Australia in hot water over 'very serious breach'

[xdrive]

Do Indonesia and Australia share common territorial water boundary? If not, then Indonesia is just letting people go to International waters, not to Australian territorial waters.

Indonesia is letting criminal organizations use their territory as a base for their illegal operations. The Indonesian government knows full well the operations they are conducting and freely allows them to board boats with their clients to sail to Australia.

FYI, 90% of those boat people are found to be genuine refugee, not bogus as you claim. See: Boat people genuine refugees

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-people-genuine-refugees-20130519-2juvg.html

They are found to be "genuine" because the system is flawed and runs on a "genuine until proven otherwise" base. So thousands of these bogus refugees are being labled genuine because it can't be proved that they aren't. It should be that they have to prove they are genuine.

These people fly to Indonesia and then pay criminals to smuggle them here to bypass our immigration system. It speaks volumes of their bogus refugee status.

What do you mean by proper channel? The UNHCR has stated they were not criminals but asylum seeker. The convention has clearly stated that asylum seeker coming without VISA or permit are not illegal. Indonesia did not sign UN convention and does not guarantee their rights and in legal terms, they receive no freedom.

Australia has a proper process and system for accepting refugees. Our program accepts 13,000 refugees per year. Paying criminals to illegally smuggle you through our borders because you are trying to jump the queue is not the proper process

Australian Prime Minister should immedeately fly to Delhi and explain to the Indian PM the reasons behind this unacceptable behavior!

What does this have to do with India. Have you actually read ANYTHING in this thread?

They want to come to Australia for a new life. There term legal is as specified by Australian law - aka white law. The land does not belong to them. Dont throw legal BS at well informed educated people who know how the boat stays afloat.

This has nothing to do with peoples race, id on't know why you keep saying "white this, white that" First of all, Australia is not a "white" country even though thats irrelevant and this IS our land. Australia is for all Australians regardless of race.

If you want to spew your racist bigotry, go somewhere else kid.

Hi,

Absolutely---the white trash needs to be sent back home----. The browns and blacks need to claim their land---that is australia---.

Racist trash like you need to be banned from this forum.

 

[Chronos]

Yes most PIO's living abroad would. Its more convenient to be passive. And please dont drop hints on laws in the west. I've lived and worked there enough to know that even Mr. Preet Bharara himself is nothing more than a second class citizen serving his white master (btw, so is Obama). I paid New York State taxes for 5 bloody years till it came the time to sign an application for a greencard. Tore it up and came back here. Because I understand the misery of a subservient life. Enjoy it all you PIO's. After all you only have to dodge your own guilt. You dont have to defend it in court.

 

[Nan Yang]

It is not in the interest of Indonesia to spend resources to stop these refugees. Indonesia is a poor country with many other priorities. Why throw valuable resources to the benefit of an already rich country ?

This is the reality.

 

[venu309]

They want to come to Australia for a new life. There term legal is as specified by Australian law - aka white law. The land does not belong to them. Dont throw legal BS at well informed educated people who know how the boat stays afloat.

That's what the Bangladeshis who cross over illegally want, but why do all of you fight against it & say that they'd be accepted if the come in legally? Please don't waste time writing your answer, because you have no reasoning except say the same thing over & over again. There is no white or black law it is the law of the country just India has her own laws.

 

[typoerror]

This has nothing to do with peoples race, id on't know why you keep saying "white this, white that" First of all, Australia is not a "white" country even though thats irrelevant and this IS our land. Australia is for all Australians regardless of race.
If you want to spew your racist bigotry, go somewhere else kid.

Lol ... Hilarious BS. Why dont you go read on your country's demographic split before you call me a kid you jerkoff. Also look at your immigration stats and see what race of people you let in the most before moouthing off nonsense.

 

[Chronos]

Racist trash like you need to be banned from this forum.

He was being sarcastic!

 

[typoerror]

That's what the Bangladeshis who cross over illegally want, but why do all of you fight against it & say that they'd be accepted if the come in legally? Please don't waste time writing your answer, because you have no reasoning except say the same thing over & over again. There is no white or black law it is the law of the country just India has her own laws.

The difference is, India is overcrowded and Australia is empty. I have to school you kids, I can see that. Keep the BS flowing.

 

[xdrive]

It is not in the interest of Indonesia to spend resources to stop these refugees. Indonesia is a poor country with many other priorities. Why throw valuable resources to the benefit of an already rich country ?

This is the reality.

Indonesian has criminal organizations operating in their territory. It's in their interest to stop these criminals. It's in everyone benefit to stop criminals.

Indonesia isn't as poor as you may think.

Lol ... Hilarious BS. Why dont you go read on your country's demographic split before you call me a kid you jerkoff. Also look at your immigration stats and see what race of people you let in the most before moouthing off nonsense.

Australia is a multicultural country. You have obviously never been here hence your ignorance. The majority of our immigration comes from Asian countries.

Don't speak about things you have no idea about, kid.

The difference is, India is overcrowded and Australia is empty. I have to school you kids, I can see that. Keep the BS flowing.

All racist, insulting posts are being reported. If you wish to be racist, go to another thread.

 

[xdrive]

Yeah, keep quoting nonsense without knowing stats about your own country. Oh wait, you do know. You've been trained to deny it. Good job.

You clearly know nothing about Australia, hence why im correcting your incorrect claims. You are a racist troll that should be banned and you are derailing this thread.

 

[venu309]

The difference is, India is overcrowded and Australia is empty. I have to school you kids, I can see that. Keep the BS flowing.

Ok bye, I've had enough of your idiocy for a lifetime. This is my last reply to you. Thank you.

 

[typoerror]

You clearly know nothing about Australia, hence why im correcting your incorrect claims. You are a racist troll that should be banned and you are derailing this thread.

You are correcting nothing. The largest race of immigrants to Australia is caucasian. And they will make sure it stays that way. You can keep flagging facts as racist. It does not change the truth.

 

[Maxtini]

Australia has a proper process and system for accepting refugees. Our program accepts 13,000 refugees per year. Paying criminals to illegally smuggle you through our borders because you are trying to jump the queue is not the proper process

Not according to UN convention as well as non-refoulement clause. Australia signed the convention, and australia must abide by it. If you want to make your own proper process, just withdraw from the convention. Yes, Australia has every rights to guard its border, but by signing agreement such as UN convention regarding refugee, UNCLOS, and International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, Australia has certain obligation to met what it has promised by signing the convention. Otherwise, pleaase withdraw from the convention. Why not? Afraid of losing Australia image and credibility as western nation?

The article 31 of the convention has already stated clearly, asylum seekers coming illegally by boat without VISA are exempted from penalty and persecution.

Legal experts has also voiced that Australia breached the convention as well as martime law
Explainer: the legal implications of 'tow-backs'

"Other rights, however, come into play at the point when Australia starts to exercise power over refugees. During “tow-backs” at sea, this point could be reached when Australia transfers refugees onto its own vessels or takes control of boats that the refugees are travelling on. At the point Australia takes control of the refugees, it exercises “jurisdiction” over them and becomes responsible for them.

Rights owed by Australia to refugees it tows back (on the high seas or even in Indonesian waters) include the right of access to the courts of Australia and the right of refugees to elementary education. The most important right, however, is the right to be protected from being returned to persecution.

Australia is prohibited from sending refugees back to a place where their lives or freedom would be threatened. Australia is also prohibited from sending refugees back to a place that may not protect them.

That is, Australia cannot take refugees back to Indonesia because Indonesia is not a party to the Refugee Convention. There is therefore nothing stopping Indonesia from returning the refugees to their home countries where they face persecution. As such, Australia cannot simply wash its hands of the individuals it tows back."

According to the UNHCR sites regarding Tampa Affair:
UNHCR - The State of the World's Refugees 2006 - Chapter 2 Safeguarding asylum: Box 2.3 The Tampa Affair: interception and rescue at sea
"The closest port to the site of the rescue was on Christmas Island, an Australian territory, but Australia's Immigration Department forbade the Tampa to enter Australian territorial waters. The Australian government was determined to stop unauthorized arrivals of asylum seekers, and so refused to disembark the Tampa's passengers and permit the vessel to proceed on its scheduled route. After long and tense negotiations – during which conditions on board the Tampa reached crisis proportions – a complicated and costly arrangement saw the passengers forcibly removed from the ship and dispersed to camps in Nauru, a small state nearby. Some 132 unaccompanied minors and families were accepted by New Zealand, where almost all received refugee status. None went directly to Australia. In this long process, the owners and agents of the Tampa incurred substantial losses."

At the time, the obligation to render assistance to vessels in distress was codified in international maritime law in such instruments as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (1979). The obligation to extend aid applies without regard to the nationality, status, or circumstances of the persons in distress. Under these rules, ship owners, ships masters, coastal nations and flag states (the states where ships are registered) all have responsibilities for search and rescue.

The International Convention on Search and Rescue mandates that a rescue is not complete until the rescued person is delivered to a place of safety. That could be the nearest suitable port, the next regular port of call, the ship's home port, a port in the rescued person's own country, or one of many other possibilities. The convention provides that 'a situation of distress shall be notified not only to consular and diplomatic authorities but also to a competent international organ if the situation of distress pertains to refugees or displaced persons.' The ship itself cannot be considered a 'place of safety' – indeed, carrying a large number of unscheduled passengers could endanger the crew and passengers themselves, owing to overcrowding, insufficient food and water and the tensions of life at close quarters."

 

[typoerror]

Ok bye, I've had enough of your idiocy for a lifetime. This is my last reply to you. Thank you.

thats a releif.

 

[venu309]

You clearly know nothing about Australia, hence why im correcting your incorrect claims. You are a racist troll that should be banned and you are derailing this thread.

PDF seems to have quite a few of this kind of posters which is pretty annoying. You just cannot have a decent debate.

 

[xdrive]

Not according to UN convention as well as non-refoulement clause. Australia signed the convention, and australia must abide by it. If you want to make your own proper process, just withdraw from the convention.

We are abiding by it. You are ignoring my posts and quoting a part of the convention and then taking it out of context. There is a proper process of claiming asylum, established by the UN and Australia. You register with the UNHCR and then get delegated for asylum to Australia. Coming by boat via criminals is not a proper process and it's ILLEGAL to enter our territory without a visa.

You're wrong. Hence why the Australian government is turning back boats/processing these people in off-shore detention centres..

The message is clear, if you illegally come by boat, you will not be accepted. Get in the queue and come the proper way, or dont come at all.

You are correcting nothing. The largest race of immigrants to Australia is caucasian. And they will make sure it stays that way. You can keep flagging facts as racist. It does not change the truth.

You're wrong and have no idea about Australia yet continue to make claims despite knowing you are wrong. How sad.