australian navy violates Indonesian waters, Indonesia demands end to Australian provocations

[Nike]

Simply they are trying to provoke and teasing with us, after that the hot blooded Indonesian gov. will send her warships and patrol boats to patrolling across South Sea of Java. and then the Australian sailors can back to their home port water while drinking hot coffee in Starbucks, meanwhile our sailors patrolling here all day all night and then intercepting some of those refugee boats.

 

[Developereo]

The Chinese thing and the Indonesian were both started by Julia Gillard when the mining tax was charged and most Chinese investment is on that sector

Let me repeat myself once again: even John Howard was smart enough not to get involved in the China-Japan issue.

And yet this Abbott government jumped into the mix needlessly with provocative statements that no one else -- not even the EU -- made. It was a ridiculously stupid and amateurish move by Julie Bishop and Abbott backed her up with his usual arrogance.

The boat people is also started when the Kevin Rudd started to loosen up the policy and general Australian failed to impress and again Julia Gillard tightened the policy and starting to piss off Indonesia. Tony Abbott does not go from zero to turning the boat back overnight

You still haven't answered my question about the number of boat people arriving during the SE Asian exodus compared to now.

The spying scandal is started during labor tenure on the government, and when Tony Abbott got in office, what do you expect him to do? Come clean?

The problem is, Indonesia is not really our allies to beginning with, spying on them is an actual move, what do you expect tony Abbott to do? Apologise for it but insist we will keep doing it in the future?

The issue with the spying scandal was not the general spying but specifically the spying on the First Lady. Abbott the incompetent handled it stupendously badly and arrogantly.

The problem is that Abbott doesn't know the difference between strutting to the domestic bigots and making official statements on the international stage. As I mentioned, even conservative commentators like Paul Sheehan have taken him to task on his incompetent handling of the matter.

PS. Here's Sheehan's article: Tony Abbott's 10 ways out of this mess

1. I was shocked by these revelations.

2. I had no idea we had been tapping the phones of Yudhoyono and his wife.

3. I cannot reveal operational intelligence matters but such surveillance is not my government's policy.

4. The Coalition had nothing to do with this surveillance, undertaken four years ago.

5. I apologise, unreservedly, to Yudhoyono and his wife on behalf of Australia.

6. I am distressed that Mrs Yudhoyono was involved and can only imagine the impact on my wife if she was told she was being spied on.

7. You have my undertaking that such surveillance will not be attempted by my government.

8. We are committed to an open relationship with Indonesia, based on trust.

9. I will refrain from criticising the Rudd government as intelligence must remain a bipartisan matter.

10. We want to improve co-operation on intelligence, policing, border security and counter-terrorism because we face common threats.

There are no point to blame Abbott as he is between a hard place and a rock, you apologise for it and you seems weak, you don't and you pissed off Indonesian, seeing it's not Indonesian who's voting in election, I would say he had chosen the right path don't you think?

As PM of Australia, he needs to understand that managing foreign relations is part of his job. He can't be held hostage to the Murdoch media which got him elected on a wave on petty xenophobia to "stop the boats".

And please do not compare my ancestor to these boat people, my ancestor gone to Hong Kong and wait for it in a refugee camp like everybody else, nobody is saying they are not legit refugee, but pissed off at them jumping the queue like that.

Most people do not understand the asylum process. It is far more complex than a simple queue. There are rules on where you can apply and how applications are prioritized.

This explains the process.

Refugee Council of Australia

 

[Wholegrain]

I have nothing to say to you when you claim reference to extremist green left website, you may as we'll reference to Taliban Australian Branch

By the way, do you know why green left support the Arabic Islamic East Timor government and MNLF right?

So that they can deport every Muslim in Australia and from their own Utopia.

Iol .

Are you going to claim all of these publications are extremist leftists?

Stand up, the real Mr Alkatiri - Opinion - theage.com.au

Stand up, the real Mr Alkatiri

June 1, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
While Alkatiri was being told by Australians he should resign, the Portuguese and other leaders were wishing him well and urging him not to.

The Australian Government and media have demonised East Timor's PM without knowing all the facts, writes Helen Hill.

Ever since the August 2001 elections for the Constituent Assembly in East Timor - when the longest-standing party of resistance, Fretilin, won a convincing 57 per cent of the vote against 14 other parties - I have observed among Australian embassy employees in Dili, and most Australian journalists who write about Timor, a readiness to criticise Mari Alkatiri, East Timor's Prime Minister, on grounds that show they barely know anything about him.

The Bulletin and The Australian regularly recommend his overthrow. The week before the Fretilin congress in Dili, the ABC joined them as regular Alkatiri critics. Jim Middleton on the ABC's evening news wondered "what would happen if Alkatiri decides to resist" calls for his resignation, and uncritically put to air claims from a sacked Fretilin central committee member alleging that 80 per cent of the central committee was against the Prime Minister. A week later, after further violent episodes in Dili, we saw Maxine McKew on Lateline trying to put words into the mouths of MPs Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Garrett: "Wouldn't you say there's not much support for Alkatiri?" How could they possibly know, if all they saw were the Australian media?

Australia is trying to steal East Timor's gas, which are located in East Timor's territorial waters.

Australia accused of playing dirty in battle with East Timor over oil and gas reserves

World court to shine light on Timor Leste-Australia spy row - Channel NewsAsia

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/w...t-to-shine-light-on-e.timor-australia-spy-row

Print news - IPS Inter Press Service

However, Lisbon is not Howard's only critic. The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) wondered why "In all the Australian media coverage of the Howard government's latest armed intervention in East Timor, the words ‘oil' and ‘gas' are hardly mentioned."

The publication calls Alkatiri a born negotiator, who has significantly reduced the damage resulting from Australian imperialist attitudes regarding resources in Timor's seas. It also noted that Alkatiri was working on partnerships with China, which is keen on securing enough oil and gas to supply its dizzying growth, when the crisis exploded.

Stand up, the real Mr Alkatiri - Opinion - theage.com.au

Detractors frequently allege that Alkatiri's presence in Mozambique for 24 years means he is some sort of unreconstructed Marxist. In reality, he is an economic nationalist with a strong awareness of environmental issues and woman's issues; he regularly speaks out on violence against women. He has spoken against privatisation of electricity and managed to get a "single desk" pharmaceutical store, despite initial opposition from the World Bank. He hopes a state-owned petroleum company assisted by China, Malaysia and Brazil will enable Timor to benefit more from its own oil and gas in addition to the revenue it will raise from the area shared with Australia. At the Fretilin congress, he announced initiatives for scrapping school fees in primary school and introducing state-funded meals in all schools.

There is widespread support in Timor for Alkatiri's decision not to take loans from the World Bank, although it gave Timor a few years of extremely low salaries in the public service. The Cuban doctors invited by Alkatiri to serve in rural areas are also very popular, as is the new medical school they are establishing at the national university.

The young intellectuals at the university and the leadership of many Timorese non-government organisations praise Alkatiri's economic knowledge and his ability to defend Timor's interests against the likes of the World Bank and the Australian Government (over the Timor Sea issue), while being disappointed with slow progress on educational reform and development of the co-operative sector.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Embattled East Timor PM resigns

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also welcomed the news, saying it was "evidence we are moving to the resolution of the issue".

 

[jhungary]

Let me repeat myself once again: even John Howard was smart enough not to get involved in the China-Japan issue.

And yet this Abbott government jumped into the mix needlessly with provocative statements that no one else -- not even the EU -- made. It was a ridiculously stupid and amateurish move by Julie Bishop and Abbott backed her up with his usual arrogance.



You still haven't answered my question about the number of boat people arriving during the SE Asian exodus compared to now.



The issue with the spying scandal was not the general spying but specifically the spying on the First Lady. Abbott the incompetent handled it stupendously badly and arrogantly.

The problem is that Abbott doesn't know the difference between strutting to the domestic bigots and making official statements on the international stage. As I mentioned, even conservative commentators like Paul Sheehan have taken him to task on his incompetent handling of the matter.

PS. Here's Sheehan's article: Tony Abbott's 10 ways out of this mess

1. I was shocked by these revelations.

2. I had no idea we had been tapping the phones of Yudhoyono and his wife.

3. I cannot reveal operational intelligence matters but such surveillance is not my government's policy.

4. The Coalition had nothing to do with this surveillance, undertaken four years ago.

5. I apologise, unreservedly, to Yudhoyono and his wife on behalf of Australia.

6. I am distressed that Mrs Yudhoyono was involved and can only imagine the impact on my wife if she was told she was being spied on.

7. You have my undertaking that such surveillance will not be attempted by my government.

8. We are committed to an open relationship with Indonesia, based on trust.

9. I will refrain from criticising the Rudd government as intelligence must remain a bipartisan matter.

10. We want to improve co-operation on intelligence, policing, border security and counter-terrorism because we face common threats.



As PM of Australia, he needs to understand that managing foreign relations is part of his job. He can't be held hostage to the Murdoch media which got him elected on a wave on petty xenophobia to "stop the boats".



Most people do not understand the asylum process. It is far more complex than a simple queue. There are rules on where you can apply and how applications are prioritized.

This explains the process.

Refugee Council of Australia

Well, I don't want to get involved in another lib/labor debate, it will never gonna swing either way, if you want to engage the debate, you should go ahead and watch meet the press, let's just say you have a different political view then me, and you are not going to change me and I am not going to change you

I just want to reply on the asylum issue, contrast to what you said, I KNOW HEAPS OF ASYLUM PROCESSING

My mother being one of them and my wife is a Swedish human right lawyer, now tell me I don't know shit..

Asylum work in two due process, one is a waiting on UNHCR to clear a refugee claim whole the other one is waiting for a country to take on you

During both Vietnam War, and Sino Vietnam war, about 2 million leave Vietnam during 1975-1995 and 1 million estimated by boat, in all 800,000 survived and move to their final destination

those boat however, does not usually gone directly to Australia and their primary destination is Hong Kong, Philippine, Malaysia and Singapore. Those refugee would then wait for UNHCR process them on the refugee camp in the above places, then when a slot open up and the refugee can chose whether they take it or not.

About 150,000 Vietnam refugee settled in Australia

This is the process, this is not what I hated about, problem is, they enter Australia illegally and we grant them temporary visa to stay and work in Australia, while this is not the case most country do, in Sweden, unless immanent danger can be proven, you cannot enter Sweden illegally and apply for asylum and you expect Swedish government to grant you any kind of visa? No the swede will deport you and have you wait in your original country or a third party country until your number is called.

This practices was observed all over the world but Australia.

You do know when we grant those refugee temporary status, they can collect basic benefit right? By jumping queue, I do not mean they went ahead of the queue if other refugee, but enjoy Australian life faster than those apply outside, as they apply and WAIT in Australia.

Are you going to claim all of these publications are extremist leftists?

Stand up, the real Mr Alkatiri - Opinion - theage.com.au



Australia is trying to steal East Timor's gas, which are located in East Timor's territorial waters.

Australia accused of playing dirty in battle with East Timor over oil and gas reserves

World court to shine light on Timor Leste-Australia spy row - Channel NewsAsia

World court to shine light on E.Timor-Australia spy row | World | The Malay Mail Online

Print news - IPS Inter Press Service



Stand up, the real Mr Alkatiri - Opinion - theage.com.au



BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Embattled East Timor PM resigns

Lol, you spin that Australia do not support the Arab-Muslim leader inEast Timor leader because they are Muslim, but none of the source actually say that, the only source that literally support your claim is the one with green left.

You need to stop treating all western country pulling and playing dirty is an oppression to Muslim, but if this is what you only want to do then you and I do not have anything in common, please do not quote me anymore.

It's kind of bigoted idea to think the world spin around Islamic issue

 

[Developereo]

those boat however, does not usually gone directly to Australia and their primary destination is Hong Kong, Philippine, Malaysia and Singapore.

Plenty of Vietnamese refugees came directly to Australia.

You cannot apply for refugee status in your own country (unless you go hide within some foreign embassy). These people have to apply for refugee status in a foreign country and Australia is a foreign country for them.

During the SE Asian refugee influx,there was also strong racist opposition, but true leaders like Malcolm Fraser (the doyen of the Liberal Party himself) stood firm on principle and challenged the Australian people (and media) to rise beyond bigotry.

We have no leaders today. Both the Labor and Liberal clowns are hostage to the media.

It's kind of bigoted idea to think the world spin around Islamic issue

Actually, the whole hysteria around boat people is very much an anti-Muslim issue.

Do you know that asylum seekers to Australia are divided into two groups? maritime (boat) arrivals and air arrivals? The number of arrivals are comparable, but the acceptance rate (genuine refugees) for boat arrivals is 80-90%, whereas for air arrivals it is lower (50-60 percent I think -- I don't remember the exact number).

The vast majority of boat arrivals (genuine refugees), except for Sri Lankan Tamils, are Muslim, whereas the air arrivals are mostly from India, China, etc.

The media has been beating a tin drum about boat people (because they are Muslim) but hasn't said a single word about the air arrivals (because they are not Muslim), even through there are far more cheaters amongst the air arrivals.

 

[Wholegrain]

Lol, you spin that Australia do not support the Arab-Muslim leader inEast Timor leader because they are Muslim, but none of the source actually say that, the only source that literally support your claim is the one with green left.

You need to stop treating all western country pulling and playing dirty is an oppression to Muslim, but if this is what you only want to do then you and I do not have anything in common, please do not quote me anymore.

It's kind of bigoted idea to think the world spin around Islamic issue

Do you like twisting other people's words out of context? I said, Australia opposed Alkatiri since he refused to be their puppet and asked China for help against Australia stealing East Timor's gas. East Timor is a 99% Catholic country. Alkatiri's religion was used as an excuse to portray him as a threat to Australia.

 

[jhungary]

Plenty of Vietnamese refugees came directly to Australia.

You cannot apply for refugee status in your own country (unless you go hide within some foreign embassy). These people have to apply for refugee status in a foreign country and Australia is a foreign country for them.

During the SE Asian refugee influx,there was also strong racist opposition, but true leaders like Malcolm Fraser (the doyen of the Liberal Party himself) stood firm on principle and challenged the Australian people (and media) to rise beyond bigotry.

We have no leaders today. Both the Labor and Liberal clowns are hostage to the media.



Actually, the whole hysteria around boat people is very much an anti-Muslim issue.

Do you know that asylum seekers to Australia are divided into two groups? maritime (boat) arrivals and air arrivals? The number of arrivals are comparable, but the acceptance rate (genuine refugees) for boat arrivals is 80-90%, whereas for air arrivals it is lower (50-60 percent I think -- I don't remember the exact number).

The vast majority of boat arrivals (genuine refugees), except for Sri Lankan Tamils, are Muslim, whereas the air arrivals are mostly from India, China, etc.

The media has been beating a tin drum about boat people (because they are Muslim) but hasn't said a single word about the air arrivals (because they are not Muslim), even through there are far more cheaters amongst the air arrivals.

Plenty of Vietnamese refugees came directly to Australia

Seems like you know little about Vietnamese Refugee during 1975-1995......

According to UNHCR Complied report as follow

UNHCR - The State of The World's Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action - Chapter 4: Flight from Indochina


Go to figure 4.3

Of the 796,310 boat people arrived between 1975-1995,

1. Hong Kong - 195,833
2. Indonesia - 121,708
3. Japan - 11,071
4. Republic of Korea - 1,348
5. Macau - 7128
6. Malaysia - 254,495
7. Philipine - 51,722
8. Singapore - 32,457
9. Thailand - 117,321
10. Other - 3,227

Of the UNHCR estimation, 2 millions refugee left Vietnam during 1975-1995, of those 1.2 mil are thru a offshore waiting program from an "Orderly Departure Program" that US negoitated on behalf UNHCR and Vietnamese Government, the program were to allow a safe waiting of refugee in Vietnam without prosecution and allow them to apply and wait for Refugees status being grant in country and leave in an orderly fashion.

800,000 (Actual number 796,310) were left by boat. ANd how many of them ended up in Australia Directly??
Australia wasn't even on the list, it would be under "Other" category, which mean if at all, all Refugee under other category are indeed toward Australia, then only 3,227 arrival duiring the whole period of 1975-1995. A number not even half of the year IMR arrive in Australia during 2011-2012 (14,000 boat people)

And one thing you neglect to mention from your post is, of those 7,000 asylum seeker arrived in Australia majority to nearlyu all of thsoe are enter this country legally with a Visa (Either Student, Business or Tourist Visa) while it is impossible for a person to travel thru air with custom and immigration countre WITHOUT any identification, the prospect of travel thru air is that they enter this country legally and then claim asylum status.

The confusion about legal status arises from those arriving by boat doing so without a valid visa or any other appropriate authorisation, whereas most, though not all, who arrive by air and then seek asylum, usually enter on a valid visa

Asylum seekers and refugees What are the facts – Parliament of Australia

Now, i am not saying those people who enter our country by boat illegally are doing anything illegal. According to UNHCR, you are allow to enter a country for a purpose of seeking asylum. I just want to clear out this fact first (Otherwise i may got a bite in the *** later on). But the problem is, those people entered by boat are extremely problematic, as they do not have any ID and only 11% of those boat people are registered with UNHCR. So an application process can start immediately.

Other part of the world, (Only the country i know of, US, Sweden, Germany, UK, Australia, HK, China, Japan) do not have an inplace Onshore processing asylum seeking process. This happened after the refugee was swamp in Hong Kong and Thailand and leading to border close with these places. US is the first to say onshore protection would only apply to criminal justice visa or for people who life is in imminet danger.

Andf finally, i don't really care (Or acutally know) where those boat people come from, infact, assuming you are watching SBS, ABC, 7,9,10 news. Those news report have never mention they are Muslim based asylum seeker. Nobody I know hate those people becasue they are muslim, they could be Indian, Chinese, Hong Kongese, American or Brits for all i care, i do not hate those people because of their religious background, i hate those people becasue they are cutting in the queue of waiting. Instead of wait in their own country and get the claim processed, they jump on a boat and head to australia, regardless of consequence. In fact, i don't actually know most of boat people are Muslim before today.

Media does not make a big deal out of the so called "Plane People" simply becasue they follow the rules. They apply for a visa and hop on a plane here, everything fair and square and not because they are muslim or anything, anyway a great deal of plane people are muslim as well.

Can you show me one australian media outlet claim the refugee is not legit, or discriminate against BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM??They are hated for they are boat people, not because they are muslim

Mate, they come by boat for some reason, if they are any decent, they would apply for a tourist visa (for A$80) and hop on a plane here and apply asylum this way, it's not like you don't need to pay anything to get here by boat, and most of them actually pay more than a single airfare to fly them here anyway (A$2000 per head is the common price for a boat trip to Australia) and after we already said there will not no settlement here if you come by boat, they still came. Something is obviously wrong here if you ask me.

I repeat, i don't like them not beause they are not geniune refugee, nor because they are muslim, nor because they steal our job or what not. My family are refugee themselves, i am all for Australia taking more refugee, but at least please have a decency to come here legitimatically. That's what i don't like about them.

Do you like twisting other people's words out of context? I said, Australia opposed Alkatiri since he refused to be their puppet and asked China for help against Australia stealing East Timor's gas. East Timor is a 99% Catholic country. Alkatiri's religion was used as an excuse to portray him as a threat to Australia.

Dude, isn't this fortified my point of you terying to spin thing into muslim way, as a matter of fact we found that Alkatiri is simply imcompetent, yet you say like we expel him because he is muslim. This is your word, not mine.

As i said, don't quote me again, i will not reply you from here on in

 

[Developereo]

Seems like you know little about Vietnamese Refugee during 1975-1995......

I was responding to your claim that Vietnamese people did not come directly. Some did, and there was racist media hysteria about them also, with stories of Vietnamese boat people coming with suitcases full of gold, etc.

Luckily, as I mentioned, there were leaders who stood above the racist media hysteria and chastised the media.

We have no such leaders now; all they can do is to kowtow to the agenda of media barons like Rupert Murdoch, etc..

And one thing you neglect to mention from your post is, of those 7,000 asylum seeker arrived in Australia majority to nearlyu all of thsoe are enter this country legally with a Visa

There are two ways to apply for asylum: enter legally and switch to the asylum track, or show up at the door unannounced with the intention to apply for asylum.

Both the plane people and the boat people are following their respective set of rules, but the boat people are more genuine (90%) compared to the plane people (60%).

Media does not make a big deal out of the so called "Plane People" simply becasue they follow the rules.

See below about following rules and applying for tourist visa.

Can you show me one australian media outlet claim the refugee is not legit, or discriminate against BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM??

Empirical evidence as I explained in a previous post. If you have two groups of people:
A- 90% legit (predominantly Muslim)
B- 60% legit (predominantly non-Muslim)

and the media makes a fuss over group (A), while ignoring group (B), then it becomes important to see why the focus is on group (A). Note that both groups are following the specific procedures applicable to them, so it's not a procedural thing.

If the media's intention is to point out abuse of the asylum system, then the clear focus of attention should be group (B), not group (A). However, if it made a fuss about group (B), then Australia would be accused of fostering racism against Indians, Chinese and SE Asians, which is politically unacceptable. Ranting about group (A) -- Middle Easterners and Muslims mostly -- is politically acceptable.

If you have followed the Australian media, then you know that right wingers like Bolt and Jones openly claim their opposition to Muslim immigration, especially asylum seekers.

Tuckey warns of terrorists among asylum-seekers

Prejudice against asylum seekers and the fear of terrorism: The importance of context - Murdoch Research Repository

Mate, they come by boat for some reason, if they are any decent, they would apply for a tourist visa (for A$80) and hop on a plane here and apply asylum this way

They _are_ following the rules. For people who escape their country on the run with no documents, how can they apply for a tourist visa? The UNHCR acknowledges that some people will simply have no option but to seek refuge anywhere they can -- with or without documents.

I repeat, i don't like them not beause they are not geniune refugee, nor because they are muslim,

I am not saying that _you_ personally are anti-Muslim. I said that the Australian media's hysteria is fueled by an anti-Muslim bias. The people who complain loudest about the "boat people" often tend to also voice strong opinions against Muslims in general.

 

[jhungary]

I was responding to your claim that Vietnamese people did not come directly. Some did, and there was racist media hysteria about them also, with stories of Vietnamese boat people coming with suitcases full of gold, etc.

Luckily, as I mentioned, there were leaders who stood above the racist media hysteria and chastised the media.

We have no such leaders now; all they can do is to kowtow to the agenda of media barons like Rupert Murdoch, etc..



There are two ways to apply for asylum: enter legally and switch to the asylum track, or show up at the door unannounced with the intention to apply for asylum.

Both the plane people and the boat people are following their respective set of rules, but the boat people are more genuine (90%) compared to the plane people (60%).



See below about following rules and applying for tourist visa.



Empirical evidence as I explained in a previous post. If you have two groups of people:
A- 90% legit (predominantly Muslim)
B- 60% legit (predominantly non-Muslim)

and the media makes a fuss over group (A), while ignoring group (B), then it becomes important to see why the focus is on group (A). Note that both groups are following the specific procedures applicable to them, so it's not a procedural thing.

If the media's intention is to point out abuse of the asylum system, then the clear focus of attention should be group (B), not group (A). However, if it made a fuss about group (B), then Australia would be accused of fostering racism against Indians, Chinese and SE Asians, which is politically unacceptable. Ranting about group (A) -- Middle Easterners and Muslims mostly -- is politically acceptable.

If you have followed the Australian media, then you know that right wingers like Bolt and Jones openly claim their opposition to Muslim immigration, especially asylum seekers.

Tuckey warns of terrorists among asylum-seekers

Prejudice against asylum seekers and the fear of terrorism: The importance of context - Murdoch Research Repository



They _are_ following the rules. For people who escape their country on the run with no documents, how can they apply for a tourist visa? The UNHCR acknowledges that some people will simply have no option but to seek refuge anywhere they can -- with or without documents.



I am not saying that _you_ personally are anti-Muslim. I said that the Australian media's hysteria is fueled by an anti-Muslim bias. The people who complain loudest about the "boat people" often tend to also voice strong opinions against Muslims in general.

Dude, I just quoted the distribution of Vietnamese first touch down, there are not much to insignificant amount of refugee goes directly to Australia

Almost all 135,000 Vietnamese refugee resettle in Australia were processed off shore then.

And it's not necessary for those boat people to make Australia their final destination, you probably do not understand the situation, they do not get from Afghanistan and Kongo directly to Australia too, almost all of them stop over at Indonesia to board the boat to Christmas Island

So my question is, of those boat are originated from Indonesia, that would mean at some point those refugee would had feet dry in Indonesia. Then why they don't apply asylum from Australian Embassy in Indonesia? Not like they will be prosecuted by Indonesian government

Better yet, why don't they claim refugee to Indonesian government directly? Not like Indonesia government are any bad place to live.

Those people board the boat from Indonesia to Australia for a reason, they could have apply for any visa in Indonesia (allowed as per UNHCR directive) they could have apply for a tourist visa in Indonesia to Australia. but they don't, they instead board a boat to Australia.

So, for me and people who claim refugee status before, those people could have, AND should have done the right thing but they didn't.

Instead they come by boat and draw away our resource to either find them and rescue them, or feed them and shelter them.

You don't need to keep telling me boat people have a more legitimate claim than plane people, I know, but being more qualified does not give you the right to risk our defence personnel and draw away our resource like that.

Law is law, we have our border protection policy for a reason, it does not matter if you are more qualify, your approach is not legitimate is the problem

You cannot use the excuse because you have a legitimate reason to board the train now and don't buy the ticket, guess what would transit officer do and the police do when they found you travelling without a valid ticket?

 

[Developereo]

Then why they don't apply asylum from Australian Embassy in Indonesia?
[...]
why don't they claim refugee to Indonesian government directly?
[...]
apply for a tourist visa in Indonesia to Australia

It's unlikely Australia would give a tourist visa to someone who seemed likely to apply for asylum once inside.
As for preferring Australia over Indonesia, there is nothing illegal in that. The Refugee Convention says nothing about that.

Law is law, we have our border protection policy for a reason, it does not matter if you are more qualify, your approach is not legitimate is the problem

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the Refugee Convention is that any human being can show up at a country's border and ask for asylum. If the country is a signatory to the Convention, then that person must be allowed entry (barring obvious criminals). If the asylum application is denied, then the person may be deported, but you cannot preemptively deny entry to a person demanding asylum.

Thus, as a voluntary signatory to the Refugee Convention, Australia is obligated to accept these people. The only option Australia has is to withdraw from the Convention, or to lobby for a redraft of the rules. However, short of that, it is Australia -- not the refugees -- who are violating the law.

 

[jhungary]

It's unlikely Australia would give a tourist visa to someone who seemed likely to apply for asylum once inside.
As for preferring Australia over Indonesia, there is nothing illegal in that. The Refugee Convention says nothing about that.

Does that stop them for at least try to apply for a visa?

The fact to the problem is, they should but by not doing so, we would never have a outcome.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the Refugee Convention is that any human being can show up at a country's border and ask for asylum. If the country is a signatory to the Convention, then that person must be allowed entry (barring obvious criminals). If the asylum application is denied, then the person may be deported, but you cannot preemptively deny entry to a person demanding asylum.

Thus, as a voluntary signatory to the Refugee Convention, Australia is obligated to accept these people. The only option Australia has is to withdraw from the Convention, or to lobby for a redraft of the rules. However, short of that, it is Australia -- not the refugees -- who are violating the law.

Actually, my wife is a laywer, and if you read the UNHCR document i referrence to carefully, you will see a clear hand out saying the asylum can enter any country for the purpose of applying for a refugee as long as they do not hinder that country border security. Hence leading to the close border you see from time to time during war in africa, war in the middle east, and during the height of vietnamese boat people.

Indeed the refugee have right to go to a country and apply for asylum, but host country also have right to close border to selective person. The prospect is as follow, UNHCR guideline is, a person should always get to the nearest safe point for Refugee process.

Answer me this : Wouldn't it be safer and a lot easier to have UNHCR process them when they are in Indonesia, Australia can take whatever they can handle once they were processed in Indoesnia by UNHCR. If indonesia do not take those people at first, why the problem got dumped on Australia??

They should have and could have done a lot of thing, but instead they hop on a boat and get here. Then they complaint about the Australian Government. Lol

 

[katarabhumi]

Answer me this : Wouldn't it be safer and a lot easier to have UNHCR process them when they are in Indonesia, Australia can take whatever they can handle once they were processed in Indoesnia by UNHCR. If indonesia do not take those people at first, why the problem got dumped on Australia??

And while they're in Indonesia, where do you suggest we put them when they're waiting for the (not guaranteed) approval?.

We have hundreds of million people already. Australia can delay the approval like.. forever. Meanwhile their number grows and cause new problems for Indonesia. So... No thanks, we are not your front office.

After all, Australia is a signatory to the Refugees Convention. Indonesia is not... and those people want to go to Australia not Indonesia.. Indonesia is just a transit place. We have no obligation nor right to hinder them from completing their journeys, especially when they enter Indonesia legally.

So how about Australia just take em, build a camp for them, and do the UNHCR process there. I am sure a camp wouldn't take much in the vast continent.

.

 

[Developereo]

Does that stop them for at least try to apply for a visa?

It's pointless to apply for a tourist visa. Every non-immigrant visa application (to any country) has the stipulation that the applicant is not applying for permanent residence, only a temporary visit.

The asylum seeker is illegally in Indonesia to start with, so they can't apply for an Australia visa under normal rules. The only way they can apply is to claim they are a stateless refugee. How can a stateless refugee apply for a tourist visa? There is ZERO chance they would get the visa. Absolutely zero.

Hence leading to the close border you see from time to time during war in africa, war in the middle east, and during the height of vietnamese boat people.

Those are extreme cases. Australia is not in a war zone, so there is no cause to close borders. I am not aware of Australia turning back any boats in the 1970's, 80s,.

Answer me this : Wouldn't it be safer and a lot easier to have UNHCR process them when they are in Indonesia, Australia can take whatever they can handle once they were processed in Indoesnia by UNHCR. If indonesia do not take those people at first, why the problem got dumped on Australia??

Once again, Australia is trying to shirk its responsibility and dump the process onto Indonesia.

Why should Indonesia do Australia's work?

These people are explicitly applying to Australia, not Indonesia. Indonesia has nothing to do with their case.

It's not even Indonesia's responsibility to police Australia's borders.

 

[jhungary]

And while they're in Indonesia, where do you suggest we put them when they're waiting for the (not guaranteed) approval?.

We have hundreds of million people already. Australia can delay the approval like.. forever. Meanwhile their number grows and cause new problems for Indonesia. So... No thanks, we are not your front office.

After all, Australia is a signatory to the Refugees Convention. Indonesia is not... and those people want to go to Australia not Indonesia.. Indonesia is just a transit place. We have no obligation nor right to hinder them from completing their journeys, especially when they enter Indonesia legally.

So how about Australia just take em, build a camp for them, and do the UNHCR process there. I am sure a camp wouldn't take much in the vast continent.

.

Dude, the process of a refugee is not up to any particular country, they are processed by UNHCR and there are no requirement for any country to take the refugee, the only rules in place is the world need to take 0.1% of processed refugee a year

If I remember correctly, before the nahru deal, the Australian government were in talk with Indonesian to build camp and financed by Australian government to temporary hold the refugee. But Indonesia said no.

Plus Indonesian government can deport them back to their original location, or send them to a third country like we do with Narhu now...

So if Indonesia don't want them and you just pass them to Australia? Guess what, last time I check, Indonesia is a signatory in UNHCR too, so it's your responsibility as well as the Aussie

It's pointless to apply for a tourist visa. Every non-immigrant visa application (to any country) has the stipulation that the applicant is not applying for permanent residence, only a temporary visit.

The asylum seeker is illegally in Indonesia to start with, so they can't apply for an Australia visa under normal rules. The only way they can apply is to claim they are a stateless refugee. How can a stateless refugee apply for a tourist visa? There is ZERO chance they would get the visa. Absolutely zero.



Those are extreme cases. Australia is not in a war zone, so there is no cause to close borders. I am not aware of Australia turning back any boats in the 1970's, 80s,.



Once again, Australia is trying to shirk its responsibility and dump the process onto Indonesia.

Why should Indonesia do Australia's work?

These people are explicitly applying to Australia, not Indonesia. Indonesia has nothing to do with their case.

It's not even Indonesia's responsibility to police Australia's borders.

Actually, your case only apples to US and Canada, Australian Temporary visa do not have an no permsnent stays clause, as long as you do so legitimately (the only clause for not to grant a temporary would be engage in illegal activities, like working illegal or would likely overstay with you visa)

Hence you can apply for a tourist visa to Australia intended to get married to an Australian Citizen or Resident and intent to stay in Australia permanently, you don't need to apply for a license to get married for non-citizen like in the US and The UK

As long as your intention is legal, they will not reject you a tourist visa. Remember my wife is a lawyer?

The illegal entry on Indonesia part is another problem, however even if you illegally entry into Indonesia, technically you can still apply for an Australian Visa with the Australian Embassy, heck, you can even claim refugee to Australia in Australian Embassy in Jakara, tell me why they did not do that?

And about the war zone comment so does Hong Kong and Thailand during the 1980s as well as I said there are literally no boat directly from SE Asia to Australia, Australia never closed their border for SE Asia refugee

and the fact is Its not like where the Refugee want and that country have to comply with the refugees request. The two thing is separate.

Refugee have the right to claim refugee, but it's up to the host country initiative to take them, not like "Oh, they want to come to Australia and Aussie must take them" it is actually the first country that can provide a safe haven to shelter them, if they want to come to Australia, they would have need to go to Australian directly. Technically when they arrived in Indonesia, the Indonesia government is the one that should offer support to them, using the excuse because they want to go to Australia and we let them be is actually violate the UNHCR charter, they know their boat is not sea worthy and yet release them to meet their end is actually borderline negligence homicide.

If the refugee want Australian Government to take responsibility, they should not have stop at Indonesia. The action that they release those refugee is dumbing the problem to us, not the other way around

 

[Developereo]

you can even claim refugee to Australia in Australian Embassy in Jakara, tell me why they did not do that?

If lots of people started flooding the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, the Australians would ask the Indonesians to stop those people. Protection of a diplomatic enclave is the joint responsibility between the host country and the foreign country.

There is no such situation in the open seas. Indonesia has no legitimate cause to stop people entering Australian territory.