+ Reply to Thread
Page 32 of 80 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 791
  1. #311
    Ana Gram's Avatar
    Ana Gram is offline 2008 WINNER - straight shooter award
    Winner 2008 & 2009 - Community Minded thread
    Winner 2009 - Mod Award - most passionate member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18,597
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked
    3,125
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    The twitter comments underneath (although they irk me) were also interesting. Some who highlighted how negative this is to PNG natives. Eg. one woman who tweeted that her husband from PNG took offense to what "Australians really think of PNG people"
    I think most people are usually offended by what others think of their nation. I think that is pretty natural to be honest. But PNG can be a dangerous place and has had escalating violence in the last year. That's just fact I'm afraid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    I found Bill Shorten quite annoying last night, completely trying to sugarcoat the facts. I'm not sure where he was going with something he said but he tried to claim that Australia ranks third in the world, just behind the US and Canada (he may have been talking about migrants as a whole) but his point wasn't very clear. The UNHCR doesn't even have Australia listed in its top five of resettling refugees.
    I suspect the government is getting this little tidbit from this: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliame...eeResettlement

    This does place us in the top three with only 5634 refugees resettled. Which is pretty poor.

    I didn't see Q & A, I have banned myself from watching it as it makes me too mad before bed

  2. #312
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    I'd love to host a refugee family but just do not have the room unfortunately.

  3. #313
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Many organizations continue to explain that according to article 31 of the convention asylum seekers are not to be punished for their method of arrival and for not having documents:

    'Discussion of evidence: Under the UN Refugee Convention, to which Australia is party, everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, regardless of their method of arrival.

    Article 31 of the UN Convention states that asylum seekers cannot be punished for entering a country without authorisation. It is recognised that refugees do not have to obtain travel documentation or travel through authorised channels because it is not always safe or practical to do so.'

    http://www.factsfightback.org.au/boa...e-not-illegal/

    'The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.'

    http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/doc...ers%202010.pdf

    'Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not acting illegally. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum.

    In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal” entrants, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.'

    http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

    I think we understand they need to be detained for medical checks, etc. but detention time should not be amounting to multiple months and years.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    babyla  (23-07-2013)

  5. #314
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    Many organizations continue to explain that according to article 31 of the convention asylum seekers are not to be punished for their method of arrival and for not having documents:
    I find it interesting that all of those links and quotes you provided, they all neglect a certain aspect of article 31. Why did none of them actually quote the article directly?

    I'll highlight the words that always seem to be ignored.
    Direct from article 31 of the convention:

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

    Why are those words always ignored? Why could none of the organisiations you listed bring themselves to actually quote the article? It is not that difficult or long that it needs to be paraphrased to remove that part.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Father For This Useful Post:

    Caviar  (23-07-2013),Fairyfloss  (24-07-2013)

  7. #315
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I find it interesting that all of those links and quotes you provided, they all neglect a certain aspect of article 31. Why did none of them actually quote the article directly?

    I'll highlight the words that always seem to be ignored.
    Direct from article 31 of the convention:


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

    Why are those words always ignored? Why could none of the organisiations you listed bring themselves to actually quote the article? It is not that difficult or long that it needs to be paraphrased to remove that part.
    I've read through article 31 report/explanation on the UNHCR website, it's pretty lengthy with many explanations to the legalities of it all. I find it perfectly acceptable that refugee organizations paraphrase in laymen's terms.
    Last edited by Kirst33; 23-07-2013 at 13:32.

  8. #316
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    From article 31 (page 10):

    'Refugees are not required to have come ‘directly’ from their country of origin. The intention, reflected in the practice of some States, appears to be that, for Ar- ticle 31(1) to apply, other countries or territories passed through should also have constituted actual or potential threats to life or freedom, or that onward flight may have been dictated by the refusal of other countries to grant protection or asylum, or by the operation of exclusionary provisions, such as those on safe third country, safe country of origin, or time limits. The criterion of ‘good cause’ for illegal entry is clearly flexible enough to allow the elements of individual cases to be taken into account.'

    http://www.unhcr.org/419c778d4.html

    ETA: Conclusions to be drawn from Article 31, page 48:

    'Entry in search of refuge and protection should not be considered an un- lawful act; refugees ought not to be penalized solely by reason of such entry, or because, in need of refuge and protection, they remain illegally in a country'

    'Illegal' gets thrown around a lot. It is absolutely illegal for me to enter Australia with no documents by boat because I have no reason to seek asylum. But these legalities do not apply to somebody seeking asylum, what is unlawful for me is not considered unlawful for them.
    Last edited by Kirst33; 23-07-2013 at 13:40.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (23-07-2013),babyla  (23-07-2013),Meg2  (23-07-2013)

  10. #317
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    7,878
    Thanks
    3,397
    Thanked
    5,160
    Reviews
    8
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I find it interesting that all of those links and quotes you provided, they all neglect a certain aspect of article 31. Why did none of them actually quote the article directly?

    I'll highlight the words that always seem to be ignored.
    Direct from article 31 of the convention:


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

    Why are those words always ignored? Why could none of the organisiations you listed bring themselves to actually quote the article? It is not that difficult or long that it needs to be paraphrased to remove that part.
    Keyword freedom. Without citizenship rights where they are there is no freedom.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to babyla For This Useful Post:

    Kirst33  (23-07-2013)

  12. #318
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    In the conclusions section:

    'Taking account of the principle of the best interests of the child, States should not generally detain asylum-seeking children, since it affects them both emotionally and developmentally. Appropriate alternatives to detention such as guarantor requirements, supervised group accommodation, or quality extra-familial care services through fostering or residential care
    arrangements, should be fully explored.'

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Kirst33 For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (23-07-2013)

  14. #319
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    Thanks for the clarification Kirst33. The combination of yours and Father's posts really highlight the need to listen to the 'academic' view point on this issue. The legal aspect of this issue is complicated - we can't just take one line of article 31 and assume that we understand the law in its entirety.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Meg2 For This Useful Post:

    Kirst33  (23-07-2013)

  16. #320
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    From article 31 (page 10):
    'Refugees are not required to have come ‘directly’ from their country of origin. The intention, reflected in the practice of some States, appears to be that, for Ar- ticle 31(1) to apply, other countries or territories passed through should also have constituted actual or potential threats to life or freedom, or that onward flight may have been dictated by the refusal of other countries to grant protection or asylum, or by the operation of exclusionary provisions, such as those on safe third country, safe country of origin, or time limits. The criterion of ‘good cause’ for illegal entry is clearly flexible enough to allow the elements of individual cases to be taken into account.'

    http://www.unhcr.org/419c778d4.html
    Can I give you a scenario? An Iranian went to the airport. There were numerous countries available for him to fly to. He chose Indonesia out of all of the options. Then, boarded a boat to Australia with the aid of a smuggler.
    He claimed that he could not stay in Indonesia because his 'freedom was threatened'.

    From page 12 of your link.
    Themeaningof‘illegal entry or presence’ has not generally raised any difficult issues of interpretation.The former would include arriving or securing entry through

    the use of false or falsified documents, the use of other methods of deception, clandestine entry (for example, as a stowaway), and entry into State territory with the assistance of smugglers or traffickers.


    So he chose to fly to a country legally that he knew would be unsuitable, to then catch a boat illegally for a dangerous journey to another country when there were other safer options available to him.

    The criterion of ‘good cause’ for illegal entry is clearly flexible enough to allow the elements of individual cases to be taken into account.'
    In this case, did he have 'good cause' to take the more expensive and dangerous option? I would suggest that this is not the intent of the article.

    Have to go. School pickup time!

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Father For This Useful Post:

    VicPark  (23-07-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. 4 corners - asylum seekers...
    By babyla in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 30-04-2013, 09:47
  2. Asylum seekers (frustration)
    By Witwicky in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 19-08-2012, 14:38
  3. Zoo weekly exploiting asylum seekers. Sign the petition!
    By Ffrenchknickers in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 23-07-2012, 15:40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Babybee Prams
Save $50 in our pre-Christmas sale! All Comet's now only $500. Our bassinet & stroller set includes free shipping AUS wide, $75 free accessories, 18-months warranty & a 9 month free return policy. Check out our new designer range today!
sales & new stuffsee all
Pea Pods
Buy 2 Award Winning Pea Pods Reusable One Size Nappies for only $38 (in your choice of colours) and receive a FREE roll of Bamboo Liners. Don't miss out, we don't usually have discounts on the nappies, so grab this special offer!
Special Offer! Save $12
featured supporter
Innovations Sports Physiotherapy
Women’s Health Physios who are able to assess and treat a wide range of Pregnancy and Post Natal Issues. We offer Post Natal Pilates Classes taken by our Physios. These classes help you rebuild strength through your Core and Pelvic Floor.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!