Are you 'comfortable' with Australia's handling of Tamil asylum seekers at sea?

[Xenon4017]

If Harpo accepts and it is found you have no ground for any further leave to remain, you promise to go for real?

 

I'm not prejudicing whether he (or you) would grant a visa or not. But I can provide genuine details for a "grey area" case that highlights why it isn't so cut and dried as most people think.

 

Where am I supposed to go? The case isn't about me personally, but I've conducted interviews with the person concerned.

[flag of convenience]

I've said numerous times how I'd do it! You just choose to regard it as a non option, thereby indicating your bias

 

Hardwired and hoodwinked, to only visualise particular posts that attempt to reconfirm their misguided take on the topic.

[Danny842003]

One of the biggest rr groups of people coming at the present time according to reports is afghans.

Now after spending a fairly substantial amount of time in Afghanistan with the threat posed by IEDs, UXO and lost and unmarked mine fields everyone in that country could claim there life is in danger.

Does that mean that everyone could leave the country and expect asylum?

[Xenon4017]

One of the biggest rr groups of people coming at the present time according to reports is afghans.

Now after spending a fairly substantial amount of time in Afghanistan with the threat posed by IEDs, UXO and lost and unmarked mine fields everyone in that country could claim there life is in danger.

Does that mean that everyone could leave the country and expect asylum?

 

And therein lies one of the grey areas. Namely, should there be a list of "hot places" that get's you higher up the ladder? A sort of points test, if you will. FWIW, parts of rural Afghanistan are probably safer than Berkshire.

[Danny842003]

Hardwired and hoodwinked, to only visualise particular posts that attempt to reconfirm their misguided take on the topic.

 

I don't know why you have quoted this again when even Harpodom has accepted it's an invalid comment since then. I have zero bias I just do not see an easy solution to the problem.

[Danny842003]

And therein lies one of the grey areas. Namely, should there be a list of "hot places" that get's you higher up the ladder? A sort of points test, if you will. FWIW, parts of rural Afghanistan are probably safer than Berkshire.

 

That is not my personal experience at all.

[flag of convenience]

Christine Milne reminds me of a little poodle. A very small dog yapping loudly.

 

Considering they only won one seat at the election they sure have a lot to say.

 

Well in the doggy parliament, I'd sooner have a poodle yapping than the doggies in position bellowing.

[Xenon4017]

>>FWIW, parts of rural Afghanistan are probably safer than Berkshire

 

That is not my personal experience at all.

 

Have you been to Slough recently?

[flag of convenience]

you say they haven't commuted a crime but is that true? Many of them arn't genuine asylum seekers they are economic migrants trying to beat the system. Is applying for asylum under such terms not fraud?

I think you misunderstood my point about don't just say treated with dignity. My point is how is this achieved without just letting everyone onshore to then abscond? this is what happens in the UK.

 

You our also said in an earlier post my comments indicate some form of bias. Again totally unfounded I'm not even a resident and my wife to be is the daughter of boat people.

 

Firstly few abscond. We are not in UK where different measures and situations occur. If as you claim your wife to be was a boat person, (UK possibly of Vietnamese origin, perhaps) It could be assumed you would take a little more enlightened view of the matter being discussed in the Australian context.

 

I would also be delighted to learn how you are able to ascertain from your great distance as well, as to the status of those in Australia in search of asylum? Such powers of detection the service would likely snap you up.

[Parley]

They do sometimes murder people or set fire to themselves going on recent news reports.

[flag of convenience]

The problem is that how do you objectively determine if someone's life is under threat? Or that they're being persecuted? That's the tricky part that Harpedom can't get to grips with. Very often, you rely on uncorroborated testimony. And those who seek to cheat the system know this.

 

That's why there is a system in place to oversee those not judged in need of asylum. It follows UNHCR guidelines. Of course it is not fool prove. Is any part of the legal system? How many innocent are locked away? The process leans on giving the benefit of doubt on occasions and there are arguments with regards to tightening certain criteria but that's an issue for others to discuss. For the moment our argument is to follow the law as it stands and not how government would like it to be.

 

Once a government starts cherry picking which International Agreements and laws in general to follow we have the potential to all be in trouble.

[Skani]

Christine Milne reminds me of a little poodle. A very small dog yapping loudly.

 

Considering they only won one seat at the election they sure have a lot to say.

 

You are confused: the poodle is Christopher Pyne...a "mincing poodle" to be more precise.

 

The difference is that her IQ is light years ahead of his. And the integrity to match.

 

They have 10 in the federal parliament.

[flag of convenience]

What Harpo and Flag don't understand or acknowledge is that their softly softly approach would lead to a massive influx of boats worse than what occurred under Labor.

 

They would be arriving every day and thousands would die each year on the journey.

 

We absolutely need a harsh approach that will deter boats as much as possible, while continuing to take refugees through the correct channels from the international camps.

 

What the reffo kickers don't understand is if a proper policy was in place the situation would never have escalated to such an extent. We do not need jackboot policy on folk that have broken no law we need policy. You never did explain the ALP was forces to abort the Malaysia Plan, due to Abbott's/Morrison's concern for the well being of potential asylum seekers sent there? Or the wastage of tax payers funds in maintain the facilities ready for use.

 

Nor the reduction in numbers, quite considerable by present government in intake nor the floundering in policy that has brought Australia's name in the matter into repute. I could go on but you well know the repulsion of such policy and those in support of even tougher policy.

[Parley]

Not a very nice insult from Julia as she was implying that Christopher Pyne is gay.

 

He is a family man, but even if he was gay, not something to make a joke about.

 

But okay I'll need to find a new dog metaphor for Christine.

[flag of convenience]

Another without the cojones to give it a go then.

 

The case I was going to present represents a genuine case of someone I knew. Lovely guy, but bogus. Well, partially bogus. I'm happy to divulge the gist of it if you want.

 

The thing is, you think you've got an answer, but it wouldn't stand up to the rigors of practical application. I'd like to demonstrate to you why this is, but you refuse to participate.

 

I'm not paid to have the answer, but have offered numerous options. Go ahead and write your game play situation and I will pass comment id consider appropriate. .

[Xenon4017]

That's why there is a system in place to oversee those not judged in need of asylum. It follows UNHCR guidelines. Of course it is not fool prove. Is any part of the legal system? How many innocent are locked away? The process leans on giving the benefit of doubt on occasions and there are arguments with regards to tightening certain criteria but that's an issue for others to discuss. For the moment our argument is to follow the law as it stands and not how government would like it to be.

 

Another golden nugget on an otherwise pebble beach of a thread.

 

The UNHCR gives guidelines, but they're open to interpretation. They don't really form the basis of a law themselves. Those guidelines are applied to cases, and those cases set the precedent upon which subsequent cases will be judged. Ultimately, most cases hinge on whether the assessor has the opinion that a certain persons' life is at risk or not. And very often the opinion is not based upon corroborated evidence. It can cut both ways, sending the vulnerable back to danger and allowing the fraudsters to stay.

 

While we seem to have the thread on an even keel, here is a question.

 

Regardless of what other posters may say, it isn't a crime to claim asylum. You can do it, so can I. We're just lucky we've never needed to. Also, it's not a crime to pass through other countries without claiming it, and then to go on to claim it here.

 

But, given that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they initially lodge their claim, do you think the applicant also has the right to choose in which country they are eventually settled? (Assuming their claim is genuine, obviously).

[flag of convenience]

Hundreds of people drowned because of the previous Government's policies. How could the situation be better if the Abbott Government had continued the same way?

 

I don't understand why any person who makes any sort of attempt to come to Australia illlegally should be automatically assumed to be a bona fida refugee?

 

Hundreds have indeed drowned and dies horrible deaths in camps due to government policies. But don't blame the Australian one alone. USA, UK ,France and many more all led to the de stabilization process.

 

No body does come to Australia illegally if pleading asylum.

[flag of convenience]

One of the biggest rr groups of people coming at the present time according to reports is afghans.

Now after spending a fairly substantial amount of time in Afghanistan with the threat posed by IEDs, UXO and lost and unmarked mine fields everyone in that country could claim there life is in danger.

Does that mean that everyone could leave the country and expect asylum?

 

No because a particular minority group is singled out there and judged to be in need of protection.

[flag of convenience]

And therein lies one of the grey areas. Namely, should there be a list of "hot places" that get's you higher up the ladder? A sort of points test, if you will. FWIW, parts of rural Afghanistan are probably safer than Berkshire.

 

As bad as parts of Berkshire is claimed on here at times, I would find it hardly believable that a pacific group is being targeted due to their ethnicity. Gosh hope your role plat had a little more substance than such an analogy.

[flag of convenience]

I don't know why you have quoted this again when even Harpodom has accepted it's an invalid comment since then. I have zero bias I just do not see an easy solution to the problem.

 

It's not all about you or even referring to you. Not sure why you thought it was to be honest? A purely general comment, on the level of repetitive regurgitation of posts by certain posters. Fully anticipated and hardly an issue of any great significance though. It is a forum after all.

[Parley]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-10/clarke-and-dawe-proudly-australian/5587766

[flag of convenience]

Another golden nugget on an otherwise pebble beach of a thread.

 

The UNHCR gives guidelines, but they're open to interpretation. They don't really form the basis of a law themselves. Those guidelines are applied to cases, and those cases set the precedent upon which subsequent cases will be judged. Ultimately, most cases hinge on whether the assessor has the opinion that a certain persons' life is at risk or not. And very often the opinion is not based upon corroborated evidence. It can cut both ways, sending the vulnerable back to danger and allowing the fraudsters to stay.

 

While we seem to have the thread on an even keel, here is a question.

 

Regardless of what other posters may say, it isn't a crime to claim asylum. You can do it, so can I. We're just lucky we've never needed to. Also, it's not a crime to pass through other countries without claiming it, and then to go on to claim it here.

 

But, given that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they initially lodge their claim, do you think the applicant also has the right to choose in which country they are eventually settled? (Assuming their claim is genuine, obviously).

 

No they are obliged under law to seek asylum in a country that is signatory to The Agreement. Highly questionable off shore processing as neither country Nauru nor PNG as have admitted have the facilities nor even process in place to take refugees on a long term let alone permanent basis. The process with their inclusion in The Agreement was purely an attempt to get around UNHCR requirements by Australia.

 

Processing is fraught with difficulties but a process guidelines are in place and can be corrupted by either the assessor or interviewer. The level and quality of interpretation also highly important.

[flag of convenience]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-10/clarke-and-dawe-proudly-australian/5587766

 

Yep. Good one. Takes A Kiwi to show it for what is it though.

[Xenon4017]

But, given that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they initially lodge their claim, do you think the applicant also has the right to choose in which country they are eventually settled? (Assuming their claim is genuine, obviously).

[Guest]

Because waiting in a camp is often a life sentence. (not purely years)The numbers that are selected are less than 1% each year. Shows a bit if initiative I'd say as well, although hardly grounds for the need of asylum. That's for the legal process to decide.

We need to do more to resettle the people waiting in camps much quicker by we i mean the world as a whole. My sons girlfriend was born in a camp so i do have a small idea of what a camp is like from what she's told us. They waited for nearly ten years to be resettled here. They had no other option but to wait.