I came across this interesting article suggesting that the EU was going to enact rules which would mean that an asylum seeker could not get asylum if they moved from their first country of entry.

The European system also allows for reviews of the situation in their home country so they can be returned if it improves.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/under-new-eu-rules-refugees-face-asylum-rejection-if-they-leave-country-of-arrival/

While the refugee situation has gone off the boil here, there look to be some ideas that we could put into Australian law.

Certainly I can see no reason why we should take any refugee applications from people moving through Indonesia, for example. And the second idea looks to me like a version of temporary protection visas.

I'm assuming that what the EU is doing and proposing to do is allowable under the Refugee Convention.

As I understand it, this is just a slight revamping of the Dublin Regulation, (which did not work at all in 2015 because of the huge numbers). It is forcing “refugees” (meaning genuine and non-genuine ones) - wanting to go to a “welcoming” Germany, Sweden and a few more northern States - to stay in Greece or Italy (or for a lesser extent Bulgaria or Spain), for five years and more in not very pleasant conditions (uncomparable to those that had to have been made availabe end of last year in Germany) waiting to have their refugee application even to get looked at. And then, if rejected, deported to the country of origin if it is deemed safe as were those of the Magreb just recently made “safe third countries”. This, however, is pure theory. Fot various reasons only a very few of those “refugees”, whose application for asylum was rejected, were actually reported. So I doubt this “ set of new rules” will be very much welcomed as practicable by both the “refugees” and their recipients.

I am not sure how this could work for Australia, since unlike EU it does not have less prosperous border States (like Greece and Italy) to buffer off the more posperous Middle and Northern States, where everybody wants to go because of the high standards of living, initial and permanent, offered by the welcomers.

This should have always been the case, in the over-burdened EU, and in Australia. It has always been absurd and dangerous that Western countries accept possibly dangerous people, particularly Muslims, who have already passed through other countries. Particularly stupid has been Australia's acceptance of Muslims via Indonesia, a Muslim country where there would have been safety, if that is what the so-called refugees were seeking. Safety, however, is not what Muslims are seeking: they are part of Islamic plan to gradually rule the world through immigration to the West, and our stupid politicians are obliging them. The Islamic takeover of Constantinople took 300 years to achieve after the original intent, but it was achieved. The same thing will be achieved in the West, unless idiots like Merkel, our own idiot Turnbull and others wake up.

Dear Graham,

«Certainly I can see no reason why we should take any refugee applications from people moving through Indonesia»

Agreed, no reason whatsoever: we don't need to take them, we don't need to take their applications, we don't need to feed them, we don't need to clothe them and we don't need to shelter them.

But that's not the issue. The true issue is, what right have we to physically block them at sea, hijack their boats and lock them up.

All these artificial problems arise from the Refugee Convention which states that if they do arrive then we are obliged to process and support them, which of course we cannot afford. As the Refugee Convention does not permit us to be moral and reasonable, it must be abandoned.

When a seal arrives on our shores, we don't stop them and lock them up - we let them be. Why should we then treat humans worse than seals?

Yuyutsu, because seals are animals.
Humans understand very well that they are breaking Australian law.
Why else do they dump their passports ?
They should be sent back to Indonesia to their last port of call.
That is the law if they cannot make the voyage themselves.

Yuyutsu, "The true issue is, what right have we to physically block them at sea, hijack their boats and lock them up"

What about the pirates in the Gulf and elsewhere?

It is the usual international expectation that where a naval vessel encounters any vessel being illegally or unsafely operated, or carrying illegal cargo, the vessel should be intercepted and escorted back to the port of its flag. Practically that means cooperation from the authorities of the country it is flagged to.

The naval vessel can launch a boarding party and where resisted, take whatever action is necessary.

Of course some foreign countries can play games.