Australian Politics Forum - Australian "values"

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #900 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:00pm

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

Article 31 of the Convention states:
Quote:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Appears to me that detaining them is a penalty and a punishment, therefore illegal under the terms of the Convention. All of the Asylum Seekers do present themselves to the authorities upon arrival and attempt to show good cause for their entry or presence. Cheesy

They are not coming from the territory where they were threatened.

Country shoppers can be detained.

Not according to the Convention they can't. Nor are they "country shoppers", they are availing themselves of the first nation available to them that is a signatory of the convention. Attempting to claim asylum in a non-signatory nation is dangerous.

Why go to Indonesia voluntarily when there are plenty of full signatory countries within walking distance: Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbeg/Tadjik/Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey are all signatories of the convention.

Why do they fly to Indonesia or Malaysia, which are not, when they have full signatories next door?

Because they are country shoppers.

Quote:

I wonder though, why you only get upset about boat people? Three times as many Asylum Seekers apply at airports than at harbours. We have hundreds of thousands of real illegal immigrants and you say nothing. It's only people who arrive by boat who get you excited. I wonder why? Grin

We do not have 'hundreds of thousands'.
They are visa overstayers, that is, they entered on a visa but then breached its conditions. Once they are detected, they are deportable.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #901 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:07pm

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:

Returning for a moment to the original topic of the thread. What "Australian values" are being displayed when we duck out of our responsibilities under the UN Convention on Refugees, punish Asylum Seekers for asking Asylum and create disincentives to stop them doing is?

Grendel? Soren? Any attempt to answer the question? Grin

What "Australian values" are being displayed?

Not being easily taken in by BS.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139030
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #902 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:09pm

Grendel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:43am:

You'll deny it but many are simply country shoppers... they should all be deported back.

These are the facts:

"Overwhelming majority of boat arrivals deemed to be refugees"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/overwhelming-majority-of-b...

"More than 90 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat were found to be genuine refugees in the March quarter, figures to be released on Monday show. But those who arrived by plane - despite being eligible for release into the community and not having to face years of detention on Nauru or Manus Island - were almost twice as likely to be rejected as refugees."

Back to top

IP Logged

Sparky Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1338 Gender:	Re: Australian "values" Reply #903 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:14pm Maybe if these refugee countries had values like Australians they wouldn't be wanting to leave.
Back to top	IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #904 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:20pm

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

Article 31 of the Convention states:
Quote:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Appears to me that detaining them is a penalty and a punishment, therefore illegal under the terms of the Convention. All of the Asylum Seekers do present themselves to the authorities upon arrival and attempt to show good cause for their entry or presence. Cheesy

They are not coming from the territory where they were threatened.

Country shoppers can be detained.

Not according to the Convention they can't. Nor are they "country shoppers", they are availing themselves of the first nation available to them that is a signatory of the convention. Attempting to claim asylum in a non-signatory nation is dangerous.

Why go to Indonesia voluntarily when there are plenty of full signatory countries within walking distance: Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbeg/Tadjik/Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey are all signatories of the convention.

Depends on which country you're fleeing from, doesn't it? You are also hardly likely to flee to a nation which is currently in turmoil. Nor are you going to flee to a country where you are likely to also be persecuted for the same reason why you're fleeing your home nation, now are you? So, if you're fleeing religious persecution you're highly unlikely to want to go to an even more conservative and reactionary religious nation such as Iran. Nor are you likely to flee to the Central Asian republics if you're being persecuted for your political beliefs. As most roads lead out of Afghanistan to Pakistan, you'd go there but as it is not a signatory, then you are no safer.

Quote:

Why do they fly to Indonesia or Malaysia, which are not, when they have full signatories next door?

Because you're making very childish assumptions, thats why. Cheesy

Quote:

I wonder though, why you only get upset about boat people? Three times as many Asylum Seekers apply at airports than at harbours. We have hundreds of thousands of real illegal immigrants and you say nothing. It's only people who arrive by boat who get you excited. I wonder why? Grin

We do not have 'hundreds of thousands'.
They are visa overstayers, that is, they entered on a visa but then breached its conditions. Once they are detected, they are deportable.

They are still illegal immigrants if they overstay their visas. That they do so deliberately makes them far worse than an Asylum Seeker who applies for Asylum directly to the authorities don't you think? Oh, sorry, you don't think, do you? You merely react like all Xenophobes! Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139030
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #905 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:30pm

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

They are still illegal immigrants if they overstay their visas. That they do so deliberately makes them far worse than an Asylum Seeker who applies for Asylum directly to the authorities don't you think?

Exactly.

"THERE are enough illegal immigrants living in Australia to fill a large regional city, and nearly all of these 58,400 people arrive by plane.

"There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6fr...

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #906 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:39pm

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

They are still illegal immigrants if they overstay their visas. That they do so deliberately makes them far worse than an Asylum Seeker who applies for Asylum directly to the authorities don't you think? Oh, sorry, you don't think, do you? You merely react like all Xenophobes!

[mod edit: see how your post actually looks sensible without the smilies at the end?]

Visa overstayers are not illegal immigrants - they have no claim of any sort to settlement. When they are found, they are sent home.

As to choosing non-signatory Indonesia or Malaysia, the only reason they do it is to then pay people smugglers to bring theme to Oz where they expect to be settled - not merely protected, but settled. Only that is worth all that money and risk. Protection isn't. Mere protection can be had in any number of countries much closer to home, free of charge.

This is why they are not refugees: they are not interested in refuge, they are only interested in permanent settlement. People interested in permanent settlement are called immigrants. But these people could not legally migrate to Australia as they have nothing to offer this country and so they would not meet the requirements for legal immigration.

The Convention obliges us to give them refugee, not permanent settlement. This is the sticking point.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139030
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #907 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:45pm

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

They are still illegal immigrants if they overstay their visas. That they do so deliberately makes them far worse than an Asylum Seeker who applies for Asylum directly to the authorities don't you think? Oh, sorry, you don't think, do you? You merely react like all Xenophobes!

[mod edit: see how your post actually looks sensible without the smilies at the end?]

Visa overstayers are not illegal immigrants - they have no claim of any sort to settlement. When they are found, they are sent home.

"Overstayers and Other Unlawful Non-citizens:

"Many people who are recorded as overstayers are simply extending their stay in Australia by a few days or weeks, and leave of their own accord within a short period. Others overstay for a longer period, for example, out of a desire to live and work in Australia.

"These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status."

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/86overstayers-and-other-unlawful-non-ci...

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139030 Gender:	Re: Australian "values" Reply #908 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 2:57pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #909 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 3:04pm

Soren wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

They are still illegal immigrants if they overstay their visas. That they do so deliberately makes them far worse than an Asylum Seeker who applies for Asylum directly to the authorities don't you think? Oh, sorry, you don't think, do you? You merely react like all Xenophobes!

[mod edit: see how your post actually looks sensible without the smilies at the end?]

Visa overstayers are not illegal immigrants - they have no claim of any sort to settlement. When they are found, they are sent home.

Visa overstayers have broken immigration laws, being here illegally. Asylum Seekers are not here illegally and have broken no immigration laws by claiming Asylum.

Quote:

As to choosing non-signatory Indonesia or Malaysia, the only reason they do it is to then pay people smugglers to bring theme to Oz where they expect to be settled - not merely protected, but settled. Only that is worth all that money and risk. Protection isn't. Mere protection can be had in any number of countries much closer to home, free of charge.

No it can't. If those nations are not signatories, then there is no guarantee of protection. If those nations are signatories but still engage in religious/political persecution then there is no guarantee of protection.

Quote:

This is why they are not refugees: they are not interested in refuge, they are only interested in permanent settlement.

There is a problem with that? If you're fleeing for your life, you are hardly likely to ever return to your home nation, now are you?

Quote:

People interested in permanent settlement are called immigrants. But these people could not legally migrate to Australia as they have nothing to offer this country and so they would not meet the requirements for legal immigration.

They cannot legally migrate because they cannot do so from their home countries, which is the first requirement under Australian migration regulations.

Quote:

The Convention obliges us to give them refugee, not permanent settlement. This is the sticking point.

The Convention requires that we not punish or place disincentives in their path to prevent them from claiming Asylum. We have consistently done both in the last ~15 years. We have not kept to our obligations under the Convention, only a fool would attempt to claim otherwise. We already know you're a fool! Thanks for confirming it. Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: Australian "values" Reply #910 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:21pm ahh dear me... values?? ethics?? morals?? such as??? there IS a duty of care that ALL civilised beings have... it isn't that hard really, .. to act for the benefit of others.+
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Australian "values" Reply #911 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 8:51pm \|dev\|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 3:04pm: The Convention requires that we not punish or place disincentives in their path to prevent them from claiming Asylum. They are not punished for or discouraged from claiming asylum.
Back to top	IP Logged

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: Australian "values" Reply #912 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 9:36pm utter crap Soren... this sort of shite is what got Abbott and fellow crims into power... yep ...... mugs like you.
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #913 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 9:42pm

|dev|null wrote on Dec 16^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:

Returning for a moment to the original topic of the thread. What "Australian values" are being displayed when we duck out of our responsibilities under the UN Convention on Refugees, punish Asylum Seekers for asking Asylum and create disincentives to stop them doing is?

Grendel? Soren? Any attempt to answer the question? Grin

I don't really come here to answer questions that are 1/self evident or 2/ asked by idiots who say they are just here to mock others.

According to you Jnr we don't have a culture we don't have cultural values or any values apparently... so you question is just a tad moot isn't it. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Australian "values"
Reply #914 - Dec 16^th, 2013 at 9:46pm

Article 31 of the Convention states:
Quote:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their

illegal entry

or presence.

Of course ILLEGAL ENTRY etc is mentioned several times in Article 31... you failed to quote it all.
So I guess they are after all ILLEGAL ENTRANTS after all eh...

Squirm, squirm, twist, twist, another foot with a hole shot in it. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged