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

[jhungary]

UNHCR has fired a warning shot across the bow. Let's see if they say anything more over time.



Oh, I don't deny that there is a small constituency which cares about this issue. There are interest groups for everything.

But it was not a mainstream threat to national security as it has been made out to be.



Between Murdoch and Packer, they own 90% of the newspapers in the major cities.

Why would it not be a major issue or threat with border security?

If you have a person who board a plane to Australia without any ID, it would be a great security risk on border security.

Not to mention the defence personnel risk their life out in the high sea and bring or sometime rescue those people, those are all serious risk

Had the refugee all follow the rules and register themselves with UNHCR first, that maybe another situation, but fact is, only 11% of those are registered, we don't really know for sure who those 89% was

I would say this is a big problem in national security

 

[Developereo]

Why would it not be a major issue or threat with border security?

If you have a person who board a plane to Australia without any ID, it would be a great security risk on border security.

Not to mention the defence personnel risk their life out in the high sea and bring or sometime rescue those people, those are all serious risk

Had the refugee all follow the rules and register themselves with UNHCR first, that maybe another situation, but fact is, only 11% of those are registered, we don't really know for sure who those 89% was

I would say this is a big problem in national security

It's a non-issue because Australian navy does not need to intercept them in the open seas.

There is no requirement to register at UNHCR before coming to Australia. It is perfectly 100% legitimate for these people to come to Australia and apply for asylum here.

If there were large waves of terrorists or criminals coming, then the media hysteria would make sense, but the Australian courts decide that 90% of these people are legitimate.

The whole thing is a non-issue drummed up by the media.

 

[jhungary]

It's a non-issue because Australian navy does not need to intercept them in the open seas.

There is no requirement to register at UNHCR before coming to Australia. It is perfectly 100% legitimate for these people to come to Australia and apply for asylum here.

If there were large waves of terrorists or criminals coming, then the media hysteria would make sense, but the Australian courts decide that 90% of these people are legitimate.

The whole thing is a non-issue drummed up by the media.

First, you do know how asylum touch down in Australia soil?

They will force the way into Australian water and call for help, either their boat is generally broken or they sabotage it.

Often time Navy need to dispatch vessel and planes to search and rescue them. Not always success, that's why you keep hearing asylum seeker died on the way to Australia.

That would risk the navy personnel and the custom service as they are the one who got the call out

F the Australian Navy does not intercept those ship, it will be no point for them to go quietly to Christmas Island, by then they will just be one of the illegal

And the fact that they do not generally registed to UNHCR is a problem of Nationality. Without Registration and usually without a single Identification, how do our government know it's who's who out there?

You are not allowed to enter Australian contiguous zone without at lease some ID, when a person with no ID roaming around our border, we will call it a security risk.

If you do it in the US, you will got throw to jail

 

[Developereo]

First, you do know how asylum touch down in Australia soil?

Once again, it is allowed by the Refugee Convention that people can show up without documentation and claim asylum. As long as Australia is a signatory, it must honor the Convention.

If you do it in the US, you will got throw to jail

US Coast Guard routinely escorts Cuban refugees in leaky boats to Florida.
Italian authorities do the same with people coming from Africa.

 

[Maxtini]

First, you do know how asylum touch down in Australia soil?

They will force the way into Australian water and call for help, either their boat is generally broken or they sabotage it.

Often time Navy need to dispatch vessel and planes to search and rescue them. Not always success, that's why you keep hearing asylum seeker died on the way to Australia.

That would risk the navy personnel and the custom service as they are the one who got the call out

F the Australian Navy does not intercept those ship, it will be no point for them to go quietly to Christmas Island, by then they will just be one of the illegal

And the fact that they do not generally registed to UNHCR is a problem of Nationality. Without Registration and usually without a single Identification, how do our government know it's who's who out there?

You are not allowed to enter Australian contiguous zone without at lease some ID, when a person with no ID roaming around our border, we will call it a security risk.

If you do it in the US, you will got throw to jail

Never heard of Balseros? They're the boat people version of cuban who raft to Florida and Puerto Rico to search for refuge and asylum.

Latin American Herald Tribune - Six Cuban Rafters Rescued from Puerto Rican Islet
Six Cuban Rafters Rescued from Puerto Rican Islet

​

SAN JUAN – Six undocumented Cuban migrants landed illegally on the Mona islet, in western Puerto Rico, U.S. authorities in San Juan reported Thursday.

The group arrived in Puerto Rico on Tuesday aboard a raft three meters (about 10 feet) long and were rescued from the barren islet by Border Patrol agents and U.S. Coast Guard personnel.

Because the Cubans managed to get onto solid ground and Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory they can take advantage of the Cuban Adjustment Act, which allows them to work in the United States legally and, after a year and a day, to apply for residence.

 

[jhungary]

Once again, it is allowed by the Refugee Convention that people can show up without documentation and claim asylum. As long as Australia is a signatory, it must honor the Convention.



US Coast Guard routinely escorts Cuban refugees in leaky boats to Florida.
Italian authorities do the same with people coming from Africa.

Once again, it's up bounded by UNCLOS for each country to enforce their border within territorial waters

And first, US have an agreement of understanding to Cuban refugee for their previous ownership. US will unconditionally take those refugee as we'll as from Haitian and Grenada. It was from the old Cold War day when the US wanted to turn as many red citizen white. Infact the congress is considering to close those acts as the fall of Soviet Russia came and gone.

So this will be US responsibility to rescue as much as those people as possible. I don't think Australia have any refugee treaty with any country

And it's good seamanship to escort or transport an unseaworthy vessel to the closest land mass

As I explained before, nations will not ignore the pled of a fellow seamen in trouble.

However in this case USCG will tow seaworthy ship back to Gitmo if they intercepted them for processing And by the way i was saying someone within US and without any documentation, they will throw you in jail

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Signal

 

[jhungary]

Never heard of Balseros? They're the boat people version of cuban who raft to Florida and Puerto Rico to search for refuge and asylum.

Latin American Herald Tribune - Six Cuban Rafters Rescued from Puerto Rican Islet
Six Cuban Rafters Rescued from Puerto Rican Islet

​

SAN JUAN – Six undocumented Cuban migrants landed illegally on the Mona islet, in western Puerto Rico, U.S. authorities in San Juan reported Thursday.

The group arrived in Puerto Rico on Tuesday aboard a raft three meters (about 10 feet) long and were rescued from the barren islet by Border Patrol agents and U.S. Coast Guard personnel.

Because the Cubans managed to get onto solid ground and Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory they can take advantage of the Cuban Adjustment Act, which allows them to work in the United States legally and, after a year and a day, to apply for residence.

Dude, US had an agreement to take any refugee from Cuba, Haitian and Grenada via Cuban Adjustment act 1966.

Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The act focus on 3 different visa aspect. Humanilitian refugee visa, Insuranced immigrant visa and diversity lottery visa

Australia does not have any agreement with any country regarding to refugee status. Australian have no responsibility beside basic good seamanship to locate and rescue any boat in trouble

I do not understand why you bring up CAA as those are different case than anything else

CAS is like Argentina unilaterally granting Falklands Islander citizenship and Republic of Ireland granting Northern Irelander Citizenship

 

[Developereo]

Once again, it's up bounded by UNCLOS for each country to enforce their border within territorial waters

And first, US have an agreement of understanding to Cuban refugee

The US Coast Guard doesn't know if people in a boat are Cubans or Mexicans. All they can do is to escort them onshore and then decide what to do with them.

As for border protection, yes, the authorities can stop anyone trying to come in but, as soon as the person requests asylum, they have to be admitted into the country (unless there is probable cause to suspect criminality). They can't be turned back preemptively. The border protection officers are not qualified or authorized to make an on-the-spot judgement of asylum.

 

[jhungary]

The US Coast Guard doesn't know if people in a boat are Cubans or Mexicans. All they can do is to escort them onshore and then decide what to do with them.

As for border protection, yes, the authorities can stop anyone trying to come in but, as soon as the person requests asylum, they have to be admitted into the country (unless there is probable cause to suspect criminality). They can't be turned back preemptively. The border protection officers are not qualified or authorized to make an on-the-spot judgement of asylum.

Actually, that is the exact reason (they don't know if the boat is Cuban or Mexican) now they tow all boat back regardless of origin, stop admitting people at sea

Wet feet, dry feet policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And no, you do not need to admit those refugee as soon as they claim asylum. They are to be placed in a camp that have a unique custom status, all detention camp does not consider Australian soil, rather a special commonwealth land.

 

[Developereo]

Actually, that is the exact reason (they don't know if the boat is Cuban or Mexican) now they tow all boat back regardless of origin, stop admitting people at sea

Wet feet, dry feet policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It sounds like the "wet feet dry feet" policy is a specific bilateral agreement between the US and Cuba which overrides UNHCR rules. Note that it only applies to Cubans, not random people found in the waters.

From your link

As a consequence of the migration agreements and interdiction policy, a "wet foot/dry foot" practice toward Cuban migrants has evolved.

And no, you do not need to admit those refugee as soon as they claim asylum. They are to be placed in a camp that have a unique custom status, all detention camp does not consider Australian soil, rather a special commonwealth land.

Semantics.
When I say "admit", it means admit into Australia jurisdiction. Whether it's a detention camp or a hotel is not the point.

 

[jhungary]

It sounds like the "wet feet dry feet" policy is a specific bilateral agreement between the US and Cuba which overrides UNHCR rules. Note that it only applies to Cubans, not random people found in the waters.

From your link

As a consequence of the migration agreements and interdiction policy, a "wet foot/dry foot" practice toward Cuban migrants has evolved.

Semantics.
When I say "admit", it means admit into Australia jurisdiction. Whether it's a detention camp or a hotel is not the point.

Well. no, the reason why USCG and USN found it difficult to enact the CAA is because the standing order for the USCG to tow the ship back to nearest land mass, if the ship intecepted is founded to be unseaworthy. That is done on a good seamanship basis, but not any law require us to do so.

If the ship is founded to be seaworthy, they will be towed away and return to the ships origin of registration or the enarest third party nation. USCG is instructed to stop and turn around all boat if they are found to be ok to continue the journey. That's why they cannot investigate everyboat and see if they are cuban or mexican refugee.

The stop admitting people at sea part is not just for Cuban, but for everyone. However, if you go by sea and landed in US (Puerto Rico or Florida) then you will be admitted, But at priority 3 and for any in country refugee claimant, they need to wait for 150 days aggregated before they can apply for any visa and protective right (Work right and Travel right) in country, A Lot unlike Australia.

And as i said, the detention camp does not belong to Australian Juridiction, but is a commopnwealth land. The same piece of land you wait before boarding a plane but after immigration for outbound and before immmigration for inbound. If you are a Permantent Visa holder, staying in detention center does not count toward days staying in Australia. (Permanent Resident visa holder would still be held in detention center if they cannot proof their Permanent Resident status)

This would be my final post in this thread, we have been dance around a few issue that does not contruct into any form of solid argument and i have spend a lot of time replying post here and seriously hammering my other schedule. I will just concluded at that

The boat people could have apply asylum in Australian Embassy in Indonesia, your claim of the extra security and application does not hold water as because even at the height of the boat people influx, there are only 14,000 a year. That's come down to 38 people per day extra on top of the normal visiting frequent.

Australian Government should not be blamed nor admit (Which is what they are doing currently) if those refugee fail to apply offshore in Indonesia, but instead they board a boat and come to Australia.

This is my point of view, you can of course have your own, but i am not going to discuss with this issue anymore.

 

[katarabhumi]

Dude, last time I check, you are a member of UN, without Indonesia signature, UNHCR would not be establish, you had not sign anything on WHO but are you part of WHO?

I did not refer to the 1967 protocol or the convention in 1951. But you still part of UNHCR, so you want UN help but don't want to do your part?

As a UN member we did our part by not denying their passing through our country to Australia, provide security while they are in our territory.

You ask Indonesia to refuse them or to send them back. We can't.. by international law.

I quote a FAQ from UNHCR site :

CAN A COUNTRY THAT HAS NOT SIGNED THE 1951 CONVENTION REFUSE TO ADMIT A PERSON SEEKING PROTECTION?

The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a territory where his or her life or freedom is threatened, is considered a rule of customary international law. As such it is binding an all States, regardless of whether they have acceded to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. A refugee seeking protection MUST NOT be prevented from entering a country as this would amount to refoulement.

.
If Indonesia as a non signatory isn't allowed to refuse, moreover Australia as the signatory.. Just accept them, mate.
.

 

[DarkElf]

Ironically, it's the Australian government who sign the convention, Australian judge who admits them as refugees and letting them enter, Australian welfare who entices them to pick Australia as destination but somehow it's all Indonesian fault..........

So many things that Australia can do to stop the tide of refugees, scrap the convention, teach their judge better or make new rule about who is legal refugee or not, denied welfare for new immigrant but they choose to blame anyone besides themselves.

 

[Developereo]

This is my point of view, you can of course have your own, but i am not going to discuss with this issue anymore.

Exactly.
All you have been saying is your personal wish list of how people/Indonesia should behave to make life easy on Australia.

Once again, the only entity even close to breaking any laws is Australia, not Indonesia and not the refugees.

 

[Maxtini]

Dude, US had an agreement to take any refugee from Cuba, Haitian and Grenada via Cuban Adjustment act 1966.

Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The act focus on 3 different visa aspect. Humanilitian refugee visa, Insuranced immigrant visa and diversity lottery visa

Australia does not have any agreement with any country regarding to refugee status. Australian have no responsibility beside basic good seamanship to locate and rescue any boat in trouble

I do not understand why you bring up CAA as those are different case than anything else

CAS is like Argentina unilaterally granting Falklands Islander citizenship and Republic of Ireland granting Northern Irelander Citizenship

Australia of course have agreement called "UN Convention regarding refugee" to accept asylum seekers. Whether they are genuinely seeeking refugees or not are determined once they appeared in the destination countries.

If Australia did not want to accept them, please withdraw from the Convention first just like other Southeast asian countries did.
Don't act like a good noble wealthy countries while in reality while you don't want to accept them.