Australia, the UN, and Refugees

So the only people that want to come here are the ones doing it by paying people smugglers?? Come on Mak dont be silly.

There are 1000's of people waiting in camps that have done the right thing, they have already been verified as refugees by the UN. Why should we ignore those have have done the right thing and take those that haven't?
Turn the boats around and increase the rate we take already classified refugees.

 

Yes, they are refugees. Not asylum seekers.

It's all perfectly legitimate.

• Article 14 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  
• 1951 UN convention

Asylum seekers are legal.

 

Do I also have to hold your hand? If so, which one will it be?

 

IF they ( the asylum seekers ) are legit they should apply at the first country they come to that is out of harms way. They have not done that. They are forcing themselves upon us by trying to sneek in the backdoor.

 

Are you, in way, related to Blind Freddie?

 

I see your point, but I don't share your concerns.

There's nothing wrong with aiming high.

Australia is by far the best option available to these people.

Good luck to them, I say. If I were in their position I'd head for the best country too.

And let's not forget, in the past 3 years 94% of the asylum seekers were granted refugee status. i.e. they "are legit".

If the percentage was under 50%, I may share your concern, however:

" ... between 70 and 97 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat at different times have been found to be refugees and granted protection either in Australia or in another country."

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

The vast majority of these asylum seekers turn out to be genuine refugees.

I have no problem with genuine refugees wanting to live in one of the best countries on Earth. None at all.

 

What could one expect from the goverment that has NO policy on it at all....

 

An outdated treaty designed for an era and time that no long past and that no longer exists. Some people are incapable, or unwilling, of extracating themselves from the dim past. It's no wonder they are blind to the problems of the here and now. The same people that are incapable of seeing the multitude of 'queues' of people, all over the world, clamouring to come to OZ. But can they comprehend the meaning of queue, unless it represents people clamouring outside a retail store waiting with bated breath for the next bargain.Yes that's also a queue!

I wonder what else they have retained from the dim past, bell bottom trousers perhaps?

 

I think most people's concerns aren't so much that they might not be suitable for refugee status, but that they are;

1. breaking the law and displacing refugees who are following the law by waiting in refugee camps
2. paying money to criminal people smugglers who sometimes do not deliver and demand more money
3. risking their and their families lives
4. costing the Australian taxpayer
5. bypass local laws remaining undetected in countries whilst trying to get to Australia

I did Point 1 first because its the rich assylum seekers who choose this method of (illegal) entry, which means the poorer and more genuinely in need refugee's are left stuck in camps while the wealthy assylum seekers use their wealth to bypass the system!!!!!

Usually the left would love this angle, but it would require them to think about it and the left much prefer the shallow feel good memes of 'locked up desperates risking their lives'.

Of course the big lie in all this would be how we determine if these assylum seekers are actually refugee's, since they bring in only what they need to get refugee status its hard for Australia to find the truth.

If they enter illegally they should automatically be put on a plane to the refugee camp nearest their stated homelands.... this way they can join the queue like all the other refugees.

 

There is no queue for asylum seekers. None. Doesn't exist.

You're confusing asylum seekers with refugees.

 

I'm not confusing anything. Once they've been determined to be refugees (by offshore processing) they are put on a plane to the closest refugee camp next to their home country, if not refugees then they get a plane back to their home country.

So in simple terms they arrive as assylum seekers, and leave as either refugee criminals or non-refugee criminals. Either way, for the reasons stated above in my previous post, they should not be allowed to actually enter the country outside of the normal mechanisms for refugees.

 

Yes, you are: there's no queue for an asylum seeker.

Seeking asylum is a perfectly "normal mechanism" for refugees.

All covered by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

All legitimate, perfectly legal, and "normal".

 

If they wanted to live here then they should have had the common sense to have either been born here or been born in a nearby country that then tried to kill them. But nooooooooo, they decided to be born half way around the planet. Well that's their own god (*)(*)(*)(*) fault.

 

Anachronism or not, it's still in place and Australia is a signatory.

 

axialturban

You are fighting a difficult battle, because these people don't understand the finer points of the English language, assuming of course, they are not just doing it because it doesn't fit in with their distorted view of those determined to barge their way into our fair country. Every word that is used is taken in its literal meaning eg if you said:

'Keep your eye on the ball' they would assume its literal meaning and start looking for a real ball bouncing around somewhere.They would be incapable of understanding the real abstract meaning of such an expression. So similaraily, they are incapable, or unwilling, to accept the fact that a queue does not neccessarily refer to a physical queue, ie one that one can be seen and touched. But it is still be a queue. Similarily when you are waiting on the phone, to make a booking, for instance, one can still be in a queue, even though you can't actually see it!

But such thinking is probably is far too difficult for them to comprehend, assuming of course they are really interested in a genuine debate on this vexed subject of 'illegals' barging their way, uninvited, onto our shores, wanting to suck of the welfare teat, so generously provided by the Aussie taxpayer!

 

I never said their was a queue for asylum seekers. Refugee's though are accepted through a system and the progression through that system represents a queue. If the asylum seekers wants the break the law to jump that queue, then they should be either put at the back of the queue if they are found to be a real refugee, or returned to their original country if they are found not to be a real refugee.

At the moment these people's first taste of Australia is that breaking the law is a way to get past the system, well that shouldnt be the way things are done in Australia and that shouldnt be what we teach them and others who observe it happening.

Now if these people were coming directly from their home country of oppression, it would make Australia their first country of refuge and then we should accept them as our obligation to international refugee obligations - but those asylum seekers who move through numerous peaceful countries staying under the radar of local authorities specifically so not to be picked up and processed as refugees there, for the specific purpose of trying to reach Australia - well thats just pure criminality and should be punished as I've outlined above.

 

It's like talking to a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing brick wall. It is not illegal under Australian law for them to just arrive here. It is in fact perfectly (*)(*)(*)(*)ing legal.

 

I've updated my post with further information since you posted. How do you think they get here. They enter countries illegally and hide from local authorities to get into a position where they can try and enter Australia. They pay criminal's to smuggle people across the border - do you really think that is legal?

 

Considering that they don't get charged and 94% of them get accepted, yes, it's perfectly legal.

Here's something for you.

In every Australian state and territory, except the ACT, the sale of pornography is illegal. However, buying it isn't. HOLY (*)(*)(*)(*)ING (*)(*)(*)(*)! I bet your head just exploded.

See where I'm going? People smuggling might be illegal under Australian law, but paying someone to smuggle you if you're a refugee isn't.

 

So you consider 'evidence' from clearly biased sources as being legitimate. You accept everything Alan Jones says then. Thank you.
Better hurry back to your Labor/green masters, their boots need licking. Also I know someone who will give you a good deal on the Sydney harbour bridge, they will sell it to you real cheap.

 

I tell you what, I'll play your game and give you a free shot at proving me wrong.

For the sake of the argument let's just assume that I have not provided any evidence showing that a queue for asylum seekers does not exist. I've got nothing to present. Zip.

Now, you provide us with one piece of unbiased evidence that actually proves a queue exists for asylum seekers. Just one will do.

Here's your free shot. Go for it.

 

Have to stop you there: they're not breaking the law.

 

Exactly. Shame so many Australians just don't get that. Probably because they spend too much time listening to Andrew Bolt.

 

HAHAA Ahah ahhah aaaahhha haahhaaa, snort gasp ahahhaahh ...

 

If your argument is that there isn`t a physical line up of people, holding numbered tickets, you have strayed so far from relevance to the subject matter, as to render yourself out of the debate.

WOFTAM