Australia, the UN, and Refugees

Saw Bowen on the 7.30 report again tonight talking about asylum seeker policies.

What is the point of being a signatory to the UN Refugee convention if both our major parties are committed to undermining this agreement?

Also, how practical is the agreement in modern times?

I don't think that the UN has a monopoly on what is morally 'right' and I don't think the UN agreement is functioning very well. There are all sorts of problems in Italy and South Western Europe (although the Eurozone is another problem).

Would we be better off abandoning the UN agreement and forming our own regional agreement for the Asia Pacific region? And/or individual agreements with individual countries? Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

I don't think the UN agreement is relevant anymore. The world is too small now and when you have 'asylum seekers' flying from Afghanistan to Indonesia, then paying $10 000+ for a boat trip from Indonesia to Australia, there is something seriously screwed up. Not to mention that they destroy their passports before coming here, and then riot and self-harm because their applications are taking 'too long' to process. It's all seriously retarded.

I think it is creating a lot of resentment about asylum seekers. Obvious in Germany, England and Italy, as well as here. We seem determined to do our own thing anyway, so why kid ourselves?

Australia cannot solve the worlds problems, cannot have an open borders policy. Why can't we make individual agreements with individual countries (where we would have a processing centre) for confirmed refugees only, and exclude everyone else? Seriously, just deport -everyone- else who overstays their visa. Do not accept anyone who has not been confirmed as a refugee before they enter Australia. Then there would be no need for detention centres.

The whole asylum seeker process, globally, is just way too unorganized and I think that's what annoys people.

'Refugee' status is never going to be able to help everyone. I think the attitude that 'whoever rocks up on our shores gets in', is pretty stupid.

For me the asylum seeker issue needs less emotion and more cold-hearted economic strategy. For every one "boat person", or "plane person" that rocks up, there are thousands of genuine refugees (already confirmed as such) languishing in camps all over the world. For me, no refugee is any different than another. As far as I'm concerned the process is the only thing that is important. If someone can pay $10k USD for a boat to Australia, they can live in Indonesia well enough for a few years while they get their applications processed or whatever.

Bit of a rant, but opinions?

 

Almost 100% of so called boat people are granted refugee status. There's something seriously screwed up with that because the government makes them out to all be illegals.

 

The UN definition of asylum seeker is what is seriously screwed up.
Go ask the average person on the street what they think would be a definition for refugee, it won't be anything like what the immigration dept is working with.
The average persons idea of what a refugee is wouldn't fit most of the hopefulls trying to gate-crash Australia.

 

Sorry, Liberal Party propganda bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Almost all "boat people" are legit refugees. It's the white tourists who overstay their visas who make up almost all illegal immigrants and yet there's no outcry. Weird.

 

Yep, and the media helps to perpetuate this lie as much as they can.

It's infuriating!

 

Section I
Social & Economic Dimensions
Chapter 3
Combating Poverty
Programme Area

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enabling the poor to achieve sustainable livelihoods
Basis for action
3.1. Poverty is a complex multidimensional problem with origins in both the national and international domains. No uniform solution can be found for global application. Rather, country-specific programmes to tackle poverty and international efforts supporting national efforts, as well as the parallel process of creating a supportive international environment, are crucial for a solution to this problem. The eradication of poverty and hunger, greater equity in income distribution and human resource development remain major challenges everywhere. The struggle against poverty is the shared responsibility of all countries.

3.2. While managing resources sustainably, an environmental policy that focuses mainly on the conservation and protection of resources must take due account of those who depend on the resources for their livelihoods. Otherwise it could have an adverse impact both on poverty and on chances for long-term success in resource and environmental conservation. Equally, a development policy that focuses mainly on increasing the production of goods without addressing the sustainability of the resources on which production is based will sooner or later run into declining productivity, which could also have an adverse impact on poverty. A specific anti-poverty strategy is therefore one of the basic conditions for ensuring sustainable development. An effective strategy for tackling the problems of poverty, development and environment simultaneously should begin by focusing on resources, production and people and should cover demographic issues, enhanced health care and education, the rights of women, the role of youth and of indigenous people and local communities and a democratic participation process in association with improved governance.

3.3. Integral to such action is, together with international support, the promotion of economic growth in developing countries that is both sustained and sustainable and direct action in eradicating poverty by strengthening employment and income-generating programmes.

Objectives
3.4. The long-term objective of enabling all people to achieve sustainable livelihoods should provide an integrating factor that allows policies to address issues of development, sustainable resource management and poverty eradication simultaneously. The objectives of this programme area are:

(a) To provide all persons urgently with the opportunity to earn a sustainable livelihood;

(b) To implement policies and strategies that promote adequate levels of funding and focus on integrated human development policies, including income generation, increased local control of resources, local institution-strengthening and capacity-building and greater involvement of non-governmental organizations and local levels of government as delivery mechanisms;

(c) To develop for all poverty-stricken areas integrated strategies and programmes of sound and sustainable management of the environment, resource mobilization, poverty eradication and alleviation, employment and income generation;

(d) To create a focus in national development plans and budgets on investment in human capital, with special policies and programmes directed at rural areas, the urban poor, women and children.

AGENDA 21 explains it all

 

They're not "gate-crashing".

Their invitations are in The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

All legal, all above board. No crisis.

 

I have seen some ridiculous figures regarding the number of illegals being granted refugee status in OZ, but I have never, ever heard of it being 100%. But I am also aware that, once they land on our shores, because of interference by the Legal Beagles, are much more likely to be granted so called 'asylum'.

We must revert to the system introduced by the previous Federal Liberal Government, which was so successful in dramatically reducing the number of illegals entering our shores, and so stupidly dismantled by Rudd. Even Blind Freddie can see that!

The present Liberal Oppostion, for the sake of the integrity of our immigration system, should immediatley agree to the Federal Government's proposal. Party politics should not be a hindrance.

 

ALMOST 100%. It's something like 96%.

 

They're asylum seekers, not "illegals". Stop watching the Bolt Report.

It's around 94%.

Once they get in the boat, they are asylum seekers.
Moreover, Australia has a legal obligation to accept these legal asylum seekers and then process their claims.

They're not "illegals", they are 100% legal asylum seekers. Stop watching the Bolt Report, and read the 1951 UN Convention.

"Australia provides protection for asylum seekers who meet the United Nations definition of a refugee, as defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (Refugees Convention)."

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61asylum.htm

 

Even Australian law says that they're not illegals.

 

Where's your proof ? And don't give me info. provided by some group with a 'let them all in, regardless of criminal activity' attitude. I want real proof!

And,if it is true (which I very much doubt), it would clearly demonstrate the stupidty of this Federal Government and how we have relinquished our sovereignty to a foreign body ie the UN! The oriignal treaty was introduced in the immediate aftermath of WW11 under very different circumstances, and should be immediatley dismantled. Why would any Government in its right mind continue with a treaty that is totally and hopelessly out of date!

The people smugglers must really see us a absolute mugs and so easily manipulated!

 

Oh, were you more dead if killed in the few years after WW2 or something?

 

Why would I care about a Convention that it is over half a century old? Doesn't this Federal Government, or any Federal Government, have the sense to review treaties, especially ones that our ancient and signed under very different conditions.

It should be immediately reviewed and given the Wellington Boot!

Our Federal Government must protect its sovereignty and not relinquish it to a foreign body! This country is see as an easy touch by those plying the illegal migrant game.

 

And do you still travel by horse and cart?

 

So you can't provide proof. Why am I not surprised.

 

Because it's the current law.

Do you know how old our Constitution is? Should we just ignore that too?

 

The Constitution is very, very different to the Law of the Land. The former is much more difficult to change than the latter. Are you seriously suggesting that our illegal immigration policy requires a change to the Constitution?

 

Why is it always I that must provide proof whereas you and your ilk get to spew your idiotic crap without providing any at all?

 

No. How on earth did you make that leap? LOL

 

You made the declaration so you should provide the proof.Or is it just hearsay, and you can't provide the proof. No amount of bluff and bluster will hide the fact that your declaration about the number of illegals being allowed into OZ was just an outright guess!

 

Read Meat's post and you will understand. But I can't put the spoon in your mouth.

 

Sorry, the entire premise of the thread is that they're a bunch of gate crashers who just can't wait their turn. If that's not proven then why should I?

Oh yeah, but you Australian tea party wannabes don't work that way.

 

Did anyone else see Sarah Hanson Young on the ABC last night?

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said news of the deaths was "awful" and said the situation showed how desperate asylum seekers are.

"What this clearly shows is that we need to be offering safer pathways for people to reach protection and to ensure that they can seek asylum in a safe way," she said.

This woman isn`t living in the real world.

 

So you can't provide the proof.Why am I not surprised?

The answer is simple. There is no proof of your grossly erroneous, inflated asserton.