Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[sptrawler]

They are arguably violating article 33 of the UN refugee convention (of which Australia is a signatory). As I mentioned before one reason for all the secrecy is the Government probably thinks there's a good chance they would lose if this went to court (the High Court has ruled against the Government on issues related to refugees quite a lot lately).

The problem is 'arguably' is in itself arguable, therefore pretty unconvincing.

The real problem is, the flood of dubious asylum seekers, has caused a distrust of genuine refugees.

 

[banco]

Banco it's hard to believe that anyone in his right mind would want to encourage illegal immigrants. Besides being an Abbott hater why is it that you are whining about us not taking orders from the UNHCR kangaroo court which is stacked with mainly undemocratic countries or dictatorships. We can rightly tell them to butt out.

As I said if Australia no longer wants to follow the refugee convention Abbott should have the coverage of his convictions to withdraw. UNHCR doesn't give anyone orders. Sounds like something you from a chain email.

 

[Julia]

They are arguably violating article 33 of the UN refugee convention (of which Australia is a signatory). As I mentioned before one reason for all the secrecy is the Government probably thinks there's a good chance they would lose if this went to court (the High Court has ruled against the Government on issues related to refugees quite a lot lately).

I'm prepared to be corrected, via the appropriate evidence, but I would doubt that adhering to the UN refugee convention, something which is entirely voluntary on the part of any country, is the same as adhering to 'international law' as quoted by IFocus.

Australia can easily just withdraw from the UNHCR. I doubt any country can just 'withdraw' from any international law.

 

[banco]

I'm prepared to be corrected, via the appropriate evidence, but I would doubt that adhering to the UN refugee convention, something which is entirely voluntary on the part of any country, is the same as adhering to 'international law' as quoted by IFocus.

Australia can easily just withdraw from the UNHCR. I doubt any country can just 'withdraw' from any international law.

You are way off. Once you're a signatory to a treaty you are obliged to adhere to it (unless you've made reservations etc. about certain articles etc.). What would be the point of international treaties if compliance was voluntary?

 

[sptrawler]

You are way off. Once you're a signatory to a treaty you are obliged to adhere to it (unless you've made reservations etc. about certain articles etc.). What would be the point of international treaties if compliance was voluntary?

History is littered with broken treaties. Ask the North American Indians.lol

Treaties are from an historical perspective, nothing other than memorandum of understanding, an agreement of parties. If a country feels its obligations to the treaty are being abused, they have every right to rectify it.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2010/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf

Read the section "How are treaties enforced"

There is no over-arching compulsory judicial system or coercive penal system to address breaches of the provisions set out in treaties or to settle disputes.

If a Country wishes it can withdraw from the treaty, or its obligation to the treaty.

 

[noco]

You are way off. Once you're a signatory to a treaty you are obliged to adhere to it (unless you've made reservations etc. about certain articles etc.). What would be the point of international treaties if compliance was voluntary?

There many loop holes in the UN convention and it is being exploited by criminals.



UN CONVENTION ON REFUGEES SHOULD BE RESCINDED

Australia is one of only 19 nations in the world that are signatories to the UN Convention On Refugees, which forces Australia to accept and process economic illegal immigrants as though they were genuine refugees, even when it can be shown that these people deliberately bypassed a number of safe-haven nations and conspired with criminals to smuggle them into Australian waters.

People smugglers in Indonesia latched onto this vulnerability and were exploiting it to the hilt and making hundreds of millions of dollars by enticing people from the Middle East and other areas to Indonesia, then organising boats to sail them unannounced to Australian waters. These crooks knew that because Australia is a signatory to the UN Convention On Refugees, it was obliged to process their claims instead of just turning those boats back to Indonesia.

The UN Convention On Refugees was originally introduced to deal with European refugees after World War Two, a very worthy move, however in 1967 it was expanded to cover refugees everywhere. Most nations realised that if they signed this treaty, they would be exploited, so only a few nations actually participated and unfortunately for them, they have paid a very high price for their stupidity. Instead of being able to assess refugee claimants on their merits and not accepting bogus claimants, those signatory nations are obliged to process all claimants and in many cases, get stuck with them.

Australia will have a problem with this until it gets the backbone to admit that its participation in the UN Convention On Refugees is being wrongfully exploited by criminals,withdraws from this treaty and refuses to accept criminals masquerading as asylum seekers. At least under the Abbott Liberal government, Australia has taken back its right to choose who comes to this nation and ensure that if people claim refugee status, that they really are genuine refugees, not bogus economic immigrants.

 

[banco]

History is littered with broken treaties. Ask the North American Indians.lol

Treaties are from an historical perspective, nothing other than memorandum of understanding, an agreement of parties. If a country feels its obligations to the treaty are being abused, they have every right to rectify it.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2010/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf

Read the section "How are treaties enforced"

There is no over-arching compulsory judicial system or coercive penal system to address breaches of the provisions set out in treaties or to settle disputes.

If a Country wishes it can withdraw from the treaty, or its obligation to the treaty.

Actually memorandums of understanding have less than treaty status.

So you agree we are in violation of the treaty we agreed to be bound by? Apparently you think Australia shouldn't comply with promises it has made.

Australia could withdraw from the treaty but we haven't done so.

 

[McLovin]

I'm prepared to be corrected, via the appropriate evidence, but I would doubt that adhering to the UN refugee convention, something which is entirely voluntary on the part of any country, is the same as adhering to 'international law' as quoted by IFocus.

Australia can easily just withdraw from the UNHCR. I doubt any country can just 'withdraw' from any international law.

Virtually all international law is based on treaties and is theoretically voluntary.

 

[sptrawler]

Actually memorandums of understanding have less than treaty status.

So you agree we are in violation of the treaty we agreed to be bound by? Apparently you think Australia shouldn't comply with promises it has made.

Australia could withdraw from the treaty but we haven't done so.

Just trying to bring you back to reality, with your grandiouse sweeping statements.
Which were completely false.

Somewhat like your above statement.
I didn't agree or dissagree with anything and I didn't say Australia shouldn't comply.
You obviously just make up reality to suit yourself.lol

 

[So_Cynical]

As we all suspected, the Noalition is prepared to do anything to stop the boats landing, haven't actually stopped the boats, just stopped them landing or getting close enough for the media to see what's going on, teleconference asylum interviews at sea...WTF.

 

[noco]

IMHO, we can set up all these Treaties, International laws, MOU and what ever, but there will always be those who will break these agreements/law or find loop holes and exploit them to the fullest.

We have treaties set up in 1951....then later down the track some political body in their wisdom decides to modify or alter that treaty but finish having some conflict with various segments and in the end the whole thing becomes one tangled mess.

That is what we have Lawyers for to find a way around the obstacles.

 

[SirRumpole]

IMHO, we can set up all these Treaties, International laws, MOU and what ever, but there will always be those who will break these agreements/law or find loop holes and exploit them to the fullest.

We have treaties set up in 1951....then later down the track some political body in their wisdom decides to modify or alter that treaty but finish having some conflict with various segments and in the end the whole thing becomes one tangled mess.

That is what we have Lawyers for to find a way around the obstacles.

I happen to agree that current governments should not necessarily be bound by treaties that were signed decades ago, but they should at least have the decency to resign publicly from those treaties if they don't intend to observe them.

 

[noco]

There many loop holes in the UN convention and it is being exploited by criminals.



UN CONVENTION ON REFUGEES SHOULD BE RESCINDED

Australia is one of only 19 nations in the world that are signatories to the UN Convention On Refugees, which forces Australia to accept and process economic illegal immigrants as though they were genuine refugees, even when it can be shown that these people deliberately bypassed a number of safe-haven nations and conspired with criminals to smuggle them into Australian waters.

People smugglers in Indonesia latched onto this vulnerability and were exploiting it to the hilt and making hundreds of millions of dollars by enticing people from the Middle East and other areas to Indonesia, then organising boats to sail them unannounced to Australian waters. These crooks knew that because Australia is a signatory to the UN Convention On Refugees, it was obliged to process their claims instead of just turning those boats back to Indonesia.

The UN Convention On Refugees was originally introduced to deal with European refugees after World War Two, a very worthy move, however in 1967 it was expanded to cover refugees everywhere. Most nations realised that if they signed this treaty, they would be exploited, so only a few nations actually participated and unfortunately for them, they have paid a very high price for their stupidity. Instead of being able to assess refugee claimants on their merits and not accepting bogus claimants, those signatory nations are obliged to process all claimants and in many cases, get stuck with them.

Australia will have a problem with this until it gets the backbone to admit that its participation in the UN Convention On Refugees is being wrongfully exploited by criminals,withdraws from this treaty and refuses to accept criminals masquerading as asylum seekers. At least under the Abbott Liberal government, Australia has taken back its right to choose who comes to this nation and ensure that if people claim refugee status, that they really are genuine refugees, not bogus economic immigrants.

My bolds emphasis the loop holes exploited by criminals.

 

[noco]

As we all suspected, the Noalition is prepared to do anything to stop the boats landing, haven't actually stopped the boats, just stopped them landing or getting close enough for the media to see what's going on, teleconference asylum interviews at sea...WTF.

Yes and by jove they are doing a great job in keeping their promise......A promise that the Fabian indoctrinated Green/Labor left wing socialist were hoping would fail so they get their propaganda machine into full swing....Grrrrr

 

[bunyip]

As we all suspected, the Noalition is prepared to do anything to stop the boats landing, haven't actually stopped the boats, just stopped them landing or getting close enough for the media to see what's going on, teleconference asylum interviews at sea...WTF.

The LNP has stopped nearly all the boats from heading our way, just an odd one still coming, but the important thing is they’ve stopped the illegal boat people from reaching our shores and costing us billions of dollars.
The current situation is a huge improvement on the bad old Rudd/Gillard days that saw us being swamped by thousands of illegal boat people, costing us some 12 thousand million dollars, a figure that's almost certainly blown out much further by now due to the ongoing cost of housing and processing the thousands who came in under Labor’s watch.

Fortunately we now have a government that’s taking the hard decisions and backing it with the tough action necessary to fix up the mess created by the ALP.

 

[noco]

Another extract from "Hot Heads" which spells out what is already happening in other countries and can well happen here if action is not taken.

ISLAMIFICATION BY STEALTH AND BREEDING

According to some Islamic websites, it seems that there is a long-term scheme to infiltrate first-world Judeo-Christian nations with Muslims until they out-populate the mainstream societies and then gain political power and eventually assume control and impose Muslim hegemony. This is already been seen to occur in France, Denmark, Germany and other western European nations, where the very quickly growing Muslim enclaves have demanded autonomy, their own courts and their own Islamic-based laws. It is quite apparent that this is happening in Australia and it is obvious that these bogus refugees are being funded by external sources. This is scandalous and smacks of a gigantic conspiracy, but this theory seems to be the only one that makes sense.

This is confirmed by the The Hijra - the Muslim Doctrine of Immigration, a deliberate Islamic policy of Muslim migration to secular western nations, in order for them and their offspring to eventually outpopulate the non-Muslims and then seize power in those nations by sheer weight of numbers. There are intermediate steps that Muslims in secular western nations take to soften up their populations before this happens, such as demands for halal food, sharia-compliant financial transactions and the addition of Muslim holidays to public calendars.

Any actions to suppress them are decried as religious or erroneously, racial discrimination. Demands for separate swimming and gym hours for Muslim men and women, demands for identification photos for licences for women wearing hijabs and refusals to handle pork products or don immodest dress in the workplace have appeared. Demands for special Muslim prayer rooms have been made on many public institutions and many workplaces.

US journalist Janet Levy wrote an excellent exposé of this insidious invasion. The Hijra should be required reading for anybody who doubts that their nation is immune to this invasion and it is available on the Downloads page.

A decade ago, the capital city of Britain was jokingly referred to as Londonistan, but it is certainly not a joke any more. Surveys consistently show that the most popular food is no longer roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, but curry and kebabs. It has been reliably reported in British media that Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys in Britain. With the ever-increasing numbers of Muslims either arriving illegally to take up residence in Britain and those already living there that are having huge families that are often being funded by the British taxpayer through the National Health Service, the Islamification of Britain is well and truly under way.

If the people of Australia think that what is occurring in Britain and western Europe could not happen here, they are sadly mistaken, because it is already well in progress, with whole areas of Sydney and Melbourne now resembling third-world Middle Eastern ghettoes, where many non-Muslims are being forced to move out through pressure, unpleasantness and intimidation so that Muslim illegal immigrants can be housed in those localities. Islamic-inspired crimes are now an everyday feature of life in Sydney and Melbourne, with women being pack-raped by Muslim gangs on the basis that they are, in the words of notorious gang-rapist Bilal Skaf, "Aussie *****s and sluts" and shootings and terrorist acts by Muslims being commonplace.

RECOGNISING THE REAL MENACE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

These illegal immigrants should be seen for exactly what they are, nothing more than criminals who are attempting to invade Australia for economic and political reasons because this country is perceived as a welfare state with a very soft attitude towards refugees and would also make a very good target for eventual Islamic takeover. They may claim to be genuine refugees, but they are merely crooks who procure the services of other criminals for payment to smuggle them into a sovereign nation.

May I remind ASF readers we already have one Labor Muslim in Federal Parliament who took oath on the Koran when being sworn in 2013.

 

[drsmith]

This might all be true but it doesn't mean Australia isn't in violation of its treaty obligations. If the Government thinks the UN Refugee Convention is outdated (which they've certainly hinted at) they should have the balls to withdraw from it rather than remain a signatory while violating it. Indonesia isn't a signatory. Perhaps we can join their august company.

A discussion about whether or not we should be part of the refugee convention in the context of secure borders is a far better situation to be in than the insecure borders that prevailed previously.

 

[drsmith]

Confirmation of a boat with 41 on board returned to Sri Lankan authorities.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...i-lankans-returned-after-interception/5575924

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tt-morrison-says/story-fn9hm1gu-1226979966747

From the second article,

The 41 asylum-seekers were “subjected to an enhanced screening process” which determined one Sinhalese passenger was entitled to a further refugee assessment.

However, that person “voluntarily requested” to return to Sri Lanka with their fellow passengers.

The fate of the other boat reported in the media to have 153 on board is still yet to be advised.

On that, there's a hint in the following,

Mr Morrison said he would make further statements when other such operations are completed.

Mr Morrison said “plenty” of asylum-seekers had tried to reach Australia “but every time they’ve tried, they’ve failed”.

“If you want to try it on, by all means you can have a crack, but you will not come under this government.”

and this in the SMH,

On 2GB radio Mr Morrison said the other asylum seeker boat was not in Australian waters, but refused to provide further details. Doing so would place on-water operations at risk, Mr Morrison said.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...sea-returned-to-sri-lanka-20140707-3bh3x.html

Scott Morrison will visit Sri Lanka this week to attend a commissioning ceremony for two former Australian Customs patrol vessels gifted to the Sri Lankan government. This I think will be on Wednesday.

Scott Morrison media release,

Monday, 07 July 2014

The Australian and Sri Lankan governments have moved swiftly to return a group of 41 Sri Lankan nationals who attempted to arrive illegally by boat to Australia as part of a maritime people smuggling venture.

The suspected illegal entry vessel (SIEV) was intercepted by Border Protection Command West of Cocos (Keeling) Islands in late June. At no stage was the vessel in distress and all persons aboard the SIEV were safe and accounted for.

Forty one potential illegal maritime arrivals who were intercepted on the SIEV were returned to Sri Lankan authorities yesterday (Sunday 6 July). The 41 Sri Lankan nationals were transferred at sea, in mild sea conditions from a vessel assigned to Border Protection Command (BPC) to Sri Lankan authorities, just outside the Port of Batticaloa.

All persons intercepted and returned were subjected to an enhanced screening process, as also practised by the previous government, to ensure compliance by Australia with our international obligations under relevant conventions.

This process includes identifying any person who may need to be referred to a further determination process. In such cases, the government's policy is to transfer such persons to either Papua New Guinea or Nauru for offshore processing.

In the single case where such a referral was recommended, the individual, a Sinhalese Sri Lankan national, voluntarily requested to depart the vessel with the other persons being transferred and returned to Sri Lanka.

This transfer of 41 persons, including 37 Sinhalese and 4 Tamil Sri Lankan nationals, follows previous returns to Sri Lanka including 79 illegal maritime arrivals under Operation Sovereign Borders last year.

The Australian Government will continue to act in accordance with our international obligations, including applicable international conventions and to protect the safety of life at sea. At the same time we will not allow people smugglers to try and exploit and manipulate Australia's support of these Conventions as a tool to undermine Australia's strong border protection regime that is stopping the boats and the deaths at sea.

Accordingly, the Government will continue to reject the public and political advocacy of those who have sought to pressure the Government into a change of policy. Their advocacy, though well intentioned, is naively doing the bidding of people smugglers who have been responsible for almost 1200 deaths at sea.

We will continue to do what we said we would, consistent with our obligations, and achieve the results we said we would achieve.

Today is the 200th day since the last people smuggling venture successfully arrived. In that time no one has drowned at sea. This is an outcome the Government welcomes.

Australia and Sri Lanka have a strong history of cooperation at the operational level to disrupt people smuggling ventures departing Sri Lanka. We are grateful for the efforts of the Sri Lankan Navy to combat people smuggling, as well as other Sri Lankan authorities.

Sri Lanka is one of many close partners with whom the Australian Government works in our region. The Australian Government looks forward to continued cooperation with Sri Lanka. Australia's cooperation with Sri Lanka is as important as it is effective.

The Australian Government does not deal in half measures and has the policies and resolve to fight people smugglers and stop illegal boat arrivals.

People should not trust the lies of people smugglers and seek to come to Australia illegally by boat. It is dangerous and the Australian Government's strong border protection policies under Operation Sovereign Borders mean they will not succeed.

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/sm/2014/sm216152.htm

 

[drsmith]

In fairness, I present the Labor response from Richard Marles to Scott Morrison's media release today.

It's very much a token gesture as one would expect. Labor after its record from government in this policy area would do better if it said nothing.

The Abbott Government has today confirmed 41 asylum seekers have been returned to Sri Lanka.
Labor has concerns about the integrity of this new method of processing people at sea and en masse and how this complies with Australia’s international obligations under relevant conventions.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison must explain what process is underway to determine the refugee status of another reported 153 persons aboard a second vessel that was detected near Christmas Island.

It is not good enough for Scott Morrison to leave the country without providing a transparent account of what has occurred on our seas over the last week and a half.

Scott Morrison has been citing operational reasons for not commenting on this event for more than a week only to throw out those apparent protocols when it is politically convenient for him to pat himself on the back.

The appropriate mechanism for processing those who arrive to Australia by sea is the Regional Resettlement Arrangement, which Labor put in place on July 19 last year.

Mr Morrison needs to explain why the Government neglected to act in accordance with the Regional Resettlement Arrangement, which would have provided for people to be processed on Christmas Island at greater efficiency and transparency.

http://www.richardmarles.com.au/sit...lease Return of Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers.pdf

 

[Julia]

One amusing note in this is the presence of a dog on the boat which was turned back to Sri Lanka.
Mr Morrison said the dog was not interviewed in terms of its intentions.