mandrake04 wrote: » I never said they were economic migrants, an economic migrant can apply for a Permanent Resident visa these people don't qualify for PR. Instead they get on a rickety boat, throw their papers overboard and then claim asylum when they reach Australia. They are people from troubled countries that are selecting which countries they want to claim asylum in, Australian government is now telling them sure we will process you for asylum alright but to ensure you didn't choose Australia for economic reasons you will be settled else where.... it won't be Australia. It now appears they are going to be settled in Cambodia, and funny enough the boats have stopped coming.
alastair wrote: » They're separate and distinct issues. And you're dishonestly attempting to conflate them.
Nodin wrote: » I suggest you're being somewhat obtuse at this stage. Ireland could improve the conditions it offers those here, Indonesia is a far from suitable destination.
AlekSmart wrote: » Anyway,whats wrong with Cambodia...?
mandrake04 wrote: » That's exactly right you said it yourself, they opt for the best economical country often living in Indonesia for months/years until they can secure a place in a boat. They are attracted by economic factors rather than fleeing to safety with only their shirt on their backs.....True Beggars can't be choosers Now that that economic factor has been taken out of the equation they are concentrating going somewhere else.
jank wrote: Going by the statement above, should then Ireland and other western countries open its doors to 252 million Indonesians?.
Nodin wrote: » The best country full stop, as would anyone with sense. Indonesia is a country that many would be wary of.
Nodin wrote: » Any that qualify, yes.
jank wrote: » ......................... You state that Indonesia is not a suitable destination for asylum seekers. Why?
Nodin wrote: » Given the actions of the state during the Suharto years, what went on in East Timor and whats going on in West Papua its hardly a model of stability and human rights. Theres also an increased trend of hostility and violence towards non-Sunni muslims.http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/02/28/religion-s-name
Nodin wrote: » The best country full stop, as would anyone with sense.
Nodin wrote: » Indonesia is a country that many would be wary of.
jank wrote: » Do you have proof that migrants or asylum seekers are threatened in a large scale systematic manner??
jank wrote: » Ireland had the troubles in the North, so bringing up history to back up your point is scurrilous.?
Nodin wrote: » I have proof that miborities are threatened, which is obviously enough.
Nodin wrote: » Given that one of the legacies of that is the level of violence against minorities in loyalist areas, no, not at all.
mandrake04 wrote: » Yes best country for handouts etc ....purely economic. Many arrive on the boats with iPhones and Raybans
alastair wrote: » Why does it matter to you that refugees have ray bans or smart phones? They're not economic migrants, and their asylum case isn't determined on the basis of their poverty or wealth.
mandrake04 wrote: » Well since you asked it does matter to me because its my taxes that pay for them, I have the vote and I voted last September to stop the boats. I don't mind Australia doing its bit (which is more than generous) taking genuine refugees in need from a UN camp.... but not those who turn up in boats with smart phones and designer sunnies. Simply its my country and I have a say who gets into it.... as I'm entitled to. Oh and again I never said they were economic migrants, I said they were economic refugees... Potential refugees who seek out specific countries for economic reasons. Have you trouble reading English or something? I find your posts most comical and laughable, your out of your depth here.
alastair wrote: » There's no such thing as economic refugees. There are however, refugees - and the possession of a smart phone, or designer shades doesn't factor into whether they're entitled to asylum or not. Whatever way you choose to vote, or whatever you like your taxes spent on, don't change those realities. You don't get a say on whether someone is a legitimate refugee or not, that's laid down in international law. You certainly have a personal say in what economic migrants (like yourself) are allowed into Australia, just not on whether a refugees's status is determined by what possessions they have. My grasp of English is fine, thanks. The problem lies with your grasp of the distinction between a refugee and an economic migrant.
mandrake04 wrote: » Again I never said they were not refugees, as per the government (that I voted for) once processed like you say by international law and determined as legitimate refugees they are going somewhere else... at the moment its Nauru and Manus Island but soon to be Cambodia.
mandrake04 wrote: » They are still legitimate refugees alright... but they will be sitting in Cambodia.
mandrake04 wrote: » What possessions they have does not determine their status but their arrival by boat determines they end up.
mandrake04 wrote: » What you say does not matter its not your country.
alastair wrote: » International law doesn't give one hoot about whether a refugee has a smartphone or raybans though. Which was my point.
alastair wrote: » And thereafter, quite possibly, Australia - based on the merit of their asylum application.
alastair wrote: » Not really. Many refugees that arrived by boat end up with refugee status in Australia. It's down to the merit of their application
alastair wrote: » Nice. But actually they're not rules that Australia can opt out of. It has a responsibility to treat asylum applicants equally, regardless of whether they have an iphone or not.
mandrake04 wrote: » Ha Ha ...Nope they wont, once they go to Cambodia they will never be settled in Australia. They wouldn't even get a visitors visa.
alastair wrote: » Given that some of those Australian-bound refugees forced to Indonesian refugee camps ended up with Australian visas, I wouldn't be so sure.
mandrake04 wrote: » Do you actually know what you are talking about? As above those who arrived before 19th July 2013 were treated differently, after July 2013 there is NO Exceptions and no visas.
jank wrote: » Which doesn't answer any point. .
jank wrote: » So one could legitimately claim that the UK was not a safe place for asylum seekers during the troubles, because of that logic.
AlekSmart wrote: » Had Ireland adopted an antipodean attitude to unsuccessful Asylum applicants over the past decade,we might not even have a Kinsale Road Centre to be agonising over ?
Nodin wrote: » The North of Ireland wasn't.
jank wrote: » Northern Ireland is part of the UK, just like East Timor was part of Indonesia.
jank wrote: » You highlighted events in the past as a measure of how unsafe Indonesia is/was therefore it is not safe for asylums seekers to settle there. Therefore the same must apply for the UK, which of course makes your point look absurd on reflection.
jank wrote: » Also, care to speak about Ms Y? Have asked you 3 times now, avoiding the question? Would it stand to reason that given what happened here, asylum seekers would be wise to avoid Ireland as like Indonesia it is not an ideal location?
Nodin wrote: » No, those seeking an abortion would be wise to avoid Ireland as a destination.
conorh91 wrote: » Why? Is there any proof that women are ever refused permission to travel to the UK for abortions? Previous Governments, on record, have said permission to travel was granted. I don't know of any justification for a claim that the State does not facilitate asylum seekers who wish to procure abortions. Do you? Please don't say Miss Y. I'd rather not bang my head off the desk.
Nodin wrote: » The problems of Indonesia are not limited to one region.
jank wrote: » Moving the goalposts once again.
jank wrote: » And what about women who fall pregnant while in Ireland?
