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.