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.

Dear Bazz,

So you propose that humans be treated worse than animals?

Animals are not subjected to Australian law - so why should they?

Because they have no passports? Neither do animals.
And suppose they did keep their passports, would you then allow them to be treated at least as well as animals?

It is preposterous to expect someone who is neither Australian nor has any business with the state of Australia to obey Australian law. Nobody expects this even of animals.

Sure, if they were asking for protection or any other favours from Australia, then you may well demand that they obey your laws in return, but what if they never do? humans are also animals, so what if they simply physically arrive in their capacity as animals? surely they should not be treated worse than non-human animals who simply arrive!

In the least they should be treated according to RSPCA guidelines. If they create trouble or danger, then you may euthanase them with the least possible pain, but not otherwise. Also, Australians should be able to adopt them as pets so long as they take the usual responsibilities and precautions to ensure they cannot run out and bite.

---

Dear OnTheBeach,

What about pirates? they are evil, harmful and dangerous so you may do what it takes to eliminate them in self-defence. But how is this related?

If a vessel endangers your safety or is out to harm you, then you do what it takes to avert the danger. What flag they raise (if any) or whether they operate safely or otherwise, should be none of your business.

This all sounds very good in theory, but what sort of relationship would we have with our close neighbours/trading partners Indonesia if we said "All the region's refugees are your problem, we don't want to share in the burden."?

Not very neighbourly is it? Does everyone want Australia to live in isolation in our own part of the World? Indonesia and perhaps Malaysia may very well look elsewhere for trade, and could make trouble for the many thousands of Aussie tourists who flock to those countries for work or holidays, or to live there, every year.

We can't live in isolation and expect our relatively peaceful lives to continue as is...

I think that taking refugees in our country is a nonsense. They have their own land!

The modern day refugee is now wanting to come here for a better life, not to make a better life for themselves, but rather to feed from what we have.

The sad part of all this is that our governments have been too stupid to realize whats going on.

The Brexit and Pauline Hanson votes were no accident. People have had enough.

One difference:

In Germany Angela Merkel says "Wir schaffen das (WE shalL cope) with the integration of refugees".
In Switzerland they tell the refugees: "YOU shall have to cope with your integration."

Susie is again up to promoting her "One World Order", no borders as Muslims see to dominate the World. If we believe in individual cultures and rights we must oppose such a World view. Not all people are neighbourly to accept into our homes. Britex saw the problem developing of refugees tenting in Sherwood Forest and cutting down trees for firewood; such an invasion in Australia would put us back into the 1940's of people camping under bridges and invading homes for food.

Suse,
There is no world law that says we have to take refugees or immigrants if we want to trade with other countries. Japan takes no migrants and yet she does nicely and no one holds it against her.

If a referendum were held the 'zero net' mob would win hands down but there is little hope of Pauline convincing liberal politicians to do that. After all they were stupid enough to elect Turnbull as PM.

We need a groundswell of anti-immigration to even get them to discuss immigration. In spite of all the evidence world wide about the adverse effects of Islam. Young girls are the sacrificial lambs we are prepared to give for allowing muslim immigration.

Some people on here need to find out what is going on in the world.
France is finished. their birthrate is so low that there will be no
Frenchmen by 2060. Already the jews are leaving France.
Their current birthrate means that their population is beyond recovery.
Either the French will have to start killing Moslems or the Moslems will kill them.
Australia can expect over the next 30 years a flood of European refugees.
Australia could be one place where those refugees could come and
rebuild civilisation.

Now Suzie and company will be making horrified noises at that but
if you are not panicking then you do not understand the true situation.

It is not as if the Europeans were not warned, the Immans etc have
been telling moslems to migrate to the west for years.
What on earth do you think that was all about ?
France is at the point where if a civil war is not started very soon
then they might as well start packing up.
This is what they believe and this is what they are acting upon;
Quote
An Islamic State spokesman said it in September 2014: “O America,
O allies of America, and O crusaders, know that the matter is more
dangerous than you have imagined and greater than you have
envisioned….We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and
enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is
His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His
promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and
grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves
at the slave market.”

Islamic State
end quote

Bazz,
Aside from the recent attrosities in France and Belgum, There have been further mass rapes and sex attacks (gropings) at two large music festivals in Sweden. Just like Germany on NYE

Just what will the west tolerate before action is taken? One cannot believe the stupidity of Aussie politicians to not notice all the warning signs.

The fate that awaits Europe is the same as what happened to the Assyrians.
It can be seen in the DNA of the Syrians.
The chromosomes of the female line are Assyrian but the male DNA is Arab.
What does that tell you about the fate of the Assyrian men and the fate
of the Assyrian women.

Large parts of Europe have been occupied by moslems in historical times
and they want it back. Spain of course was occupied for hundreds of years.
Southern France was another victim and of course Vienna was
lucky not to be occupied, thanks to the Polish army.

The tactic of migration is working thanks to the useful idiots we
have running our governments. France is paying the price.
The Brexit was in part a realisation by the voters of what is
happening on the continent and they do not want it to get worse in the UK.
The British birthrate will have to increase significantly
if they are to survive however.

The only refugee innovation that should be taking place is for all of them to group up and take back their homelands. Unfortunately and undoubtedly that looks highly likely via conflict, war and outright violence to take back those lands and set them up for what the majority want in that homeland wherever it maybe. I"m sure the majority want peace and stability with respect for the rule of law in those lands.

IF they can achieve this without a lot of bloodshed and war, then good on them, but the way things are going today, I don't see any other way unfortunately with the likes of groups like ISIL.

If they don't do this, the problem will NEVER go away unless some massive war of apocalyptic proportions takes place in which case a drastic reduction in global population obviously occurs.

Too simplistic?? perhaps, but in a nutshell this is the way to permanently solve the problem.

Seriously, they can have all the democratic rights and privileges for a fair and just society in their own homelands IF they all work together. However they are still cursed with how to separate state from religion. Lucky for us today, our ancestors did this in the so called "dark" and middle ages for those of us from European descent.

They come to western democratic nations because the "hard work" has already be done in setting up these places so that the people already born or living there get to enjoy it's benefits. Sounds pretty obvious doesn't it?

Yes Rojanna it does sound simple.
What you are proposing would require them to reject sharia law and
the Koran. It just won't happen.
A civil war in France is almost certain.
The only thing that might prevent it is a realisation by the government
of what they are really facing. We hear all about the "moderate" moslems
and I am sure that there are some, but when push comes to shove they
will go along with the dictates of their religion.
They are basically tribal orientated which means they will follow the
more senior family members. Loyalty to country is not very deeply
embedded in moslems because countries are a fairly (in historical terms),
recent development for them.
Europeans have had some 1000 + years to shift from tribal loyalty
to national loyalty. The Arabs have really only had about 80 years
or so to develop national loyalty.
So the people of the middle east's only common loyalty is Islam which
was imposed on them by the Arabs.

So a Renaissance, which means a rebirth, is a long way off for the middle east.
Our politicians like in so many other fields are just sitting there
sucking their thumbs not wanting to act non PC and are afraid to call
a spade a bloody shovel.
They might, I say might, act if we have an attack here that kills a hundred.

Bazz, "We hear all about the "moderate" moslems
and I am sure that there are some, but when push comes to shove they
will go along with the dictates of their religion"

It is true to say that when charismatic Islamic 'scholars' (all self certified) challenge Muslims to 'prove' their faith, fundamentalism can be expected to kick in.

However, it is very difficult for Muslims of goodwill and Western educated to find their footing and have commonsense discussions with other Muslims and the broader community at large where they are being sledged and shut out of the public debate by the patronising, denialist, politically correct apologists on The Box and in the media generally (OLO too).

To add to my post, I have never seen any explanation apart from 'diversity' from the feds as to why in a buyers' market the Australian government would be giving preference to higher risk migrants. For example from countries where the population is strongly fundamentalist Islam. The UK Labour Party got its fingers badly burned with Pakistani (Kashmiri) men who dealt in drugs and sex trafficked children. The problems will carry on long after the responsible Labor politicians are dead.

There must be many thousands of young Germans, Swedes and others who now want to leave Angela Merkel's Germany and Europe, the UK too. Australia desperately needs the superior trades skills, especially in construction, from those countries.

Well OTB the Prime Minister laid it out quite clearly this morning.
Someone asked if the government would give preference to non moslem
migrants and his answer was clear.
Quote
Australia has always had a non discriminatory immigration policy and
it won't be changed.
unquote
The last five words may not be verbatim but the sense is accurate.
It was not a surprising answer as I know from personal contact that
Federal Ministers are simply out of touch with reality on several
different fields of government concern.

They are either ignorant of the true situation or they just do not
want acknowledge it, because it is non PC or they don't have a clue
what to do about it.
In one field I know they have been told by a government commission
and by a non government organisation both saying the same thing.
The government report was removed from the web site by PM's office
instruction. It escaped because a reporter for Le Monde downloaded
it during the night. I have a copy here.

So government is deliberately denying the public’s complaints for
not very good reasons.