Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tastywheat

According to the Australian Parliment, it is not illegal to seek asylum by boat

Recommended Posts

Why not? You earn $34.5k a year. Live in a cheap studio apartment. No kids. No business. No wife. Money gets short, you move in with your parents. You don't need a car - no kids you need to drive at 3am in the morning to the doctor. You're white, Christian - and your taxes amount to what, $5-7k a year?

 

I. Ale $90k. I got a daughter. A wife on unpaid maternity leave. My taxes are higher than your salary every year. I rent a 2-bedder in one of the most expensive cities in the world. I study. I reduce my salary so my employees can have a better one. I work 80 hour weeks.

Wait, how are you paying anywhere near that much tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder why everyone isn't done dealing with Leo. It's always a waste of time and always derails a thread. Leo would argue that the problem with Eskimos is that they don't buy enough ice and should be forced to at gunpoint, and he will defend that position ad nauseum with irrelevant facts, misdirected arguments, misunderstood counter-points and sometimes just by totally ignoring any opposition.

Because you aren't. Every time there's a opportunity to deal with me, you do it. Mainly by, as you say misdirecting arguments, making ad hominem attacks and totally ignoring my points.

 

Do you notice that your question asked whether paying people smugglers was illegal, yet both links provided state that the act of smuggling people is illegal, but specifically exclude those being smuggled from being prosecuted for any offence?

Yeah I read that again. I made a mistake... my bad.

 

----

 

Interestingly there's a law called Deterring People Smuggling Act 2011 - specifically designed as "An Act to clarify the law relating to people smuggling, and for related purposes"

 

228B  Circumstances in which a non‑citizen has no lawful right to come to Australia
			 (1)  For the purposes of this Subdivision, a non‑citizen has, at a particular time, no lawful right to come to Australia if, at that time:
					 (a)  the non‑citizen does not hold a visa that is in effect; and
					 (b)  the non‑citizen is not covered by an exception referred to in subsection 42(2) or (2A); and
					 (c)  the non‑citizen is not permitted by regulations under subsection 42(3) to travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.
			 (2)  To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a non‑citizen includes a reference to a non‑citizen seeking protection or asylum (however described), whether or not Australia has, or may have, protection obligations in respect of the non‑citizen:
					 (a)  under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or
					 (b)  for any other reason.

Have a read of that. You too tastywheat

 

If I'm reading that correctly, while you have the right to see asylum, you at no time possess a lawful right to breach Australia's borders.

 

Wait, how are you paying anywhere near that much tax?

Interest from a bank account that I've been building since I was 18.

 

Medicare Levy... etc.

 

I'm on PAYE as I'm a contractor so I'll prob get some of it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why genuine asylum status doesn't start to degrade rapidly if the applicant ignores/bypasses the closest safe haven and engages in illegal activity to get closer to their mark bypassing worldwide binding conventions when inconvenient and inciting them when it is.

Because a refugee camp or a detention centre is not a "safe haven". If a refugee is not accepted into the safe haven country, but instead imprisoned, they have not reached safety.

 

Further, the UN convention states that a refugee can seek asylum in any country, regardless of how many countries they pass through to get there. The reason for this rule is to try to share the load. Syria, for example had a couple of million Iraqi refugees, of which only a few hundred bled into Australia. Despite this rule, the number that actually make it out of a neighbouring country and onto some other place is miniscule.

 

Also, you are using "inciting" incorrectly. You probably got confused because the words you are after are either "invoking" or "citing". Just FYI (trying to be helpful, no insult intended).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? You earn $34.5k a year. Live in a cheap studio apartment. No kids. No business. No wife. Money gets short, you move in with your parents. You don't need a car - no kids you need to drive at 3am in the morning to the doctor. You're white, Christian - and your taxes amount to what, $5-7k a year?

 

I. Ale $90k. I got a daughter. A wife on unpaid maternity leave. My taxes are higher than your salary every year. I rent a 2-bedder in one of the most expensive cities in the world. I study. I reduce my salary so my employees can have a better one. I work 80 hour weeks.

Wait, how are you paying anywhere near that much tax?

 

 

Interest from a bank account that I've been building since I was 18.

 

Medicare Levy... etc.

 

I'm on PAYE as I'm a contractor so I'll prob get some of it back.

Different govt, different tax system, I know... But, my dad was at one stage paying almost half his gross to tax during the Hawke/Keating years. Got a return, sure, but not nearly as large as you might think.

 

Point is, it really is surprisingly easy to have a very large tax burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, the UN convention states that a refugee can seek asylum in any country, regardless of how many countries they pass through to get there. The reason for this rule is to try to share the load.

Which article states refugees have right of choice of resettlement or that they can bypass safe countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leo.

 

You left out the following link:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/downlo...plication%2Fpdf

 

The EXPLANATION of the link you provided about Deterring people smuggling.

 

But anyways. You might want to read that one too.

 

AD

I'm a little confused... Is it saying that there is no lawful right under domestic law despite right under international law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More progress!

 

So inadvertently, your input has lead to further clarification of the legal right of asylum seekers to seek asylum in Australia, even if it involves paying people smugglers. Thanks go to AccessDenied for the link.

 

Which article states refugees have right of choice of resettlement or that they can bypass safe countries?

They have a right to claim asylum, and there is no law that restricts where they can claim it. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, can you reference any law, Australian or otherwise, that states paying people smugglers in order to escape persecution is illegal, or why coming to Australia is 'not the right thing'?

PROTOCOL AGAINST THE SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS BY LAND, SEA AND AIR, SUPPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

 

Quite a bit in there.

 

[...]

 

Um, did you read that document? It kinda refutes your argument. I will admit that I haven't done a full search for any reservations we may have lodged, nor have I read through all of the ICJ records which would clarify the interpretation of this treaty, so I could well be wrong - but a plain reading of the text implies that it was intended to allow for the humane treatment of asylum seekers. I don't want to get into a blow by blow, but here are the main points:

 

I'll start with the big one. Your argument is essentially that we are obligated to deny these people their rights as asylum seekers because we have an obligation to deter people smuggling. However, the treaty you cited to support this obligation includes the following clause:

Article 19

Saving clause

1. Nothing in this Protocol shall affect the other rights,

obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international

law, including international humanitarian law and international human

rights law and, in particular, where applicable, the 1951 Convention and the

1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the principle of non-

refoulement as contained therein.

2. The measures set forth in this Protocol shall be interpreted and

applied in a way that is not discriminatory to persons on the ground that

they are the object of conduct set forth in article 6 of this Protocol. The

interpretation and application of those measures shall be consistent with

internationally recognized principles of non-discrimination.

Basically, States can't use this treaty to try to get out of their other obligations, and people do not lose their status as asylum seekers simply because they pay a smuggler.

 

Now, let's look at what the treaty actually requires us to do.

 

Article 5 explicitly excludes migrants (or asylum seekers) from criminal liability under Article 6.

 

Article 6 basically requires us to make being a people smuggler illegal. No argument there. However, it does not require us to make seeking asylum by boat illegal. It is clear that the treaty regards the migrants (or, in this case, asylum seekers) as victims rather than criminals.

 

Article 7 requires us to cooperate to reduce smuggling. This must be read in the context of Article 19. We need to work with our neighbors to deal with people smuggling, but not at the expense of asylum seekers' human rights.

 

Article 8 gives us the right to board a ship if we think that it may be being used by people smugglers.

 

Article 9 requires many things that aren't relevant to this discussion, but it also includes this gem:

Article 9

Safeguard clauses

1. Where a State Party takes measures against a vessel in

accordance with article 8 of this Protocol, it shall:

(a) Ensure the safety and humane treatment of the persons on

board; [...]

There have been many claims about our detention system that would suggest that we are failing this obligation.

 

Article 10 is not relevant to this discussion.

 

Article 11 requires us to strengthen our borders where possible, although, again, this must be read in the context of Article 19. It even includes an explicit proviso regarding obligations of free movement (more relevant to Euro countries, admittedly, but still interesting).

 

Article 12 is not relevant.

 

Article 13 requires us to assess any travel documents within a reasonable time. Although this is not directly relevant, the current policy of delaying assessing asylum seekers claims may inadvertently breach this article.

 

Article 14 is irrelevant.

 

Article 15 is not particularly relevant, although it does imply that cutting aid to our neighbors could be a breach of 15(3).

 

Article 16 requires us to protect the rights of migrants who are the objects of the acts listed in Article 6. This includes their rights as asylum seekers.

 

Article 17 is irrelevant.

 

Article 18 says that a State must accept their citizens/residents back if we return them. This does not give us the right to return them is this would amount to refoulment (see Article 19).

 

The rest of the articles are largely formalities.

 

As you can see, the treaty considers the people being smuggled as victims, not criminals. It explicitly requires us to honour our obligations to them as asylum seekers, and imposes additional (albeit redundant) obligations to treat them humanely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, can you reference any law, Australian or otherwise, that states paying people smugglers in order to escape persecution is illegal, or why coming to Australia is 'not the right thing'?

PROTOCOL AGAINST THE SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS BY LAND, SEA AND AIR, SUPPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

 

Quite a bit in there.

Can I just point out a couple of items here?

 

1. The document that you've linked states in Article 5 that migrants are not Criminally liable under the protocol. By my interpretation, this means that it is illegal to people smuggle but not illegal to engage the services of people smugglers. In any case it's a moot point because the UN Refugee Convention states to the effect that asylum applicants should not have their asylum claims prejudiced by their mode of entry.

 

2. Australia is a signatory to the UN Refgee Convention. So if you're going to accept/cite international law on the status of people smugglers, you should accept/cite international law on the status of refugees. Otherwise you like the Australian Government are operating what I understand to be a legal double standard.

 

edit.... I see that much of this has been covered by DaCraw

Edited by Captain Awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, can you reference any law, Australian or otherwise, that states paying people smugglers in order to escape persecution is illegal, or why coming to Australia is 'not the right thing'?

PROTOCOL AGAINST THE SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS BY LAND, SEA AND AIR, SUPPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

 

Quite a bit in there.

Can I just point out a couple of items here?

 

1. The document that you've linked states in Article 5 that migrants are not Criminally liable under the protocol. By my interpretation, this means that it is illegal to people smuggle but not illegal to engage the services of people smugglers. In any case it's a moot point because the UN Refugee Convention states to the effect that asylum applicants should not have their asylum claims prejudiced by their mode of entry.

 

2. Australia is a signatory to the UN Refgee Convention. So if you're going to accept/cite international law on the status of people smugglers, you should accept/cite international law on the status of refugees. Otherwise you like the Australian Government are operating what I understand to be a legal double standard.

 

edit.... I see that much of this has been covered by DaCraw

 

 

and this is where the problem lies.

 

A refugee is someone in need of a safe haven and needs protection. But now we have new wave of refugees who claim this status just because they want a better life and come from poor countries ,these are called economic refugees.

 

So really should we pay funds to those seeking economic aid because they breached our borders just for money? It seems most people agree we should.

 

And this is why Australia economic condition is now getting bad.

 

The UN Open Border policy has already destroyed the EU and its countries with UK now leaving this EU and France not far behind. How long till Australia just shuts the door completely? Its not far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, can you reference any law, Australian or otherwise, that states paying people smugglers in order to escape persecution is illegal, or why coming to Australia is 'not the right thing'?

PROTOCOL AGAINST THE SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS BY LAND, SEA AND AIR, SUPPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

 

Quite a bit in there.

Can I just point out a couple of items here?

 

1. The document that you've linked states in Article 5 that migrants are not Criminally liable under the protocol. By my interpretation, this means that it is illegal to people smuggle but not illegal to engage the services of people smugglers. In any case it's a moot point because the UN Refugee Convention states to the effect that asylum applicants should not have their asylum claims prejudiced by their mode of entry.

 

2. Australia is a signatory to the UN Refgee Convention. So if you're going to accept/cite international law on the status of people smugglers, you should accept/cite international law on the status of refugees. Otherwise you like the Australian Government are operating what I understand to be a legal double standard.

 

edit.... I see that much of this has been covered by DaCraw

 

 

and this is where the problem lies.

 

A refugee is someone in need of a safe haven and needs protection. But now we have new wave of refugees who claim this status just because they want a better life and come from poor countries ,these are called economic refugees.

 

So really should we pay funds to those seeking economic aid because they breached our borders just for money? It seems most people agree we should.

 

And this is why Australia economic condition is now getting bad.

 

The UN Open Border policy has already destroyed the EU and its countries with UK now leaving this EU and France not far behind. How long till Australia just shuts the door completely? Its not far away.

 

That simply isn't true.

 

Over 90% of the refugees that arrive by boat are determined, by the test that Australia applies, to be genuine. Those determined to be "economic migrants" are returned to the country from whence they came.

 

That's a very important point, it is Australia that has decided that over 90% of boat arrivals are refugees not anybody else, and Australia does that in accordance with its own interpretation of the law, both domestic and international.

 

The argument that these people are largely economic migrants simply doesn't stand up.

Edited by Captain Awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at the USA, if your caught entering illegally then your removed from the country.

 

I know we are not American but something we could take from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very important point, it is Australia that has decided that over 90% of boat arrivals are refugees not anybody else, and Australia does that in accordance with its own interpretation of the law, both domestic and international.

 

The argument that these people are largely economic migrants simply doesn't stand up.

When it comes to casual conversations about asylum seekers, this is the fact most commonly misunderstood from my perspective.

 

It's a systematic, and calculated diversion of responsibility from the government in my opinion:

  • Language - boat people, illegals, illegal immigrants, illegal maritime arrivals, economic refugees etc.
  • Vilification - They're extremists, terrorists, security concerns, health concerns, quarantine concerns, undesirables, queue jumpers etc.
  • Heroism - The government is saving lives by stopping people smugglers
  • Distraction from impact of policy - Stopping the boats (not stopping mandatory detention), will save Australian taxpayers money
All of the things mentioned are veritably untrue. They are within their legal rights to claim asylum, over 90% are verified by the screening process not to be a security or health concern, they are fleeing actual persecution which might justify the risk of engaging people smugglers (not that it's our right to decide this for them), and mandatory detention is costing taxpayers far more than community detention alternatives, without actually 'stopping the boats' in a way that clearly conforms to international law and our moral responsibilities.

 

Despite all this, I do understand the concerns. The events of 9/11 in particular deeply damaged our ability to trust people from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc. Ignorance and subtle racism extended this to 'brown' people in general. The cultural differences of immigrants and their offspring have caused real problems in parts Australia, which should not be ignored. At least 5% of those that arrive by boat, and a significantly larger portion of those that arrive by air, are not genuine refugees, and it costs us a lot to process their applications and then send them back to their home country. This is not a simple problem, and it cannot be easily reduced to absolutes.

 

Compared to most other countries, Australia at the moment is being pretty stingy when it comes to helping out with refugees. I don't think this is a good thing, and I would like to see us revive the old Australian cultural attitude of 'Fair go'. We helped out thousands during and after the two world wars, and our country has benefited immensely from this. It seems to me that around the world, countries are shrinking into themselves, becoming more conservative and more selfish. Things are becoming less globalised. This is a path that leads to more conflict, from my admittedly ignorant perspective.

 

We should honour our international responsibilities, and we should do it in a way that make other cultures aspire to be more Australian.

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should honour our international responsibilities, and we should do it in a way that make other cultures aspire to be more Australian.

 

What do you suggest?

 

Should we tolerate and welcome smuggler delivered boat arrivals? When should we intercept them and welcome them? Will that piss off indonesia? or will they continue to piss themselves laughing?

 

Time for this link again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you suggest?

 

Should we tolerate and welcome smuggler delivered boat arrivals? When should we intercept them and welcome them? Will that piss off indonesia? or will they continue to piss themselves laughing?

I don't support people smuggling. However, I think they fill a need, and it's not our place to restrict the decision of people fleeing persecution to use their services. Regardless, generally speaking anything that happens outside of our borders is not our responsibility.

 

The solution I suggest is simple on the surface. Stop wasting billions of dollars on offshore detention. It's not necessary for ~94% of the people detained, and has not stopped the boats from arriving since its introduction in 1991. Use a combination of onshore and community detention in a way that ensures proper screening. Use some of the savings to boost transition programs that allow refugees to access proper vocational education, mental health support to adapt to a safe new environment, and cultural integration education programs. The Churches have nominated that they would like to take responsibility for some of this, which could be a neat solution in terms of integration (even if I don't support religious education).

 

Use the legitimate source of immigration to boost our economy. Current projections suggest we need an additional 2.3 million workers by 2030 to maintain the same level of economic growth (link).

Some refugees already posses high level skills/tertiary education, others can be used to boost local food production and manufacturing. There is obviously a complex interplay between local unemployment and increasing the amount of available labour, and this will take significant work and sensitivity to manage. While it's not necessary going to benefit everyone immediately, as it has in the past, immigration will grow our economy.

 

These changes will not cause Australia to be flooded by refugees. We are only responsible for asylum seekers that travel across Australian borders - most refugees choose to seek asylum in neighbouring countries, only a very small percentage of asylum seekers have the ability or means to travel to Australia, and only those legitimately fleeing persecution will be allowed in. The numbers will most likely go up, but by how much is a moot point until the policies are actually implemented. We can always implement new policy, or go back to old policy, if it causes problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with people smuggling is that we treat the people on the boat the same as the smuggler themselves.

That's where it gets stuffed up.

I'd pay a people smuggler if I thought it'd save the life of my wife and son.

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double edged sword that's for sure.

 

But if you guys think about it, what if our country was under the same circumstances?

We go to another country, I'm dam sure they would escort us straight back here without remorse. Our government needs to grow a pair and toughen up to the situation, already we have enough to deal with over the fact that these AS or Ref's get in, Free place to live, benefits and what ever else in that deal, recently I know they have or are passing a law where they can't get setup on benefits as such above here, it's not enough they just need to stop the boats entirely.

 

Sadly this is from beyond the bs and redtape they will just keep coming, in turn I hate sounding like a bad guy but how is this Australia's problem?

It will continue to be until we fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our government needs to grow a pair and toughen up to the situation, already we have enough to deal with over the fact that these AS or Ref's get in, Free place to live, benefits and what ever else in that deal, recently I know they have or are passing a law where they can't get setup on benefits as such above here, it's not enough they just need to stop the boats entirely.

 

Sadly this is from beyond the bs and redtape they will just keep coming, in turn I hate sounding like a bad guy but how is this Australia's problem?

It will continue to be until we fix it.

So based on the above comments, the problem with refugees is because they cost the government money that could be going back to Australians?

 

If that's the case, I agree that it's a point of concern. However, one of the reasons I'm advocating change, is that our 'tough' policies actually cost more than simply processing the asylum seekers claims and allowing them to join the work force (which, based on interviews I've seen, is what most desire). We spend $300-400,000 per refugee keeping them detained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our government needs to grow a pair and toughen up to the situation, already we have enough to deal with over the fact that these AS or Ref's get in, Free place to live, benefits and what ever else in that deal, recently I know they have or are passing a law where they can't get setup on benefits as such above here, it's not enough they just need to stop the boats entirely.

 

Sadly this is from beyond the bs and redtape they will just keep coming, in turn I hate sounding like a bad guy but how is this Australia's problem?

It will continue to be until we fix it.

So based on the above comments, the problem with refugees is because they cost the government money that could be going back to Australians?

 

If that's the case, I agree that it's a point of concern. However, one of the reasons I'm advocating change, is that our 'tough' policies actually cost more than simply processing the asylum seekers claims and allowing them to join the work force (which, based on interviews I've seen, is what most desire). We spend $300-400,000 per refugee keeping them detained.

 

I like how you think.

 

Also I agree, it's fucken bullshit our navy should tell them to turn their shit around and come over here legally or some unpleasant consequences will happen.

 

Australia first!

Edited by Nan0_Seconds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, can you reference any law, Australian or otherwise, that states paying people smugglers in order to escape persecution is illegal, or why coming to Australia is 'not the right thing'?

PROTOCOL AGAINST THE SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS BY LAND, SEA AND AIR, SUPPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

 

Quite a bit in there.

Can I just point out a couple of items here?

 

1. The document that you've linked states in Article 5 that migrants are not Criminally liable under the protocol. By my interpretation, this means that it is illegal to people smuggle but not illegal to engage the services of people smugglers. In any case it's a moot point because the UN Refugee Convention states to the effect that asylum applicants should not have their asylum claims prejudiced by their mode of entry.

 

2. Australia is a signatory to the UN Refgee Convention. So if you're going to accept/cite international law on the status of people smugglers, you should accept/cite international law on the status of refugees. Otherwise you like the Australian Government are operating what I understand to be a legal double standard.

 

edit.... I see that much of this has been covered by DaCraw

 

All of this has indeed been covered but you all forget one thing.

 

All these laws apply only when someone claims asylum within our borders or in our territory. Before they can claim asylum, we have absolute right to prevent them entry to our borders.

 

Now someone mentioned that the Convention doesn't mention that you must go to the nearest safe country. That's correct. It also doesn't mention that you can bypass safe countries, but that's the interpretation of it. Furthermore, the refugee convention is a protection convention. Plenty of countries are compliamt with the convention without handing out citizenships to refugees as resettlement countries.

 

If you all want a UNHCR camp in Australia, without resettlement, by all means. We can imprison these people until such time as a resettlement country takes them.

 

Now, can you reference any law, Australian or otherwise, that states paying people smugglers in order to escape persecution is illegal, or why coming to Australia is 'not the right thing'?

PROTOCOL AGAINST THE SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS BY LAND, SEA AND AIR, SUPPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

 

Quite a bit in there.

Can I just point out a couple of items here?

 

1. The document that you've linked states in Article 5 that migrants are not Criminally liable under the protocol. By my interpretation, this means that it is illegal to people smuggle but not illegal to engage the services of people smugglers. In any case it's a moot point because the UN Refugee Convention states to the effect that asylum applicants should not have their asylum claims prejudiced by their mode of entry.

 

2. Australia is a signatory to the UN Refgee Convention. So if you're going to accept/cite international law on the status of people smugglers, you should accept/cite international law on the status of refugees. Otherwise you like the Australian Government are operating what I understand to be a legal double standard.

 

edit.... I see that much of this has been covered by DaCraw

 

 

and this is where the problem lies.

 

A refugee is someone in need of a safe haven and needs protection. But now we have new wave of refugees who claim this status just because they want a better life and come from poor countries ,these are called economic refugees.

 

So really should we pay funds to those seeking economic aid because they breached our borders just for money? It seems most people agree we should.

 

And this is why Australia economic condition is now getting bad.

 

The UN Open Border policy has already destroyed the EU and its countries with UK now leaving this EU and France not far behind. How long till Australia just shuts the door completely? Its not far away.

 

That simply isn't true.

 

Over 90% of the refugees that arrive by boat are determined, by the test that Australia applies, to be genuine. Those determined to be "economic migrants" are returned to the country from whence they came.

 

That's a very important point, it is Australia that has decided that over 90% of boat arrivals are refugees not anybody else, and Australia does that in accordance with its own interpretation of the law, both domestic and international.

 

The argument that these people are largely economic migrants simply doesn't stand up.

 

Lol. Do you actually think we check the stories they tell us? Do you actually think we call up Sheikh Abdul Hassan Jihad Allahu-Akbar bin Cameljockey and ask him if he threatened poor Mahmood in Villawood with his life if he didn't convert to sunni Islam?

 

We cant even check their documents 90% of the time. There's no central Afghani registry of births, deaths and marriages because outside of Kabul, the place had been warlord territory for like a hundred years. Women give birth on a rug with a rusty set of BBQ tongs, in a tent while some crazy shaman lady spins around with a branch of cactus and blesses the kid with hybrid-Islamo-animist bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things will be fine. We are going to dump them in one of the worse poorest and most corrupt countries in the world.

So instead of just honouring our commitments, the government plans to spend more tax payers money to transfer them to Cambodia, then pay the Cambodian government $40 million to to take on 1,000 asylum seekers from Nauru? I reckon that's pretty hard to justify with economics, particularly when the same $40 million could go to Australians running onshore processing mechanisms.

 

[Edit] Oops, $40 million, not $100 million.

 

[Edit2] Missed the additional $377 million the government promised in increased aid to Cambodia to seal the deal.

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things will be fine. We are going to dump them in one of the worse poorest and most corrupt countries in the world.

So instead of just honouring our commitments, the government plans to spend more tax payers money to transfer them to Cambodia, then pay the Cambodian government $40 million to to take on 1,000 asylum seekers from Nauru? I reckon that's pretty hard to justify with economics, particularly when the same $40 million could go to Australians running onshore processing mechanisms.

 

[Edit] Oops, $40 million, not $100 million.

 

[Edit2] Missed the additional $377 million the government promised in increased aid to Cambodia to seal the deal.

 

Is Cambodia a safe country? If it is, then there is no right of complaint.

 

The convention guarantees protection from persecution, not first world conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually think we check the stories they tell us? Do you actually think we call up Sheikh Abdul Hassan Jihad Allahu-Akbar bin Cameljockey and ask him if he threatened poor Mahmood in Villawood with his life if he didn't convert to sunni Islam?

 

Let's assume for a moment that this is correct. What do you think the Department of Immigration and Border Protection are doing while us tax payers fork out $400,000 per person per year to keep them in detention? Why not process their claims immediately, and send them on their way?

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×