"Rather than playing a populist tune, resulting in dead-boring mantras about being 'tough and humane', repeated over and over again by the Prime Minister deeply offensive to the electorate and implicitly insulting their intelligence, the Prime Minister, Immigration Minister Chris Evans or Ms Julia Gillard as the Minister for Education, have done absolutely nothing since coming to power with the overwhelming evidence that Australians are unbelievably ill-informed about Australia's obligations under not just the Refugee Convention, but also under other UN Conventions." (quote by Erika Stahr from Jack H.Smit, Project Safecom).

Under UN convention refugees must obey the law of the land.

ekastahr2 (Erika?)

Why can't you be a little more constructive and actually propose a thing or two (always good for discussion).

It's easy to condemn, but until you can suggest something that won't alienate at least 50% of the ostriches, nothing is going to change.

ekastahr2,
It's not Julia's job specifically.

Secondly we are dealing with peoples emotions and there adherence to conditioned dogma.

Societal mores encourage the notion of national elitism (right) to our profligate lifestyle regardless.
Economics encourages/ is built on profligate consumption to support 'profit' etc.
Self interest encourages us to stop anybody from joining in or otherwise
threatening our culture/lifestyle.

As a consequence people DON'T want to know the truth many believe that they voted and that is the end of their responsibility to apprise themselves with issue like those you mention.

That might require them to use their 'good sense' and actually examine reality as determined by actual facts not impressions. This may in turn show them that much of their opinions are nothing more that unprovable prejudices and no one likes being wrong.

If the Govt spent money advertising the laws the opposition would do the only thing they're apparently capable of being oppositional to the spending.

PS I don't hate look down on people I just note the observable. Political parties with their self serving dogma, is a different proposition all together.

In regards to the UN agreements, I think it's appropriate for all reasons that Australia, not wishing to live up to the agreement, formally withdraw from the agreement- if the locals don't want to be held to the obligations, the global community does not wish to try to guess which countries take its own declarations seriously when trying to allocate assistance and priority of countries, and probably ambiguously making ourselves an attraction to people we don't actually have any intentions of taking in, it's for the best in every single way.

I can't understand the opening post of
this thread - because the accusation is
inappropriate. For any intelligent Australian
who can read - there are newspaper articles
available on the subject - where the problems
are discussed in great detail. The topic has also
been diagnosed on enough TV programmes to keep
Australians "informed." The PM simply takes
Australians to be intelligent and able to keep
up with these issues. In any case, his position
and that of his Government's - has been reported
in the media.

For those who may feel "uninformed" the following
website may be of interest:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/26/1017089533231.html

"The big lies of 'border protection."
Written by Malcolm Fraser.

About 4 threads active on subjects near to this, 20 maybe more in our recent past why?
I think the author will not be seen here again, and that we will not truly address the subject.
We will dance around blaming our governments past and present, but ignore the ones they run from.
We in other threads talk about sustainability and an over crowded earth but still think we can take more people, indeed should.
If others over populate, can we take their over flow?
Is it time to limit world population?
Is that first step in controlling migration?

Your jumping the gun.
Australia isn’t even a signatory to a human rights bill, and has no human rights bill interests. ,
Refuses to sign anything remotely resembling this bill.
By the way china the USSR the two biggest abusers of human rights are signatories.
Australia is going, head in the sand, much like its English predecessors.

The UN agreement on refugees only covers them for the first country they come to, not to travel halfway around the world to infest some country that is at odds with their culture.

These people are economic refugees not asylum seekers. They should be stopped at all costs. Australia needs to concentrate on supporting the Aboriginal/elderly/mental health/ etc at home before it wastes time & money on these people.

Charity begins at home, let's start with Australia first.

Jayb, you say:

<< These people are economic refugees not asylum seekers. They should be stopped at all costs. >>

Which refugees are you talking about?

If you are referring to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking, I am of the understanding that no one (not Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia or Sri Lanka) have processed or assessed their status yet.

I am not saying you are wrong (you may well be right) however, the only primary source that I have heard refer to them as "economic refugees" was Sri Lanka's High Commissioner to Australia. He just appears to wiggle too much for me to be convinced of his claims.

Until they have been properly assessed, I fail to see how anyone (even officials at the coal face) can say one thing or another. I'm interested, do you know something that they don't know?

Definition of an assylum seeker? One who's life is in danger from their own Government.

Definition of an Economic Refugee? One who thinks they can make more money in another country than they can in their own. Not a refugee.

UN Definition of a Refugee. Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:

"A 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 nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."[1]
Article 2
General Obligations. Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, whichrequire in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

That's fine JayB, so how do YOU know (when the assessment process has not yet been completed) that those on the Oceanic Viking are "economic refugees"?

Please, if you can, answer the question. If you can't, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.

Maybe I have not been clear. Let me put it this way -

How do YOU know if those on that ship, if returned to their country of origin (Sri Lanka?), will not be in danger from their own Government (assuming you do know about the civil war)? Thanks.

I do believe that, that is just what the Government is trying to do now. The spokesman for the leaky boat is a proven criminal Gang leader from Canada. At least one male on the ship is a wanted criminal in Sri Lanka.
I take it you're a bleeding heart & would take them all in carte blanche. I take it that you will be volunteering to look after at least one of these families in your own home. I bet not, that's someones elses problem.
Now I would like you to put forward here a possible solution to the whole refugee problen for Australia. Who knows you may just have THE soultion. ;-)

Yes Jayb, they (the Australian Govt) is trying, as you say - but it is going to take time. I am surprised you don't understand that.

I agree, any "proven criminal gang leader" should be sent back to face the justice system, in the country they comitted the crime.

I also agree that "one male on the ship (wanted as a criminal in Sri Lanka) should be sent back to face the Sri Lankan justice system.

However, what about the other 76? I (and most certainly not you) haven't got a clue ... yet.

But you are so cock-a-hoop sure they are ALL economic refugees. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. We don't know yet ... get it?

No Jayb, I am not a "bleeding heart", despite your insinuations. I do however like to see the facts before I make value judgements. You have demonstrated you prefer to shoot first, ask questions later.

You won your bet with yourself, I won't be looking after "one of those families" - I'll be looking after my step-daughter's family, she of which is having open heart surgery tomorrow.

I don't have the "solution to the whole refugee problen for Australia", Jayb ... there are far more eminent and capable people than I.

However, I am sure they are working on it. I am so thankful that you are NOT one of them ... you appear to get your knickers in a knot at the mere thought of someone that doesn't act or look like you, very sad really.

You have demonstrated you prefer to shoot first, ask questions later.

Only after I have ,"blown the whistle, waved the flag, shouted stop & fired a warning shot. As is required. It's better than taking a car engine through the forehead. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

What about the other 76?

That's who the Government is investigating, DUH!.

I am surprised you don't understand that.

?I though it was obvious that I did.

I don't have the "solution to the whole refugee problen for Australia", Jayb ... there are far more eminent and capable people than I.

Cop out. I said I would, we all would, like to hear YOUR, "possible solution" As usual, another, "all mouth & no ideas."

I won't be looking after "one of those families"

Yep, "someone elses problem not mine."

you appear to get your knickers in a knot at the mere thought of someone that doesn't act or look like you.

An assumption, that is really, really wrong. Politically incorrect & totally unacceptable. The usual arguement by the Politically Correct bleeding hearts. If you don't agree with THEM then you are labled racist or some other "ist".

I won't be looking after "one of those families"

Yep, "someone elses problem not mine."

Sorry to hear about your daughter. That's what parents are for, to look after our own. I have just done the same thing for my daughter. Her OP was unsuccessful unfortunately.

You, Jayb, said:

<< These people are economic refugees not asylum seekers. They should be stopped at all costs. >>

I said we don't know yet.

Spin it all you like.

______

Anyone else care to comment?

I could rant and rave on about how i dont anymore Asylum seekers in Australia, because i have many reasons. But, i focus on just a small small part it would be government (taxpayer) funding.

I watched a TV show the other night and you might know it "The Force", well these police officers had a 70 something year old blind man walking the streets of perth because he got kicked out (fallout with friend) and they (policemen)rang and rang trying to find a place for the man to sleep, do you think they found any? not on your life. yet, Mr Rudd thinks its just fine to spend 75k a day with the oceanic viking and all the rest of the millions to house feed settle asylum seekers..................who are foreigners! I just cannot believe what i am seeing today, i mean it, it makes me feel sick to listen to the rubbish political spin re asylum seekers, meanwhile we have thousands of homeless with nowhere to go. I wish with all my heart kevin Rudd feels what that 70 year old man does one day. I dont know how kevin rudd sleeps at night.

Q&A,
I have a few comments to make regarding the illegal boat people but you have enough family concerns right now, so will leave it for now.

Hope your step daughters operation goes well and that her recovery is quick. Also that you get on well with her family that you are caring for. All the best.

Comment!

It is interesting that some who normally spruik apocalypse-now (aka AGW).One of the core liturgies of which is that individuals in Western countries consume and pollute disproportionately, should on this thread, be in effect arguing that we should enticing more to join the bacchanalia.

Can't get much more ostrich-like than that –ay, Q& A !

Q&A: "Anyone else care to comment?"

There is no much to add, Q&A. Stellar job - well done perhaps?

You eventually got Jayb to say:

Jayb: "You have demonstrated you prefer to shoot first, ask questions later."

It very difficult to show someone is deliberately distorting the picture. It requires citations, lots of words and a fair bit of reasoning - more than most following the thread are willing to read.

However, if you can get them to distort what was said earlier in the thread so badly that it becomes difficult to accept a word they say at face value - then you have a slam dunk. And that is what you did.

ekastahr2,

I initially thought you had a point, but Foxy convinced me otherwise.

rstuart it was Q&A that said "You have demonstrated you prefer to shoot first, ask questions later." I gave an appropriate reply. I suppose you want to accept everyone who claims to want asylum then sort them out.

Sorry mate, once they are here it's hard to move them out. See the Customs ship. They won't get off & we can't seem to shift them.

Do you have a possible solution to the problem or will you cop out as well. "It's someone elses problem not mine." Another, all mouth & no substance.

When one of these radicales that you want to let in blows up one of your children in the name of Allah are you willing to say that it was really our fault for being racist & not letting more in. I can see the reply now, "How do I know they will do that." As I said before.

Only after I have ,"blown the whistle, waved the flag, shouted stop & fired a warning shot. As is required. It's better than taking a car engine through the forehead.

Bleeding heart d!c#H&@D$ who haven got a clue & live in fairyland $#!t me right off.

Jayb: "rstuart it was Q&A that said ..."

Sorry Jayb. My mistake.

Jayb: "Bleeding heart d!c#H&@D$ who haven got a clue & live in fairyland $#!t me right off."

But all is well that ends well, I guess. If I failed to make my point before, you have made it for me with that little blast.

By the by, in attacking the refugees, you have picked the wrong target. We signed the UNHCR, not the refugees. We put voluntarily put ourselves in the position of having to accept every genuine refugee that appears on our door step. We knew full well by signing it we would have to give every Tom, Dick and Harry safe haven while we checked out whether they really were running for their lives. We also knew once they got here, if they were genuine it was almost a dead certainty they would end up staying. To put that another way, Howard's promise to given the Temporary Protection Visa's until an country sprang up and said "hey - we will take them off your hands" was a lie. Every country is full of people who hold the same opinion on the matter as you.

So don't go blaming the refugees for "taking advantage" our good nature. We made the offer. We can also retract it at any time, but for whatever reason we haven't. Rudd hasn't, and Howard despite all his posturing, didn't. So it you want to attack someone - attack them.

Attacking the refugees for doing what ultimately we said they are welcome to do strikes me as a fairly piss weak response.

I don’t know about that; for if the Bed wetters cry human compaction and fairness; well that means Guilt tripping; and besides, to actually demonstrate the cognitive ability to reason, when engaging with guilt ridden bed wetters, and how much of what they utter is absolute subjective garbage is simple;
Third world Reich fuehrer Rudd of the Idiots social republic of the Reich Ruddunnistan, claims that People smugglers are the scum of the earth; and will be treated harshly;
Ok what part of that sentence is confusing?
People Smuggler , they do not refer to them as Asylum seeking smugglers ; Well in that case , they are not scum of the earth at all , they are saintly heroes and are the modern day humble people saving people’s lives ; be it a very expensive boat tour .

The next time I hear and see a pensioner freezing to death because they cannot afford to turn on a power switch – for heat or light , and when they have eaten their third can of dog food on every second day , and to realise their whole life and dignity has been annihilated, and their efforts obliterated;
But that’s ok; Bed wetters and handkerchief sucking freaks don’t care .

So now you may know what it is all about ; and it is not human rights.

They cannot be asylum seekers because the UN says that when they cross their own border into another country they are seeking asylum after that they are on their own. If they cross another border then they are not asylum seekers or refugees in the correct sense of the UN agreement.

Why do they want to come here when they have crossed a number of borders with similar cultures to which they would fit into more easily?

The prime aim is to convert the world to Islam, if not by force then by subterfuge. Overwelming the Western world with a Muslim population then forcing non Muslims to convert. As is starting to happen in Europe now. Muslims are demanding that Europeans change their Laws to accommadate their Sharia Law. It has started happening here already. See, special times in swimming pools for Muslims, Multiple Marriages & a few other subtle changes they are demanding until we can't go back. Our Australian way of life will be subverted & gone & the bleeding hearts will be to blame. But, as usual, "It will have been someones elses problem."

Jayb: "They cannot be asylum seekers because the UN says that when they cross their own border into another country they are seeking asylum after that they are on their own."

My understand is a little different. Once they have been offered asylum, they can't move onto another country. They can travel through as many countries as they want to find one that will offer asylum.

One other thing: rejection of any country does not mean they aren't genuine asylum seekers. The UNHCR is quite explicit - a country can declare them to be asylum seekers, but it can't declare they aren't.

All this is covered in the UNHCR handbook, which you can find here: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf

Look again at your UNHCR Handbook.

See:
Chap 11 Part A, Para. 33.
Part B, 2b. Para. 37-39.
Paras. 45,47,56.
2f. Para. 62.

So are you saying, with out you knowing, that each of these people meet these requirements. That's what the Government is sorting out now.

There are two ways to get through a minefield. One is to run like hell & hope. the other is to lie on your guts & prodding slowly but carefully with your prodder, taping the route the route as you go. Otherwise you'll lose, at least, a leg if not your life. ;-)

I love it when the Murdock press go on about 'economic refugees'.

Their esteemed leader renounced his Australian citizenship for an American one purely to increase his economic circumstance.

Why no outcry? Well he must be the right kind of economic refugee.

Jayb: "Copy comment URL to clipboard Look again at your UNHCR Handbook."

It would be helpful if you said what I was looking for - ie the fact you are trying to prove or disprove.

Jayb: "So are you saying, with out you knowing, that each of these people meet these requirements."

Absolutely not. I have no idea whether they meet the requirements of not. I am just saying we signed the UNHCR, and thus we are under an obligation to give them safe haven while we check them out. I do however admit to getting a bit irritated when others say, without them knowing, that all of those people don't meet the requirements.

I'll add an observation I am going to post to another thread. Someone commented that the number of boat arrivals was 20x that of last year - without citations of course. A typical example of someone pulling an absurdly high figure out of their bum, I thought - and said so. I was wrong, and now have to apologise.

The correct figures are 37 arrivals last year http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/MIG/detention/subs/sub129d.pdf , and we are on track for around 2000 this year http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10608496 . An increase of 50x. But on 29 May there were only 109 at Christmas Island http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/MIG/detention/subs/sub129w.pdf What the hell happened?

Turns out on the 18 May, the Sri Lankan government declared victory http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/tamil-tigers-killed-sri-lanka and started forcibly rounding up all Tamils into camps. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/world/asia/13lanka.html That would do it I guess.

So now we have a facility of capacity 2200, holding 1800, averaging 300 arrivals per month since June. We have to start processing them quickly. To do that we have to find out whether Sri Lanka will accept them back, how they will be treated if we do, and how much help they will give us with tracking people with no documents. I'd wager our minister flew over there to get this processed kick started. It had nothing to do with the Viking King.

In the mean time, the Sri Lankan ambassador in rabbiting on about jailing any we send back. Just wonderful.

It would be helpful if you said what I was looking for - ie the fact you are trying to prove or disprove.

?I thought that that was what we are talking about. I was answering your statement. The Handbook states the diference between Asylum seekers & people claiming to be refugees.

They haven't been offered asylum by Australia. They have asked for it. If they are just ordinary Tamil citizens then they have nothing to worry about in Sri Lanka & therefore not asylum seekers or refugees. If they were involved with the Tigers in a criminal way then they are not asylum seekers. If they were involved with the Tamils in the violent political sense then they are not asylum seekers. Yes, some of the fighters are being held in custody pending investigation for criminal acts, that's fair enough. If any of these people are afraid to face this process then it is possible they may have committed crimes. That's what the Governments are sorting out.

Some of thse people may have deliberately destroyed their personal docuements to avoid detection. Who are they? Are they terriosts? Are they criminals? are they just economic refugees? The Government doesen't know & is trying to find out.

So do you offer them asylum? Bring them to Australia. Find they are undesirables. Then take years & millions of dollars that could be spent on Australias own poor/medical/Aboriginals/education, etc just to get rid of them. When in doubt, keep 'em out.

Jayb: "So do you offer them asylum? Bring them to Australia. Find they are undesirables. Then take years & millions of dollars that could be spent on Australias own poor/medical/Aboriginals/education, etc just to get rid of them."

I think that pretty much sums up the risk. There is no monetary "up-side" to signing UNHCR. It always costs money to process refugees. If they are assessed as asylum seekers it probably costs even more as you have to support them for a couple of years until they find they way in our society. To put it another way, we knew full well when we signed the UNHCR we were not doing ourselves any economic favours. Not in the short term anyway. It is very like foreign aid in that way.

In the case of the Tamils, I think they had good reasons to be scared - atrocities commited by the LTTE were utterly over the top. At various times the government forces weren't exactly saints either, so it probably looks to the Tamils that the chances of retribution are high. Particularly when the government starts rounding you up into camps at gun point.

However, the reality is there have been mumblings about prosecuting the current Sri Lankan defence minister for war crimes and I presume foreign journalists will soon be allowed back in. Thus pressure on the Sri Lankan government to keep their noses clean is high. So to me the most likely outcome is we will keep the refugees for a year or so until it is obvious that is what is happening, then we send them back home and everybody lives happily ever after. In other words I would not be rushing to grant them asylum.

Jayb: "When in doubt, keep 'em out."

Fair enough. But we can't do that while signatories to the UNHCR. So rather than heaping sh!t on the refugees, heap it on our pollies until they drop it.

Jayb: "They haven't been offered asylum by Australia. They have asked for it. ..."

I should probably have also added the above reeks of: someone saying, without really knowing, that all of those people don't meet the requirements. I could give you an equally logical argument for justifying they are refugees. The truth is neither of us know - we are just arranging the facts to support our favoured conclusion.

We have a well trained and more to the point well equiped, well connected bureaucracy who will spend years if necessary (at least the have in the recent past) to dig out the truth of the matter for each application. Compared to their efforts our our speculations here are just pissing in the wind.

I personally could not condone refusing or accepting a refugee's application on some random's speculation any more than I would want to skip the court process and have someone convicted on some random's say-so. That would be true UNHCR or no UNHCR.

Re RStuart's posts:

“To me the most likely outcome is we will keep the refugees for a year or so until it is obvious that is what is happening, then we send them back home and everybody lives happily ever after”
The only part where –-- ever after --- will come in,is once they are here,they will be here ever after.There is no way in the world that they will be returned once things settle down.

“our speculations here are just pissing in the wind.” ---Yep that’s a valid self assessment.