Australia in hot water over 'very serious breach'

[flamer84]

No idiot, that's more like a moral question regarding Australian govt acts towards asylum seekers.

And so is Indonesia, Indonesia has every right to let these boat people get the **** out of our borders, eventhough it means letting these refugees enter Australian waters.

Than stop complaining when the Australian Navy enters your waters to do your job even if they pay you millions in aid to do just that.

 

[VeeraBahadur]

And the goverment follows the wishes of the majority of its citizens.Suggesting masses of immigrants should be forced down the throats of unwilling australians is sheer madness.A country has a sovereign right to stop people from infiltrating its borders.

Exactly what I meant.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

you are free to spend money and put your resources into region, to patrol whereever international waters. but what do you expect to get in return? India has no treaty with any nations in the region. you have no duty. neither responsibility.

if your warships intrude into other territorial waters, you risk a confrontation if not a war. Calling on a conference and mediate between Australia and Indonesia sounds a better idea to me.

We can create treaties where none exist We can use our good offices- as the pre-eminent power in the region we have a lot of responsibilities

 

[Developereo]

Yes but Australian navy is just following the orders of it's government.

Yes, and the government is being held hostage to media hysteria.
According to the Refugee Convention, Australia must accept for processing asylum applicants who arrive illegally. The application may be rejected after review, but a review must be offered.

The only option Australia has is to withdraw from the Convention but, until it does so, it must honor its rules.

And the goverment follows the wishes of the majority of its citizens.Suggesting masses of immigrants should be forced down the throats of unwilling australians is sheer madness.A country has a sovereign right to stop people from infiltrating its borders.

The government has a responsibility to uphold its obligations under international treaties. Ordinary people do not understand the finer points of international treaties. The government has a responsibility to educate the public or, failing that, withdraw from the treaties.

But the link you gave was of RRT (Refusee Review Tribunal ) and this is different from MRT(Migration Review Tribunal.)

They are related.

 

[flamer84]

The government has a responsibility to uphold its obligations under international treaties. Ordinary people do not understand the finer points of international treaties. The government has a responsibility to educate the public or, failing that, withdraw from the treaties.

Not a really.For a nation of 25 million to take up to 13.000 refugees a year is enough.To take almost everyone in willy nilly is economic and social suicide.They can't destroy their country just to accomodate immigrants.

 

[Developereo]

Not a really.For a nation of 25 million to take up to 13.000 refugees a year is enough.To take almost everyone in willy nilly is economic and social suicide.They can't destroy their country just to accomodate immigrants.

That may be a debate worth having, but an honest debate based on facts instead of media hysteria.

The current rhetoric about illegal criminals is disingenuous, since the people are not criminals and what they are doing (arriving illegally) is allowed in the context of an asylum application.

If the public decides, Australia should withdraw from the UNHCR but it cannot flout the laws while it is signatory to the Convention.

 

[flamer84]

Not a really.For a nation of 25 million to take up to 13.000 refugees a year is enough.To take almost everyone in willy nilly is economic and social suicide.They can't destroy their country just to accomodate immigrants.

That may be a debate worth having, but an honest debate based on facts instead of media hysteria.

The current rhetoric about illegal criminals is disingenuous, since the people are not criminals and what they are doing (arriving illegally) is allowed in the context of an asylum application.

If the public decides, Australia should withdraw from the UNHCR but it cannot flout the laws while it is signatory to the Convention.

Or they can do what they're doing now,stop the flow.If that would be illegal we would see widespread international condemnation which is not the case.All i see in this thread is racial slurs towards australians for defending their sovereignity but this is not the 1990's anymore after waves of immigrants allowed in Europe,Australia the general public won't buckle under these kind of allegations anymore.Simply put,they had enough.The time has come to take a stand.

Enough is enough.

 

[VeeraBahadur]

Yes, and the government is being held hostage to media hysteria.
According to the Refugee Convention, Australia must accept for processing asylum applicants who arrive illegally. The application may be rejected after review, but a review must be offered.

The only option Australia has is to withdraw from the Convention but, until it does so, it must honor its rules.

I think media is ought to be free and I think media is free in Australia. There is nothing hysterical about that.

They are related.

But ,still they are different and have different databases.

 

[Vinod2070]

Not a really.For a nation of 25 million to take up to 13.000 refugees a year is enough.To take almost everyone in willy nilly is economic and social suicide.They can't destroy their country just to accomodate immigrants.

While this is a complex issue and people can point out that the current "native Australian" population are themselves not really so native, this is the current reality. Any country needs to be able to decide on such issues and not overwhelm itself due to "political correctness" or treaties to a level that is not supportable by the society.

And I don't see what is conceptually wrong for a country to prioritize the kind of immigrants it wants. Are we saying that they should ignore the reality and the obvious and let unchecked immigration take place?

There has to be a balance between the moral imperative of helping those needing help and the capacity of the society to provide that help taking its own constraints and preferences into consideration.

 

[Developereo]

Or they can do what they're doing now,stop the flow.If that would be illegal we would see widespread international condemnation which is not the case.All i see in this thread is racial slurs towards australians for defending their sovereignity but this is not the 1990's anymore after waves of immigrants allowed in Europe,Australia the general public won't buckle under these kind of allegations anymore.Simply put,they had enough.The time has come to take a stand.

Some -- not all -- of the criticisms are valid, both empirically (given the composition of the boat v/s plane arrivals and the media's focus on the less objectionable group), and also by the fact that the media people who are most vocal against the boat people often tend to voice the strongest objections to Middle Easterners and Muslims in general.

I think media is ought to be free and I think media is free in Australia. There is nothing hysterical about that.

90% of newspapers in Australian capital cities are owned by just two companies (63% NewsCorp and 27% Fairfax). Australian media is actually one of the least diverse in the developed world.

Rupert Murdoch (founder and principal owner of NewsCorp.) has publicly stated his dislike for Muslims.

But ,still they are different and have different databases.

They are both tribunals chaired by judges, which was the point.

 

[flamer84]

While this is a complex issue and people can point out that the current "native Australian" population are themselves not really so native, this is the current reality. Any country needs to be able to decide on such issues and not overwhelm itself due to "political correctness" or treaties to a level that is not supportable by the society.

And I don't see what is conceptually wrong for a country to prioritize the kind of immigrants it wants. Are we saying that they should ignore the reality and the obvious and let unchecked immigration take place?

There has to be a balance between the moral imperative of helping those needing help and the capacity of the society to provide that help taking its own constraints and preferences into consideration.

That's the crux of the matter.Ofcourse we can point fingers at white australians not being the real natives but we have to take tis discussion to a modern level.They've built a successful nation,they've allowed others in for ages debunking the racist myth.Even second or more generations non white australians support the policy chhecking migration.What would happen if Australia was to allow 80-100.000 immigrants per year ? This is just a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Developereo]

What would happen if Australia was to allow 80-100.000 immigrants per year ?

Migration intake was 190,000 in 2013.

 

[flamer84]

Migration intake was 190,000 in 2013.

Wow !! And you want more....really ??? Why do you hate Australia so much ?

 

[Developereo]

Wow !! And you want more....really ??? Why do you hate Australia so much ?

You might see migration as a sign of "hatred". Most Australians don't.

 

[flamer84]

You might see migration as a sign of "hatred". Most Australians don't.

That's why they're trying to check it.Or maybe we're talking about controled migration with people legally applying for visas and the proper authorities deciding the outcome while at the same time trying to stop a flow of boats swarming their shores.