How the UK sees rudds decision.

[Flathead]

As I have stated while Australia ranks highly in the intake of those selective as refugees, those numbers pale when asylums seekers are included in the number crunching. While countries like Malta for example do not take refugees they on a population and economic basis they receive many more asylum seekers who go onto stay.

The same applies to many countries. Hence Australia is not high up in total intake when asylum seekers are factored in.

Don't let facts get in the way of defensiveness

[Skani]

Oh dear Skani, you can't bring facts and figures into his threads, especially not ones that may be genuine

 

No - disgraceful bullying behaviour, isn't it? Some people never learn. :wink:

[Flathead]

No - disgraceful bullying behaviour, isn't it? Some people never learn. :wink:

Some people have seen the way some posters have used 'facts' in the past

[Freckleface]

Personally I couldn't care less how the UK views this, or any other, decision Aust makes.

[Parley]

Personally I couldn't care less how the UK views this, or any other, decision Aust makes.

 

Good point Freckleface

[Skani]

While countries like Malta for example do not take refugees they on a population and economic basis they receive many more asylum seekers who go onto stay.

 

 

Yes...and this is causing great problems. They've just had their fingers slapped for wanting to fly them back to their African countries of origin.

[Skani]

Personally I couldn't care less how the UK views this, or any other, decision Aust makes.

 

Me neither. I was trying to guide PB to a little bit of reality. Lost cause...I know. :wacko:

[Perthbum]

Personally I couldn't care less how the UK views this, or any other, decision Aust makes.

If every civilised country thought like this we would be in the shite, just one persons opinion that don't mean much like the next s persons, governments have to abide my certain rules if they want to trade with each other.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Perthbum

[flag of convenience]

Why on earth would any country accept asylum seekers if they are not genuine refugees ?

 

You still don't get it do you? An asylum seeker is someone in search of refuge but has not been classified as a refugee. For someone to get recognition as a refugee they must meet UNHCR guide lines.

 

An Asylum Seeker arrives in say Malta, if judged by the guide lines set by United Nations and have signed the convention then Malta is obliged under law to accept the landed asylum seekers as refugees.

 

If they do not meet criteria they will be deported back either to country of embarkation or home country.

 

The two are Not the same.

[flag of convenience]

If every civilised country thought like this we would be in the shite, just one persons opinion that don't mean much like the next s persons, governments have to abide my certain rules if they want to trade with each other.

 

If every country attempted to get around an international law they are signed we'd all be shite as well. Government would be even less trusted.

 

As I said on another post how people like asylum seekers are treated is akin to how government would like to treat its own citizens.

[flag of convenience]

Yes...and this is causing great problems. They've just had their fingers slapped for wanting to fly them back to their African countries of origin.

 

And Malta on a population and wealth basis has reason to complain of the burden placed on that nation. The EU could indeed offer assistance in resettlement.

[flag of convenience]

Personally I couldn't care less how the UK views this, or any other, decision Aust makes.

 

Sadly Australia needs the outside world more than the world needs Australia. As such Australia is very conscious of how it is seen abroad. While short term political gain may be the flavour of the moment such concerns will no doubt become paramount again after the election.

[flag of convenience]

No - disgraceful bullying behaviour, isn't it? Some people never learn. :wink:

 

Only part of the story ..

[Guest]

Personally I couldn't care less how the UK views this, or any other, decision Aust makes.

 

That's the way. Australia should continue to live in a self-contented bubble of smugness, safe in it's assumed superiority over the rest of the world. Don't let anyone force you to look at yourselves critically, why, that'd be un​Australian.

[Guest]

Sadly Australia needs the outside world more than the world needs Australia. As such Australia is very conscious of how it is seen abroad. While short term political gain may be the flavour of the moment such concerns will no doubt become paramount again after the election.

 

Not sure if I agree there FOC. I wonder whether in light of Australia's enormous superiority over the rest of the world in terms of mineral wealth, ingenuity, controlled banking, work-life balance and levels of humility, whether it needs the rest of the world at all. Maybe Australia is the world, so to speak. A compendium of all that is good about the world, without the crap bits like recessions, environmental issues and racial tensions. A bit like Narnia, (well hey, the witch is gone right?) but with BBQs.

[littlefoot]

Personally I couldn't care less how the UK views this, or any other, decision Aust makes.

 

Maybe not the UK specifically, but Australia is part of a bunch of international conventions and has obligations under them (and rightly so). Whether you could care less about how countries outside of Australia visa Australian decisions is irrelevant to the fact that Australia is part of a global community and cannot act independently to laws and policies it has previously agreed to.

 

Rudd's decision to defy Australia's obligations to refugees is a case in point; the Australian government's obligations go beyond domestic politics.

Edited July 28, 2013 by littlefoot

[Guest The Ropey HOFF]

It's just been on sky news that the figures of those coming into the UK are all over the place, apparently they have no idea of who's here and the numbers are impossible to calculate, one MP said Disneyland has a better checking system in place. Lol

 

Why can't Australia just not really care or bother like we don't in the UK?

[Parley]

Maybe not the UK specifically, but Australia is part of a bunch of international conventions and has obligations under them (and rightly so). Whether you could care less about how countries outside of Australia visa Australian decisions is irrelevant to the fact that Australia is part of a global community and cannot act independently to laws and policies it has previously agreed to.

 

Rudd's decision to defy Australia's obligations to refugees is a case in point; the Australian government's obligations go beyond domestic politics.

 

Rudd has done nothing of the sort.

Until people are proven to be refugees they have no right of resettlement. And where does it say we have to resettle asylum seekers in Australia.

We take very large numbers from elsewhere, people from camps who should be given preference over these illegal boat arrivals.

 

Also the first priority of a sovereign nation is to protect its borders and its citizens.

Rudd is doing this (or trying to anyway), as will Abbott when/if he becomes PM.

[Parley]

You still don't get it do you? An asylum seeker is someone in search of refuge but has not been classified as a refugee. For someone to get recognition as a refugee they must meet UNHCR guide lines.

 

An Asylum Seeker arrives in say Malta, if judged by the guide lines set by United Nations and have signed the convention then Malta is obliged under law to accept the landed asylum seekers as refugees.

 

If they do not meet criteria they will be deported back either to country of embarkation or home country.

 

The two are Not the same.

 

Exactly if they are not a genuine refugee there is no reason for them to be accepted by anyone.

I see nothing wrong with detaining them offshore until there refugee status is proven.

 

All a refugee should care about is being resettled away from their persecutors, so it doesn't have to be Australia.

As you reluctantly acknowledged Australia does take a very high number of refugees.

 

But there is no reason why these boat arrivals should be given preference to others who have done the right thing and have waited in camps in the region.

[Parley]

The first duty of any country is to protect its borders and its people.

[littlefoot]

Rudd has done nothing of the sort.

 

Yes he has, and in a number of different ways. Like it or not, Australia has an obligation to abide by the UN Convention on the protection of refugees - Rudd said so himself back in 2006. Rudd's new policy clearly discriminates against people who are arriving by boat (which is a perfectly legal way to arrive if you're seeking asylum, as I'm sure you're aware). The Convention explicitly denies signatory governments the right to act in this way, so Rudd is in breach there.

 

The convention also requires that no refugee is expelled on entry to a contracted country unless they are seen as an issue of national security or a danger to public order. Those arriving by boat are clearly neither. Australia has a duty to deal with refugees which arrive on its shored (or in its waters) and expelling them elsewhere is in breach of the rules Australia have signed up to uphold.

 

Australia also has an obligation to "facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation" of refugees. Dumping then in PNG isn't doing so.

 

There are also very sound arguments as to why PNG does not meet the standards of the UN Convention when it comes to asylum seekers.

 

These points are not exhaustive. Rudd's policy, to my mind, is in clear violation of Australia's commitments and is morally bankrupt.

 

Until people are proven to be refugees they have no right of resettlement. And where does it say we have to resettle asylum seekers in Australia.

 

You need to read this, because so far you've been wrong on just about every point you've made.

 

We take very large numbers from elsewhere

 

No, Australia does not.

 

people from camps who should be given preference over these illegal boat arrivals.

 

Boat arrivals are not illegal, and there is no provision in law for your point.

 

It's as plain as day to anyone willing/able to put aside their political bias, that Rudd is forsaking his legal and moral obligations to try and score points with the vocal minority whose dubious prejudices don't really have any place in a civilised, 21st century society.

Edited July 28, 2013 by littlefoot

[flag of convenience]

Yes he has, and in a number of different ways. Like it or not, Australia has an obligation to abide by the UN Convention on the protection of refugees - Rudd said so himself back in 2006. Rudd's new policy clearly discriminates against people who are arriving by boat (which is a perfectly legal way to arrive if you're seeking asylum, as I'm sure you're aware). The Convention explicitly denies signatory governments the right to act in this way, so Rudd is in breach there.

 

The convention also requires that no refugee is expelled on entry to a contracted country unless they are seen as an issue of national security or a danger to public order. Those arriving by boat are clearly neither. Australia has a duty to deal with refugees which arrive on its shored (or in its waters) and expelling them elsewhere is in breach of the rules Australia have signed up to uphold.

 

Australia also has an obligation to "facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation" of refugees. Dumping then in PNG isn't doing so.

 

There are also very sound arguments as to why PNG does not meet the standards of the UN Convention when it comes to asylum seekers.

 

These points are not exhaustive. Rudd's policy, to my mind, is in clear violation of Australia's commitments and is morally bankrupt.

 

 

 

You need to read this, because so far you've been wrong on just about every point you've made.

 

 

 

No, Australia does not.

 

 

 

Boat arrivals are not illegal, and there is no provision in law for your point.

 

It's as plain as day to anyone willing/able to put aside their political bias, that Rudd is forsaking his legal and moral obligations to try and score points with the vocal minority whose dubious prejudices don't really have any place in a civilised, 21st century society.

 

Another point about Australia's resettlement is that unlike other refugee settlement countries, for every asylum seeker found to be a refugee and as such given leave to remain, a place overseas is lost to an UNHCR refugee. Australia to my knowledge is the only country to do this.

[CrozierFamily]

It appears to me that this thread is a decent example of how the assylum seeker issue is playing out in the wider world. What I mean by that is you have a majority of people who feel the current system is wrong, and a lot of people are abusing it and want to see change. On the other side you have a very vocal minority of individuals who have a great deal to say about why places like Australia and UK should just let anyone in who manages to get to their shores.

 

My personal view on this is that really Australia should not have many true assylum seekers, because to get to Australia many of the people in these boats have passed places like Japan, China, Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam etc etc etc. Why is it if they were seeking assylum that they didn't go to those places? The answer, is because they are a in a large proportion a group of chancers, who are economic migrants seeking a back door in.

 

The majority of people in the UK are sick of this abuse of the system. I would imagine decent tax paying individuals feel the same in Australia.

 

You are always going to get the bleeding heart dafties and their extremist views on this issue. They are of course incredibly vocal, and love to throw accusations of racism and the rest to anyone who doesn't share their view, but the reality is that the majority of people are fed up with immigration abuse. Something has to be done and I for one congratulate Australia for taking a proactive stance on the subject.

[flag of convenience]

Exactly if they are not a genuine refugee there is no reason for them to be accepted by anyone.

I see nothing wrong with detaining them offshore until there refugee status is proven.

 

All a refugee should care about is being resettled away from their persecutors, so it doesn't have to be Australia.

As you reluctantly acknowledged Australia does take a very high number of refugees.

 

But there is no reason why these boat arrivals should be given preference to others who have done the right thing and have waited in camps in the region.

 

No they enter as an asylum seeker to seek refuge which is their right. If judged to be a refugee they have the right to remain. We go around the bush discussing this as the law and right of entry is clear.

You may wish it to be something else but it is what it is until changed.

[littlefoot]

On the other side you have a very vocal minority of individuals who have a great deal to say about why places like Australia and UK should just let anyone in who manages to get to their shores.

 

Could you give me an example of where anyone here has said that?

 

Part of the problem is that people who hold the kind of position you do frequently fail to grasp the other side of the argument, and misrepresent it in the way you just have. I'm not sure why it's the case that the most intolerant also seem to be the ones who struggle to understand any opposing position, but there it is.

 

The majority of people, at least in the UK, have concerns about the extent of immigration within the context that the government needs greater awareness and control of the issue, but it is not the case that the majority are 'sick of the abuse'. In reality, the British public as a whole have a sensible, balanced approach to this issue.