Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[bulldogproud2]

Does the Convention state whether an intended refugee can choose where they want to claim status?
Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees, but I have no pity for queue jumpers that think they have any rights at all.
Here's a thought: bp2 and I talk to our Govt friends about beefing up the overseas "processing" assets to halve the waiting time for those that do the right thing and wait their turn, and how about if we were to double our "legitimate" intake (those who apply properly).
Would the Govt be able to take some moral high ground about their tough stance on the queue jumpers (which I believe is supported by the majority of Australians) or would the vocal minority still want anyone who tries to enter this country to be awarded refugee status?
BTW, anyone who overstays their visa should be deported whether they claim status or not. They lied to get in, they can suffer the consequences.

Dear Jimmy,
I would love to see a lot more asylum seekers enter Australia as well. I fully support you on that. However, what is 'doing the right thing'? There is no access to 'refugee camps' for people coming by boat. There is no such thing in their country or in neighbouring countries for them to go to. So, what are they supposed to do?? Travel to Africa?? Even when they get there, there is no 'process' which asylum seekers go through. Those who manage to come to Australia from refugee camps are not sent in order of arrival in the camp. I can only support your viewpoint if we allow those from refugee camps to be 'processed' in order of arrival. However, as you well know, this does not happen.

What I would like to see happen is 'processing centres' be established in Indonesia so that asylum seekers do not HAVE to travel by boat, taking their life into their own hands. By the way, when you say they pay a lot of money, they pay little. The average amount is less than $2 000 and this is normally put together by a family community to send ONE member out. On average, each person contributes about $100.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Does the Convention state whether an intended refugee can choose where they want to claim status?
Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees, but I have no pity for queue jumpers that think they have any rights at all.
Here's a thought: bp2 and I talk to our Govt friends about beefing up the overseas "processing" assets to halve the waiting time for those that do the right thing and wait their turn, and how about if we were to double our "legitimate" intake (those who apply properly).
Would the Govt be able to take some moral high ground about their tough stance on the queue jumpers (which I believe is supported by the majority of Australians) or would the vocal minority still want anyone who tries to enter this country to be awarded refugee status?
BTW, anyone who overstays their visa should be deported whether they claim status or not. They lied to get in, they can suffer the consequences.

The ones who overstay their visa tend to be those coming in by plane. There seems to be very little effort by the government in taking action against these. Quite possibly because the majority of these are from the UK and New Zealand. I hope that you don't support the viewpoint of Scott Morrison who seemed happy that an Indian man killed himself when he overstayed his visa. He showed no compassion at all for him. A very black moment for Australia!!

[bennymacca]

great posts bulldog, agree with everything you said.

if there was actually a queue for these people to jump i could get behind what you are saying. but there isnt.

and in terms of seeking asylum, they can do it in any country they wish (that are signatories)

please read this, from the governments own website no less. it seems like they are breaking a lot of these rules by processing people on manus island with no prospects for settlement in australia

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

[bulldogproud2]

great posts bulldog, agree with everything you said.

if there was actually a queue for these people to jump i could get behind what you are saying. but there isnt.

and in terms of seeking asylum, they can do it in any country they wish (that are signatories)

please read this, from the governments own website no less. it seems like they are breaking a lot of these rules by processing people on manus island with no prospects for settlement in australia

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

Yes, that is an excellent article. It proves that the government is aware there is no such thing as a queue and that the term 'illegal' is incorrect, except in the case of those who come by plane and overstay their visa. This, strangely enough, is the group that no one seems to be worried about taking action on. It also shows that only 1% of asylum seekers are settled every year, which is a crying shame globally.

[Jimmy_041]

Does the Convention state whether an intended refugee can choose where they want to claim status?
Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees, but I have no pity for queue jumpers that think they have any rights at all.
Here's a thought: bp2 and I talk to our Govt friends about beefing up the overseas "processing" assets to halve the waiting time for those that do the right thing and wait their turn, and how about if we were to double our "legitimate" intake (those who apply properly).
Would the Govt be able to take some moral high ground about their tough stance on the queue jumpers (which I believe is supported by the majority of Australians) or would the vocal minority still want anyone who tries to enter this country to be awarded refugee status?
BTW, anyone who overstays their visa should be deported whether they claim status or not. They lied to get in, they can suffer the consequences.

Dear Jimmy,
I would love to see a lot more asylum seekers enter Australia as well. I fully support you on that. However, what is 'doing the right thing'? There is no access to 'refugee camps' for people coming by boat. There is no such thing in their country or in neighbouring countries for them to go to. So, what are they supposed to do?? Travel to Africa?? Even when they get there, there is no 'process' which asylum seekers go through. Those who manage to come to Australia from refugee camps are not sent in order of arrival in the camp. I can only support your viewpoint if we allow those from refugee camps to be 'processed' in order of arrival. However, as you well know, this does not happen.

What I would like to see happen is 'processing centres' be established in Indonesia so that asylum seekers do not HAVE to travel by boat, taking their life into their own hands. By the way, when you say they pay a lot of money, they pay little. The average amount is less than $2 000 and this is normally put together by a family community to send ONE member out. On average, each person contributes about $100.

Cheers

No, you misread me again. I said refugees not asylum seekers. As I keep saying (and people keep ignoring) there is a major difference. Plus I've read that the 90% successful rate is misleading and that it is more like 84%. The problem with allowing asylum seekers to enter Australia is they believe that's it - they've done it. Why do you think they don't want to be sent offshore.

Attached is an application form for offshore humanitarian visa. The "process" is explained very well.
Agreed that there is no queue which is merely an expression for waiting for your application to be processed. There is a process that you must go through to get approved. Some of these people dont even have passports. You just want to let them in. The vast majority of Australians want them properly checked out.

Travel to Africa - no. Travel to the nearest safe country - yes. I don't doubt every asylum seeker wants to come here - nice beaches. But this isn't a tourism drive even though the snakeheads hand out brochures showing our beaches.

I think your numbers are a bit off - try $5k - $10k per person, and between $50k - $100k for a family to get here from Afghanistan.
And even $2k may not seem a lot of money to us, but it is in some countries. Wave $2k in the air in some countries and see how long you last.

Here's a couple of interesting articles from Crikey whom you can hardly call hardline:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/14/every-day-i-am-dying-here-why-asylum-seekers-turn-to-smugglers/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/13/inside-australias-waiting-room-why-they-board-boats-in-indonesia/

[Jimmy_041]

Does the Convention state whether an intended refugee can choose where they want to claim status?
Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees, but I have no pity for queue jumpers that think they have any rights at all.
Here's a thought: bp2 and I talk to our Govt friends about beefing up the overseas "processing" assets to halve the waiting time for those that do the right thing and wait their turn, and how about if we were to double our "legitimate" intake (those who apply properly).
Would the Govt be able to take some moral high ground about their tough stance on the queue jumpers (which I believe is supported by the majority of Australians) or would the vocal minority still want anyone who tries to enter this country to be awarded refugee status?
BTW, anyone who overstays their visa should be deported whether they claim status or not. They lied to get in, they can suffer the consequences.

The ones who overstay their visa tend to be those coming in by plane. There seems to be very little effort by the government in taking action against these. Quite possibly because the majority of these are from the UK and New Zealand. I hope that you don't support the viewpoint of Scott Morrison who seemed happy that an Indian man killed himself when he overstayed his visa. He showed no compassion at all for him. A very black moment for Australia!!

You obviously don't watch Border Security which shows they do chase over stayers, send them home, and they are banned from re-entering for 2 years.
Mr Morrison said the government ''expresses its sympathy to the family and friends of the deceased man and will provide support to the police and other authorities as appropriate to assist with their investigations''. He did make a stupid comment to Barrie Cassidy though.
Morrison is your whipping boy. He would have broken down crying and you people would have had a crack at him.
He probably has the toughest job in Australia at the moment.
I agree with the Govt not publishing details of asylum seekers.
If it stops or curtails people trying to get here, then do it.
Less deaths from drowning which is one thing everyone wants, isn't it?
The Labor Govt couldn't stop them - the last thing they want is this Govt to succeed.

[Jimmy_041]

great posts bulldog, agree with everything you said.

if there was actually a queue for these people to jump i could get behind what you are saying. but there isnt.

and in terms of seeking asylum, they can do it in any country they wish (that are signatories)

please read this, from the governments own website no less. it seems like they are breaking a lot of these rules by processing people on manus island with no prospects for settlement in australia

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

Yes, that is an excellent article. It proves that the government is aware there is no such thing as a queue and that the term 'illegal' is incorrect, except in the case of those who come by plane and overstay their visa. This, strangely enough, is the group that no one seems to be worried about taking action on. It also shows that only 1% of asylum seekers are settled every year, which is a crying shame globally.

I've read it before (and used one of the charts yesterday)
Make sure you read it all - not just what you want to read.

[bulldogproud2]

Does the Convention state whether an intended refugee can choose where they want to claim status?
Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees, but I have no pity for queue jumpers that think they have any rights at all.
Here's a thought: bp2 and I talk to our Govt friends about beefing up the overseas "processing" assets to halve the waiting time for those that do the right thing and wait their turn, and how about if we were to double our "legitimate" intake (those who apply properly).
Would the Govt be able to take some moral high ground about their tough stance on the queue jumpers (which I believe is supported by the majority of Australians) or would the vocal minority still want anyone who tries to enter this country to be awarded refugee status?
BTW, anyone who overstays their visa should be deported whether they claim status or not. They lied to get in, they can suffer the consequences.

Dear Jimmy,
I would love to see a lot more asylum seekers enter Australia as well. I fully support you on that. However, what is 'doing the right thing'? There is no access to 'refugee camps' for people coming by boat. There is no such thing in their country or in neighbouring countries for them to go to. So, what are they supposed to do?? Travel to Africa?? Even when they get there, there is no 'process' which asylum seekers go through. Those who manage to come to Australia from refugee camps are not sent in order of arrival in the camp. I can only support your viewpoint if we allow those from refugee camps to be 'processed' in order of arrival. However, as you well know, this does not happen.

What I would like to see happen is 'processing centres' be established in Indonesia so that asylum seekers do not HAVE to travel by boat, taking their life into their own hands. By the way, when you say they pay a lot of money, they pay little. The average amount is less than $2 000 and this is normally put together by a family community to send ONE member out. On average, each person contributes about $100.

Cheers

No, you misread me again. I said refugees not asylum seekers. As I keep saying (and people keep ignoring) there is a major difference. Plus I've read that the 90% successful rate is misleading and that it is more like 84%. The problem with allowing asylum seekers to enter Australia is they believe that's it - they've done it. Why do you think they don't want to be sent offshore.

Attached is an application form for offshore humanitarian visa. The "process" is explained very well.
Agreed that there is no queue which is merely an expression for waiting for your application to be processed. There is a process that you must go through to get approved. Some of these people dont even have passports. You just want to let them in. The vast majority of Australians want them properly checked out.

Travel to Africa - no. Travel to the nearest safe country - yes. I don't doubt every asylum seeker wants to come here - nice beaches. But this isn't a tourism drive even though the snakeheads hand out brochures showing our beaches.

I think your numbers are a bit off - try $5k - $10k per person, and between $50k - $100k for a family to get here from Afghanistan.
And even $2k may not seem a lot of money to us, but it is in some countries. Wave $2k in the air in some countries and see how long you last.

Here's a couple of interesting articles from Crikey whom you can hardly call hardline:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/14/every-day-i-am-dying-here-why-asylum-seekers-turn-to-smugglers/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/13/inside-australias-waiting-room-why-they-board-boats-in-indonesia/

Jimmy, an 'intended refugee' is an asylum seeker. The difference is that once it has been proven sufficiently that they have suffered persecution, they are granted refugee status. ALL refugees were asylum seekers prior to becoming a refugee.

As for travelling to the nearest safe country, from the tables you supplied you will see that the vast majority do. China and Yemen receive far more applications for asylum than Australia do yet we can afford to resettle them a lot more than those countries can. It is a total furphy to say that all asylum seekers want to come to Australia. As shown in your figures, we are number 47 on the list, way down the scale.
As for the costs, I do believe you will find I am correct. If you wish, contact the Jesuit Refugee Services and ask. Agreed, $2 000 is alot of money but remember that this is supplied in many cases by numerous people so that ONE person can gain refuge. On average, each person contributes nearer to $100.
I will look at the Crikey articles when I get a chance.
Cheers, my friend.

[bennymacca]

$2k is quite often a large proportion of their whole families net worth too, if not all of it.

[bulldogproud2]

Jimmy,

I read the Crikey articles and, yes, they do contain some interesting reading. As it says, most of the asylum seekers in Indonesia are illiterate. Therefore, they would have no hope of completing the application form if, indeed, they were able to access one.
Secondly, it quotes the cost as being between $4 000 and $7 000 in total. It must have gone up a little since I obtained my informaton. However, it is still way below the $10 000 - $20 000 that you often see quoted. Additionally, as Benny says, this is pretty much a whole family's net worth (and by family we mean extended family, quite often up to 20 people). As such, even at the top end of the price rainge, it would be a contribution of $350 per person.
Another point made in the article certainly supports the viewpoint that they are legitimate and are running for their life. They state that they would be killed if they remained where they were and would be even happier dying at sea than staying where they were.

Cheers

[Jimmy_041]

Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees into the country does not mean asylum seekers.
Refugees are not refugees until proven as such.

Of course they are going to state they fear for their lives.
They have to say that and they have been told to say that or it's no entry.
We have every right to investigate whether that is true or not.

I'm talking $5-6k per person to get here.
Allowing people to think they can easily get in is only fuelling the rip-off.
It doesn't matter if one or more people contribute.
If we let people think you can just jump on a boat and you get in, then it is just going to get worse.
Not accepting them in the country until they are processed and their claims to refugee status are justified will make people think twice about paying the money.
Publicizing that you are going to an offshore detention centre will make people think twice about trying.
Not publicizing boats landing here will make people think twice about trying.

I'm really not sure what you want - completely open borders?
If so, you are completely out of step with the majority of Australians.
Let's just scrap visas and let everyone in

And, sorry, (even if I sound like Scott Morrison) being illiterate, or not speaking English, is no excuse to avoid a country's laws.
If you want something bad enough, you'll find a way to fill in the form.

It still gets down to the promises made to these people to take their money and we should be doing everything to show those promises are false, and that's what we are doing.

[bennymacca]

So if they opened up a detention centre in Indonesia where all of these people could rock up and get processed, you would be happy with that? It would stop the boats...

[Jimmy_041]

No need for a detention centre unless the Indos want one
I have to have a passport and get a visa to go to Indonesia
Maybe they need to police their borders better instead of trying to put it all back on us

There is already a processing centre in Indonesia: http://www.indonesia.embassy.gov.au/jakt/home.html

[Q.]

It's not difficult to cross landlocked borders without a passport

[bennymacca]

Also, how do you apply for a passport? Typically you go to the local authority and apply for one correct? How do you do that if you are a barely illiterate hazara from Afghanistan that will likely be killed if you are identified?

[bulldogproud2]

Jimmy, my friend, please explain how a person becomes a refugee without being an asylum seeker. Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding on this one. You do not become a refugee unless you apply to become a refugee because you seek asylum. Thus, ALL refugees were asylum seekers at one time.
Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

Don't get me wrong - I actually believe in allowing more refugees into the country does not mean asylum seekers.
Refugees are not refugees until proven as such.

Of course they are going to state they fear for their lives.
They have to say that and they have been told to say that or it's no entry.
We have every right to investigate whether that is true or not.

I'm talking $5-6k per person to get here.
Allowing people to think they can easily get in is only fuelling the rip-off.
It doesn't matter if one or more people contribute.
If we let people think you can just jump on a boat and you get in, then it is just going to get worse.
Not accepting them in the country until they are processed and their claims to refugee status are justified will make people think twice about paying the money.
Publicizing that you are going to an offshore detention centre will make people think twice about trying.
Not publicizing boats landing here will make people think twice about trying.

I'm really not sure what you want - completely open borders?
If so, you are completely out of step with the majority of Australians.
Let's just scrap visas and let everyone in

And, sorry, (even if I sound like Scott Morrison) being illiterate, or not speaking English, is no excuse to avoid a country's laws.
If you want something bad enough, you'll find a way to fill in the form.

It still gets down to the promises made to these people to take their money and we should be doing everything to show those promises are false, and that's what we are doing.

Jimmy,
Re them stating that they are fearing for their lives, yes, they will tell the government that. However, why tell a journalist this if it is not true? The journalist has no say in their ability to get into Australia.
As for my views re letting asylum seekers in: I fully support processing. However, I do not think that they should have to wait 30 years to be processed! I think that they should be able to be fully processed within a six month period. I also support processing centres being established in Indonesia to lower the amount travelling by boats.
Not publicising the boats coming into Australia has very little, if any, impact on asylum seekers travelling to Australia. It is typhoon season currently and that is why there are very few boats coming. Wait until April and you will see that the boats have definitely not stopped.
From what you write, it always appears that Australia is being swamped by asylum seekers. Do not forget that we are 46th on the list. Surely, as a well developed nation, we should be doing more about this problem, should we not?

[Q.]

Not publicising the boats coming into Australia has very little, if any, impact on asylum seekers travelling to Australia.

That's because most come by plane.

[Jimmy_041]

Not publicising the boats coming into Australia has very little, if any, impact on asylum seekers travelling to Australia.

That's because most come by plane.

They all have visas Q - different problem

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy, my friend, please explain how a person becomes a refugee without being an asylum seeker. Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding on this one. You do not become a refugee unless you apply to become a refugee because you seek asylum. Thus, ALL refugees were asylum seekers at one time.
Cheers

Not arguing with that at all - totally agree

But not all asylum seekers are refugees - that is my point
You want to let all asylum seekers stay / I say let all the refugees stay
People keep thinking asylum seekers and refugees are the same - they are not.
How do you establish that you are a refugee? Go through the process.
You either do it in another country or here, but you have to prove your claim.
And if you do it here; don't expect 5 star treatment.