Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[Jimmy_041]

Cambodia??? really

They've been a signatory to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol since 1992....

[bennymacca]

That doesn't mean we can shirk out responsibilities under the same convention, except we seem to think it can

[The Sleeping Giant]

I hear Cambodia is lovely.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Maybe you should see the boats that the Vietnamese refugees arrived on in the 70's. Extremely expendable, so it isn't a new thing. Darwin museum has some on display if you are ever up this way.

It's not the seventies. They were using seaworthy boats for some time before we politicised this.

Umm..... All boats carrying illegal immigrants too Australia are expendable. The aren't getting them back. A lot of them make excellent artificial reefs here in Darwin.

[bennymacca]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014 ... ease-stand

Very good article about the government failings on the issue, and also that the labor party are doing sweet FA to hold them to account on it

[Jimmy_041]

Emotion crap
BTW, they continue to misquote Article 31 to suit their own purposes.
And travelling from Afghanistan to Pakistan does NOT automatically make you a refugee.

[bennymacca]

it doesnt mention afghanistan or pakistan at all

and how specifically is article 31 being misquoted?

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states parties from imposing penalties on refugees who, when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This Article 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. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such 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 do so if they are seeking asylum.

Article 31 also prohibits states parties from restricting the freedom of movement of refugees who arrive without authorisation, with the exception of restrictions necessary for regularising their status. Furthermore, such restrictions should be applied only until their status in the country is regularised or they obtain admission into another country.

[Jimmy_041]

Sorry, you need to go through the links for the Afghanistan / Pakistan comment: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/26/comment-critiquing-open-borders-policy

Turning to Article 31:

Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states parties from imposing penalties on refugees who, when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This Article 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. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such 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 do so if they are seeking asylum.

Article 31 also prohibits states parties from restricting the freedom of movement of refugees who arrive without authorisation, with the exception of restrictions necessary for regularising their status. Furthermore, such restrictions should be applied only until their status in the country is regularised or they obtain admission into another country.

See the clever change of description from refugee to person to asylum seeker?

This is fundamental to the argument and one that pro open borders choose to ignore.
Persons seeking asylum or refugee status or "asylum seekers" are not refugees until assessed as such, therefore Article 31 does not apply to them until refugee status is granted.

Here is another one: http://www.uniya.org/policies/oz_right.html and more particularly, this paragraph:

Under the Refugee Convention, Australia must not penalise a person coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened (within the meaning of the Refugee Convention) because they entered, or are in, Australia illegally, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Can you spot the subtle difference in the wordings? A clear change to one word to change the meaning to suit an argument. A nice lawyers trick (the author is a lawyer so he knows exactly what he's done.) He then reverts back to the proper wording to argue another point because it suits his argument:

Does this mean that any refugee who has spent a week en route in Indonesia waiting for a boat to Australia can be penalised and denied a permanent protection visa because they could have gone to Jakarta and joined the queue at the UNHCR office rather than awaiting a boat in precarious circumstances?

He does it again in this article: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2767410.html however, I will give him credit for this comment (I have left the next part in for balance):

Having the status of a refugee has never been accepted as a passport to the migration country of one's choice. Then again, the international community has never been so callous or short-sighted as to say that during a mass exodus one has access only to the country next door in seeking protection even if you have family, friends or community members living in a more distant country.

So, in short, a refugee is not a refugee until they are assessed as meeting the requirements

Definition

The Refugee Convention defines a refugee as:

Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

Look at the link you provided:

In order for someone to be recognised as a refugee under the Convention, therefore, they must satisfy the following criteria:

The person must be outside their country of origin
The reason for their flight must be a fear of persecution
This fear of persecution must be well founded (ie. they must have experienced it or be likely to experience it if they return)
The persecution must be due to one or more of the five grounds listed in the definition
They must be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country
The definition also includes a qualifier which excludes any person who has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity, a serious non-political crime outside their country of refuge or any other act contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

[tigerhutch]

baa baa I am a sheep baa baa

[bennymacca]

I'm not sure who you are arguing against jimmy, no one here is suggesting anything but genuine refugees be allowed in

[Jimmy_041]

baa baa I am a sheep baa baa

Live sheep trade is a different issue

[Jimmy_041]

I'm not sure who you are arguing against jimmy, no one here is suggesting anything but genuine refugees be allowed in

Sorry, I thought you wanted to allow all asylum seekers to land and not be processed offshore.
My mistake.........

[bennymacca]

I would rather they be processed in centres in Australia, like inverbrackie, but if they are found to be not genuine refugees then they are on the first plane out of here

[Jimmy_041]

Anyone else watching 730 Report?

[bennymacca]

nope. cliffs?

[Jimmy_041]

Here you go Benny: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3965617.htm

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

Here you go Benny: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3965617.htm

Wow, Jimmy watching the leftist, commie, pinko ABC

[Jimmy_041]

I watch the ABC more than any other free channel
You'd really enjoy the cartoons on there

[bennymacca]

I watch the ABC more than any other free channel
You'd really enjoy the cartoons on there

What will you do when they shut it down?

[Jimmy_041]

Plenty of rugby to watch on Foxtel
Half owned by News Corp so Ratgirl will probably say its right wing and biased