Australia Navy entered Indonesia waters six times

[Developereo]

So what? Newspapers are a dieing medium. Newspapers are not some magical brainwashing device that will instantly brainwash people the second they gaze upon the front page.

Paper newspapers may be declining in circulation, although they still remain a potent force in politics -- but the interaction is shifting to their web sites. The media domination remains unchanged.

I know, i acknowledged that. You then said i was wrong and then proceeded to repeat exactly what i wrote, confirming what i said was right.

The discussion is not about illegal immigrants, but asylum applicants. Once an illegal immigrant requests asylum, they fall into the category of refugee applicant. Refugees, almost by definition, will not have the proper documents because they are fleeing in panic. Most refugee applicants will be illegal since they would not have time to apply for a proper visa.

Contrary to your brainwashing, it is perfectly legitimate to arrive at a country illegally and request asylum. Applying at a UNHCR center is ONE of the options, but by no means, the ONLY option.

The UN Convention recognizes this reality and their rules are written accordingly. As a signatory to the Convention, Australia agreed to abide by those rules and the navy's actions appear to be in violation of those rules.

This is not just my opinion, Malcolm Fraser also shares that assessment and he should know. He is the doyen of the conservative Liberal party, and hardly someone you can dismiss as a "leftist Greenie". Remember, is was he, as Prime Minister, who smacked the racist Australian media into shape back when they were raising racist hysteria against SE Asian refugees.

Maybe you should read more carefully instead of hysterically frothing with "OMG MURDOCH MEDIA OMG" I guess it's a convenient parrot line to use when you are in a deep state of denial about something.

If you don't agree with something, just scream "ITS RUPERT MURDOCHS FAULT" lol.

The only one acting hysterical is YOU since the reality conflicts with the spoon-feeding you have received. I don't have the time or desire to print out the blatantly racist comments by prominent Australian commentators about "Middle Easterners" and "Muslims" in relation to the asylum seeker hysteria, but anyone who searches can easily find it all.

 

[xdrive]

So because a few commentators say something, it means the whole population is brainwashed? You base what your saying on a fallacy where you pretend if someone writes something and people read it, they instantly believe it.

It's illegal to enter Australia without a visa and no that's not from a newspaper nor a commentator. It's a fact.

You are too caught up in this "murdoch media is evil" hyperbol and you just simply can't accept that it's got nothing to do with peoples attitude towards people who come here illegally by boats and the governments reaction to it. People don't like cheats, governments don't like criminals controlling a sovereign border. Plain and simple.

You are in a deep state of denial along with the rest of the people who parrot the lines you do. It's clear.

 

[Maxtini]

So because a few commentators say something, it means the whole population is brainwashed? You base what your saying on a fallacy where you pretend if someone writes something and people read it, they instantly believe it.

It's illegal to enter Australia without a visa and no that's not from a newspaper nor a commentator. It's a fact.

You are too caught up in this "murdoch media is evil" hyperbol and you just simply can't accept that it's got nothing to do with peoples attitude towards people who come here illegally by boats and the governments reaction to it. People don't like cheats, governments don't like criminals controlling a sovereign border. Plain and simple.

You are in a deep state of denial along with the rest of the people who parrot the lines you do. It's clear.

It's also a fact that Australia as signatories of UN Convention regarding the status of refugees are obliged not to penalised such illegal entry, nor commit any refoulement policy.

Not only Australia breached the convention, Australia also breached Indonesian sovereignty~
Such a b*d*ss If I'm allowed to say~

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf

The Convention is both a status and rights-based instrument and is underpinned by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrimination, non-penalization and non-refoulement. Convention provisions, for example, are to be applied without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. Developments in international human rights law also reinforce
the principle that the Convention be applied without discrimination as to sex, age, disability, sexuality, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of non-refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.

 

[Viet]

The discussion is not about illegal immigrants, but asylum applicants. Once an illegal immigrant requests asylum, they fall into the category of refugee applicant. Refugees, almost by definition, will not have the proper documents because they are fleeing in panic. Most refugee applicants will be illegal since they would not have time to apply for a proper visa.

Contrary to your brainwashing, it is perfectly legitimate to arrive at a country illegally and request asylum. Applying at a UNHCR center is ONE of the options, but by no means, the ONLY option.

The UN Convention recognizes this reality and their rules are written accordingly. As a signatory to the Convention, Australia agreed to abide by those rules and the navy's actions appear to be in violation of those rules.

I am afraid you are wrong here. Any country can decide how to adopt the UNHCR conventions.

let take Germany for instance. It is a signatory of UNHCR, too, but does that mean Germany is obliged to take any refugee, with and without documents, legal or illegal entering the country?

NO, because the German asylum law defines who can apply for asylum.

the first article says (Article 16a para 2 GG):
Foreigners who enter Germany via a country of the European Union or other safe third country, can not apply for the right of asylum.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylrecht_(Deutschland)

That means if theorecially a Pakistan refugee flies to Indonesia, and then further to Germany, he is not entitled to asylum. Because Indonesia is a safe country. The German border police will put him to a detention center and deport him back to Indonesia. Plus the airline company will be imposed a fine because they transported the refugee seeker without legal document.

 

[Developereo]

I am afraid you are wrong here. Any country can decide how to adopt the UNHCR conventions.

let take Germany for instance. It is a signatory of UNHCR, too, but does that mean Germany is obliged to take any refugee, with and without documents, legal or illegal entering the country?

NO, because the German asylum law defines who can apply for asylum.

the first article says (Article 16a para 2 GG):
Foreigners who enter Germany via a country of the European Union or other safe third country, can not apply for the right of asylum.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylrecht_(Deutschland)

That means if theorecially a Pakistan refugee flies to Indonesia, and then further to Germany, he is not entitled to asylum. Because Indonesia is a safe country. The German border police will put him to a detention center and deport him back to Indonesia. Plus the airline company will be imposed a fine because they transported the refugee seeker without legal document.

Your example wouldn't apply. In general, an applicant must apply in the first country which is signatory to the UNHCR Convention. Since Indonesia is not a signatory, it is not a "safe country" by German law.

The Safe Country Concepts - Germany | Asylum Information Database

By definition of the law, all Member States of the European Union are safe third countries. In addition, a list of further safe third countries can be drawn up. In those countries the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention and of the European Convention on Human Rights has to be “ensured”. The list is an addendum to the Asylum Procedure Act and has to be adopted by both chambers of the German Parliament. The Federal Government is entitled to remove a country from that list if changes in its legal or political situation “give reason to believe” that the requirements for a safe third country are not met any longer. At present, the list of further safe third countries consists of Norway and Switzerland.

 

[Viet]

Your example wouldn't apply. In general, an applicant must apply in the first country which is signatory to the UNHCR Convention. Since Indonesia is not a signatory, it is not a "safe country" by German law.

The Safe Country Concepts - Germany | Asylum Information Database

By definition of the law, all Member States of the European Union are safe third countries. In addition, a list of further safe third countries can be drawn up. In those countries the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention and of the European Convention on Human Rights has to be “ensured”. The list is an addendum to the Asylum Procedure Act and has to be adopted by both chambers of the German Parliament. The Federal Government is entitled to remove a country from that list if changes in its legal or political situation “give reason to believe” that the requirements for a safe third country are not met any longer. At present, the list of further safe third countries consists of Norway and Switzerland.

sure, it will apply as many court decisions in Germany have shown. The acceptance of refugee is about 1% on average.

in general, in Germany refugee can ONLY apply for asylum for political reason. Other reasons such as economics JUST because Pakistan is poorer than Germany does not count as valid reason.

Let assume a refugee seeks asylum for political reason because as he says he will be prosecuted otherwise in his home country. The court will ask him what hindered him to apply for political asylum in Indonesia?

The court will ask him for evidences why he is a political refugee. And again, economic refugee is not entitled for asylum.

 

[Developereo]

sure, it will apply as many court decisions in Germany have shown. The acceptance of refugee is about 1% on average.

in general, in Germany refugee can ONLY apply for asylum for political reason. Other reasons such as economics JUST because Pakistan is poorer than Germany does not count as valid reason.

Let assume a refugee seeks asylum for political reason because as he says he will be prosecuted otherwise in his home counry. The court will ask him what hindered him to apply for political asylum in Indonesia?

The court will ask him for evidences why he is a political refugee. And again, economic refugee is not entitled for asylum.

That's a completely different matter. Whether an asylum application gets approved or not is a secondary subject.

The question here is whether the court will even hear the application, i.e. whether the person can even apply or be deported preemptively by border guards without a court case.

It's like this: if an asylum seeker enters Germany from France, the border guards can immediately refuse entry. But if he enters from Indonesia, he must be allowed entry and the courts can then decide to accept or deport him.

P.S. In this case, the only thing the Australian Navy knows is that the person is coming through Indonesia, which is not a signatory. The Navy doesn't know what other countries the person has been through, so they cannot issue an on-the-spot rejection of asylum applications. They must forward the case to the appropriate authorities in Australia.

 

[Viet]

That's a completely different matter. Whether an asylum application gets approved or not is a secondary subject.

The question here is whether the court will even hear the application, i.e. whether the person can even apply or be deported preemptively by border guards without a court case.

It's like this: if an asylum seeker enters Germany from France, the border guards can immediately refuse entry. But if he enters from Indonesia, he must be allowed entry and the courts can then decide to accept or deport him.

NO, if he enters Germany via Indonesia without valid document, entry will be refused and he will be held in detention center.

He can now contact a lawyer and apply for political asylum. If his application is rejected by the local authority, he can go to a court and challenge the decision. Now he must present the court evidences as I say previously: does he have documents and witness showing him as political refugee?

And why didn´t he apply for asylum in Indonesia?

99% will be deported when their cases are finally rejected.

 

[Developereo]

if he enters Germany via Indonesia without valid document, entry will be refused and he will be held in detention center.

He can now contact a lawyer and apply for political asylum. If his application is rejected by the local authority, he can go to a court and challenge the decision. Now he must present the court evidences as I say previously: does he have documents and witness showing him as political refugee?

That is exactly what I am saying should happen in this case. He will NOT be deported preemptively. He will be kept in a detention center until his case is heard by the appropriate authorities.

And why didn´t he apply for asylum in Indonesia?

That is between him and the court. The border guards are not qualified to pass judgement on that.

99% will be deported when their cases are finally rejected.

In Australia, the acceptance rate for boat arrivals is around 90%. The vast majority are found to be genuine refugees.

 

[Viet]

That is exactly what I am saying should happen in this case. He will NOT be deported preemptively. He will be kept in a detention center until his case is heard by the appropriate authorities..

yes, I expressed incorrectly in previous post.

That is between him and the court. The border guards are not qualified to pass judgement on that.

correct

In Australia, the acceptance rate for boat arrivals is around 90%. The vast majority are found to be genuine refugees.

Australia can change the law if they want to lower the acceptance rate and thus limit the influx.
Germany has modified the asylum law several times.

 

[Developereo]

Australia can change the law if they want to lower the acceptance rate and thus limit the influx.
Germany has modified the asylum law several times.

Of course, Australia can always withdraw from the Convention and, if it does so, the whole issue becomes moot.

 

[Mighty Caty]

I am surprised to see many people actually do not know clearly regarding the 1951 conventions, people both side here arguing based on truth they think that's what that mean and argue with the "assumed" facts. I am all for argument but if you do, you should know the actual term before starting an valid argument.

I have not see one people actually interpret the convention in 1951 rightfully as yet. But hear a lot about responsibility and media conspiracy on the post. So i have to present the fact about the convention and what by-law require or not require to do by any country, whether or not that signed the convention.

Q.) Are refugee only the problem to whom signed the convention?
A.) No, the convention signed is the "Convention and Protocol Relating to the STATUS of refugee" Basically the convention only outline the definition of the status of refugee, their purposed treatment and the rights of the refugee.

The convention is formulated due to the difference in standard between countries's own definition of refugee, The convention is to eliminate the difference and purposed for a standardised process of refugee, instead of an individual process.

The application and acceptance of refugee is the responsiblity of ALL member of the UN, governed by UNHCR. If a country have not signed the 1951 convention and 1967 protocol, that does not mean they are not liable for refugee, but rather, they will deal with the refugee problem with their own set of rules, still if you are a member of the UN, you are require to accept refugee.

The notion of Since our country does not signed the convention, then refugee is not our problem is not correct, accepting refugee have nothing to do with the convention

Case in point - Not every UN member signed the WHO Framwork Convention on Tobacco control, take US as an example, they did not sign the Convention on tobacco control, does that mean every other responsibility on WHO were shredded by the US?

Q.) Are there illegal refugee?
A.) According to Article 2 of the Convention relating to the status of refugee. A refugee should

Article 2
​

general obligations

Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which
require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to
measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

So, there is a clause calling for every refugee to conform with the law and regulations to the country in which he finds himself in. And that law and regulation include border policy. Hence the refugee can be called "Illegal" if that particular refugee were broken the law and regulation and fail to maintain public order in the host country, however under article 31

Article 31

refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee


1.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their

illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.

It could not be punishable for one refugee to come directly from the area of hostility and illegally enter a state to seek refugee protection. The precedent is the word "Directly" and the clause are after the fact that they have already been in the area of protectorate. Hoever, one should not be confused that being not punishable does not equate to being legal to do so.

Case in point. Illegally Download music is illegal to the patent owner according to their country's own patent law, however a person that does not have the reciprocity judgement (The same law that applies to the patent nations) Does not in itself legalize the act. The failure or powerless to prosecute or punish does not legalize one's action. In short, not illegal does not equate to legal.

Q.) It is wrong for any government to redirect or transport refugee to a third party nation.
A.) According to article 32 and 33 of the Convention

Article 32
expulsion
1.
The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory
save on grounds of national security or public order.
2.
The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision
reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons
of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to
submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the
purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated
by the competent authority.
3.
The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period
within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting
States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as
they may deem necessary.

Article 33
prohibition of expulsion or return (“refoulement”)
1.
No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership
of a particular social group or political opinion.
2.
The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by
a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to
the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by
a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
community of that country.

The article 32 outline the protectorate nation that means the nation should not remove a refugee outside reason of national security and public order, the word shall does not translate to a definite action and that in the end gave way to the country own interpretation and their own discretion. Artile 32 in effect allow replusion of a refugee on national security ground and public order ground given the action is under a due process and the refugee is given time to pursade the case. A more decisive action were written on article 33 where it outlined the protectorate country

Article 33 defined that a country is prohibited to return a refugee in anyway that the refugee's life and freedom would threatened on acccount of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group.

What article 33 said is that nation must not replus the refugee back where his life or freedom can be harm by any circumstance his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Q.) It is wrong for any government to redirect or transport refugee seeker to a third party nation.
A.) The convention only deal with the fact after a person has claimed refugee, not any person whom seeking refugee status. Hence in the above point regarding illegal refugee, if a person is found not to be geniun refugee, the clause of non-punishable would vanish and the country are then free to prosecute the subject.

Also in this was the right to transport or expulse a refugee seeker, since nothing was mentioned in the convention, the right did not apply to refugee seeker.

Q.) Are refugee protection permanent.
A.) According to FAQ section of the UNHCR

Is refugee protection permanent?-

The protection provided under the
1951 Convention is not automatically
permanent.

A person may no longer be a refugee
when the basis for his or her
refugee status ceases to exist. This may
occur when, for example, refugees voluntary
repatriate to their home countries
once the situation there permits
such return. It may also occur when
refugees integrate or become naturalized
in their host countries and stay
permanently

There are no provision to grant permanent status to any refugee, in fact, the convention only deal with the right to protect, but no right of permanent settlement were covered, and the only article dealing with the resettlement and naturalization is article 34

Article 34​

naturalization​

The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and
naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite
naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges​

and costs of such proceedings.

That basically gave any signatory country 2 choices, either naturalized them if possible, so that they would stop being a refugee, or continue with the protection until the refugee status vanished. Either way, the right of refugee ceased when the crisis or threat of that person ended.

This is the discussion on the law prospect of the issue, Let's use my mother country and Australia as an example.

In Sweden, ordinarily speaking, onshore application of refugee settlement only applies to people that come directly (usually by plane) from country of threat to Sweden, all other refugee intakes in Sweden are channel thru UN refugee Camp.

For example; if a refugee show up in our Police Station (Police handle Immigration matter in Sweden) then he or she would be interviewed and proof that he or she has travelled from the purposed threat that he claim asylum for. If he can produce the evidence that he or she came directly, then the police will issue an ID card for the refugee.

If he or she cannot provide proof that he or she have not travel directly from the country of threat, the Swedish Police will lock him or her up and provide transport to the nearest UN refugee camp.

The issue with the Australian was, the simply fact that they did more than the UNHCR asked for before, bear in mind the convention does not ask for an onshore application system, nor a detention system paid for by the Australian government or even a premenant residcence, and now they wanted to scale back their doing, while such act is condemnable under the moral ground, however, they are not doing anything less than they are required to as aa signatory in UNHCR convention relating the status of refugee. Hence, in the eyes of the law, there are no wrong doing.

The whole boat people issue is not the Australian Government faults, nor was it the Indonesian Government fault, but rather both government were let down by the incidious management of refugee camp by the UNHCR. Those camp were supposed to be a safe haven for refugee until they were taken by a third country, instead those camp has been so poorly managed and become a breeding ground of violence and abuse either by local government or UN staff. Hence when the refugee lose faith in those camp, they would risk their life and try to travel further, and this type of incident do happens.

 

[Mighty Caty]

That's a completely different matter. Whether an asylum application gets approved or not is a secondary subject.

The question here is whether the court will even hear the application, i.e. whether the person can even apply or be deported preemptively by border guards without a court case.

It's like this: if an asylum seeker enters Germany from France, the border guards can immediately refuse entry. But if he enters from Indonesia, he must be allowed entry and the courts can then decide to accept or deport him.

P.S. In this case, the only thing the Australian Navy knows is that the person is coming through Indonesia, which is not a signatory. The Navy doesn't know what other countries the person has been through, so they cannot issue an on-the-spot rejection of asylum applications. They must forward the case to the appropriate authorities in Australia.

One cannot enter a country indirectly under the 1951 convention. The not liable to punish clause only support a refugee when they enter "Directly" from the land of original threat to their destination.

Say if they travel from Sri Lanka to Indonesia then to Germany or Asutralia, the border can refuse entry or punish the refugee to the person even if he had applied for refugee as per article 31 of UNHCR 1951 convetion

Article 31

refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee

1.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.

Notice the red bolded parts, unless those refugee were prosecuted by indonesian government by their race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group, once they touched down at indonesia or any other place, the further they travel will then become illegal entry to the third nation. And their action would be punishable by the government.

 

[Developereo]

I am surprised to see many people actually do not know clearly regarding the 1951 conventions,

You keep conflating two different concepts, which would explain your confusion.

-- A refugee applicant, once in detention or granted, must comply with the laws of a country. but the initial arrival will often be illegal.

-- Most of your points directly reinforce the view that an applicant must be given time to make his/her case rather than peremptory deportation.

-- A signatory to the Convention can NOT deport a person to a country where their rights would be threatened due to illegal entry. Australia pushing them into Indonesia constitutes as "illegal entry" into Indonesia.

-- Regarding indirect arrival in Sweden, (Migration and asylum policy )
Sweden must take its share of the responsibility for the international protection of refugees. An important part of this responsibility is to provide protection - through resettlement in Sweden - for people fleeing in a third country who do not have access to any other permanent solution.

Notice the red bolded parts, unless those refugee were prosecuted by indonesian government by their race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group, once they touched down at indonesia or any other place, the further they travel will then become illegal entry to the third nation.

What I wrote above.

Their reintroduction into Indonesian territory is illegal, since Australian Navy has no way to know if they have a valid Indonesian visa. In fact, the Australian Navy is breaking Indonesian border laws, as well as the UNHCR Convention's rules regarding sending people to countries where their rights might be in jeopardy due to their illegal status.

 

[Maxtini]

One cannot enter a country indirectly under the 1951 convention. The not liable to punish clause only support a refugee when they enter "Directly" from the land of original threat to their destination.

Say if they travel from Sri Lanka to Indonesia then to Germany or Asutralia, the border can refuse entry or punish the refugee to the person even if he had applied for refugee as per article 31 of UNHCR 1951 convetion

Notice the red bolded parts, unless those refugee were prosecuted by indonesian government by their race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group, once they touched down at indonesia or any other place, the further they travel will then become illegal entry to the third nation. And their action would be punishable by the government.

I think the UN has already provided interpretation of the word "directly" in the convention to clear any ambiguation~

Transiting through Indonesia is still considered "coming directly" per UN interpretation, even more, there are no time limit for how long the period of transiting is still count as"direct" and each must be judged based on merits.

http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf
"The expression "coming directly" in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly" and each case must be judged on its merits. Similarly, given the special situation of asylum-seekers, in particular the effects of trauma, language problems, lack of information, previous experiences which often result in a suspicion of those in authority, feelings of insecurity, and the fact that these and other circumstances may vary enormously from one asylum seeker to another, there is no time limit which can be mechanically applied or associated with the expression "without delay". The expression " good cause", requires a consideration of the circumstances under which the asylum-seeker fled. The term "asylum-seeker" in these guidelines applies to those whose claims are being considered under an admissibility or pre-screening procedure as well as those who are being considered under refugee status determination procedures. It also includes those exercising their right to seek judicial and/or administrative review of their asylum request."