

Ha ha look at No 144 in Country of Origin

Sorry, I was wrong. We are as low as 47th on the list!
So, using the argument that asylum seekers only travel for 'lifetyle' reasons, you are telling me that you would rather be in any of the 46 countries listed ahead of Australia?? Enjoy your time in some of those countries in the top ten!! *grins*

Oh, btw, those 39 would have been those deported back from Australia.

Cheers

I'm not saying they all only travel for lifestyle reasons, but there are some signatories who are a lot closer to the big 4 sources for us.
And, obviously, they agree with you that they would rather live here than any of the 46 countries listed ahead of us. You make my point for me.
It's a long way to come when you're sole aim is to escape persecution.

[bennymacca]

FYI we accept a whole bunch of Chinese asylum seekers too, Yemen is basically the home of international terrorism so not exactly a great place to go, as PNG and Philippines are two of the poorest countries in the region and your prospects for work, education, Health care etc are extremely poor.

[bennymacca]

It's a long way to come when you're sole aim is to escape persecution.

Quite often they spent months or years in places like Malaysia, where they cannot work, and have no access to any services like education or healthcare.

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy, sounds like a few two-way bets you are having. Firstly, you say that you will accept any Rwandan who has walked to avoid genocide. Surely, then, you must accept any person from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or Sri Lanka who has done the same but via a different mode of transport?
By all means, check that they are genuine first but you have to apply the same principles to those from other countries that you do to Rwanda. Currently, we will NEVER allow any asylum seeker into Australia who travels by boat. This includes the over 90% who are proven to be genuine and gain refugee status.
Secondly, you have a go at the Iranian Minister for criticising Australia's treatment of asylum seekers. If, as you seem to believe, they are not worthy of refugee status and are only 'economic migrants' then, surely he has a right to criticise Australia, does he not? After all, if they are just economic migrants, then the Iranian Goverment are not doing anything to harm these people. I think we have to accept that there is every possibility they are genuine in their attempts to gain refugee status.
Cheers

No, I am consistent
A refugee is a refugee, but one person walks to the next country to escape a nightmare hoping to get refugee status somewhere and waits for the "process" to be done. Another person buys his/her way to the front of the line, picks where he wants to go, and then expects to be welcomed with open arms and cant understand why they have to be "processed" when they've done the hard yards. "But I paid all this money to get to Australia - I refuse to go to PNG". It is the basic disagreement in the argument. Should line jumpers get a special privilege because they can afford to jump a queue? I say no, and I say they can sit offshore until the correct processing is done and they prove their status. Many turn up without a passport so who knows who they are. Remember what Fidel did when the US opened their borders to any Cubans? They were all being persecuted as well

I am quite happy to accept legitimate refugees, but have a real problem with someone bypassing 4 other available countries because they like our beaches, and then they expect to just walk in

I think you miss my point about the Iranian Minister.
This all highlights the one massive problem:
If, as you seem to believe, they are not worthy of refugee status and are only 'economic migrants' then, surely he has a right to criticise Australia, does he not?

I never said they are not worthy of refugee status. We don't know if they are worthy because they chose to avoid the system. So, until they are properly "processed", they are not, under any circumstances, refugees. If, they are claiming to be refugees, it's a bit rich for their persecutors to complain about their treatment; isn't it? Governments complaining about the treatment of people escaping them? You've got to be kidding, don't you?? "Hey, stop being nasty to that bloke with no arms or legs because I cut them off"

And, if they are deemed economic migrants (which should not qualify for refugee status) then I totally agree that the Iranian Govt have every right to complain about their treatment especially seeing they are travelling under an Iranian passport which affords them such representation (as ours does).

Hopefully you can see where the two way bet is: Dont try to claim protection from the very people you claim to be escaping.

[bennymacca]

Every country in the world is closer to another country than it is to Australia except for NZ. So should every asylum seeker go anywhere else besides kiwis?

[Q.]

There's no 'queue'.

[Jimmy_041]

Does the Convention state whether an intended refugee can choose where they want to claim status?
Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees, but I have no pity for queue jumpers that think they have any rights at all.
Here's a thought: bp2 and I talk to our Govt friends about beefing up the overseas "processing" assets to halve the waiting time for those that do the right thing and wait their turn, and how about if we were to double our "legitimate" intake (those who apply properly).
Would the Govt be able to take some moral high ground about their tough stance on the queue jumpers (which I believe is supported by the majority of Australians) or would the vocal minority still want anyone who tries to enter this country to be awarded refugee status?
BTW, anyone who overstays their visa should be deported whether they claim status or not. They lied to get in, they can suffer the consequences.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Seems there are 33 other countries that are a 'nicer place' than Australia.

Good

[Jimmy_041]

There's no 'queue'.

Well, if we have no-one waiting for their application for refugee status to be approved, then there is no excuse for illegal entry

You are right - there is no queue - they are just avoiding a process that every country is entitled to have.
It's called sovereignty and it is more important than anything else.

[Jimmy_041]

There's no 'queue'.

Says Q.....

[dedja]

Far?

[Q.]

There's no 'queue'.

Well, if we have no-one waiting for their application for refugee status to be approved, then there is no excuse for illegal entry

You are right - there is no queue - they are just avoiding a process that every country is entitled to have.
It's called sovereignty and it is more important than anything else.

Of course we have a right to sovereignty, but as signatories to the convention we also accept that people have a right to seek asylum here.

[Jimmy_041]

There's no 'queue'.

Well, if we have no-one waiting for their application for refugee status to be approved, then there is no excuse for illegal entry

You are right - there is no queue - they are just avoiding a process that every country is entitled to have.
It's called sovereignty and it is more important than anything else.

Of course we have a right to sovereignty, but as signatories to the convention we also accept that people have a right to seek asylum here.

No problem with that Q whether we are signatories or not.
But its on our terms, not there's, and buying a one way ticket here gives you no rights at all.
Process offshore applications quicker, double our intake, and deny any person that assumes their right (boat people) and we all might come to a compromise that is better for everyone (except those that want to buy their entry)

[bulldogproud2]

Seems there are 33 other countries that are a 'nicer place' than Australia.

They don't stay in the aforementioned countries because they aren't signatories to the convention.

China, Yemen, Cambodia, PNG and the Philippines are all signatories and closer

Well, China is number 8 on the list that people are seeing asylum in, Yemen number 12 and Papua New Guinea now takes in a lot more than Australia.
So your point is???

[bulldogproud2]

or they are right next door (eg) Mexicans and Canadians seeking refuge in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

Ha ha look at No 144 in Country of Origin

Sorry, I was wrong. We are as low as 47th on the list!
So, using the argument that asylum seekers only travel for 'lifetyle' reasons, you are telling me that you would rather be in any of the 46 countries listed ahead of Australia?? Enjoy your time in some of those countries in the top ten!! *grins*

Oh, btw, those 39 would have been those deported back from Australia.

Cheers

I'm not saying they all only travel for lifestyle reasons, but there are some signatories who are a lot closer to the big 4 sources for us.
And, obviously, they agree with you that they would rather live here than any of the 46 countries listed ahead of us. You make my point for me.
It's a long way to come when you're sole aim is to escape persecution.

As stated before, the majority of those countries that are signatories and closer to the point of origin take in a huge amount more asylum seekers than Australia does. So your point is??

[bulldogproud2]

Jimmy, sounds like a few two-way bets you are having. Firstly, you say that you will accept any Rwandan who has walked to avoid genocide. Surely, then, you must accept any person from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or Sri Lanka who has done the same but via a different mode of transport?
By all means, check that they are genuine first but you have to apply the same principles to those from other countries that you do to Rwanda. Currently, we will NEVER allow any asylum seeker into Australia who travels by boat. This includes the over 90% who are proven to be genuine and gain refugee status.
Secondly, you have a go at the Iranian Minister for criticising Australia's treatment of asylum seekers. If, as you seem to believe, they are not worthy of refugee status and are only 'economic migrants' then, surely he has a right to criticise Australia, does he not? After all, if they are just economic migrants, then the Iranian Goverment are not doing anything to harm these people. I think we have to accept that there is every possibility they are genuine in their attempts to gain refugee status.
Cheers

No, I am consistent
A refugee is a refugee, but one person walks to the next country to escape a nightmare hoping to get refugee status somewhere and waits for the "process" to be done. Another person buys his/her way to the front of the line, picks where he wants to go, and then expects to be welcomed with open arms and cant understand why they have to be "processed" when they've done the hard yards. "But I paid all this money to get to Australia - I refuse to go to PNG". It is the basic disagreement in the argument. Should line jumpers get a special privilege because they can afford to jump a queue? I say no, and I say they can sit offshore until the correct processing is done and they prove their status. Many turn up without a passport so who knows who they are. Remember what Fidel did when the US opened their borders to any Cubans? They were all being persecuted as well

I am quite happy to accept legitimate refugees, but have a real problem with someone bypassing 4 other available countries because they like our beaches, and then they expect to just walk in

I think you miss my point about the Iranian Minister.
This all highlights the one massive problem:
If, as you seem to believe, they are not worthy of refugee status and are only 'economic migrants' then, surely he has a right to criticise Australia, does he not?

I never said they are not worthy of refugee status. We don't know if they are worthy because they chose to avoid the system. So, until they are properly "processed", they are not, under any circumstances, refugees. If, they are claiming to be refugees, it's a bit rich for their persecutors to complain about their treatment; isn't it? Governments complaining about the treatment of people escaping them? You've got to be kidding, don't you?? "Hey, stop being nasty to that bloke with no arms or legs because I cut them off"

And, if they are deemed economic migrants (which should not qualify for refugee status) then I totally agree that the Iranian Govt have every right to complain about their treatment especially seeing they are travelling under an Iranian passport which affords them such representation (as ours does).

Hopefully you can see where the two way bet is: Dont try to claim protection from the very people you claim to be escaping.

I agree with that there is hypocrisy from the Iranian Minister. However, to be able to agree with that, you have to accept that there is persecution occurring in Iran. As such, you should not be denying these people complete access to Australia. Do not forget that Tony Abbott stated that it is 'ONLY' economic refugees who are attempting to gain asylum in Australia. If he is right, then the Iranian Minister is perfectly entitled to his opinion. However, I believe he is hypocritical as there is a huge amount of persecution happening in Iran. Therefore, we need to be more sympathetic to the cause of these asylum seekers.

Also, can you please tell me what you expect these Iranian asylum seekers are meant to do?? Where is their access to the 'process'?? There IS NO PROCESS for them. There are no refugee camps etc. in their countries. They would be killed if they tried to establish one.
Also, you talk of 'processing' but do you know what actually happens?? There Is NO QUEUE in refugee camps. People do not come to them and be given a number, wait for their number to be called, and be 'processed' in any sort of order. Some are able to leave the refugee camps in just a matter of weeks, some months, some years whilst the VAST MAJORITY never get resettled from these camps. It is all a matter of luck and possibly 'divine intervention'.
To talk of 'proper processing' and 'queues' is just an excuse for those who are racist and do not want to take in asylum seekers coming by boat.

Cheers