on 21-08-2013 10:52 PM
There is a marked difference between
ref·u·gee
Noun
A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
political asylum
noun
(law) Political asylum is the right to live in a foreign country, and is given by the government of that country to people who have to leave their own country because they are in danger of persecution.
I would venture to say that the majority of people entering this country via boat with no identification papers, illegally, are refugees
To have political asylum status they need to be like Julian Asange or Edward Snowden.
The two classes are like chalk and cheese
There is already a LEGAL mechanism to attain refugee status.
I happen to know that from personal experience
on 22-08-2013 05:04 PM
Well he said it
on 22-08-2013 05:20 PM
why say it if you won't explain it?
on 22-08-2013 05:29 PM
i say let them in. mr howard did despite his scare-mongering. all he really achieved was making it a far more expensive and contentious issue.. i find the injection of fresh blood into the australian landscape refreshing, as it always has been in the past ..something you demonstrate so clearly with this thought provoking thread about your own trip poddy
on 22-08-2013 05:30 PM
@azureline** wrote:why say it if you won't explain it?
oh i saw this exact same scenario in the thread about sitting down.
on 22-08-2013 05:32 PM
on 22-08-2013 05:41 PM
on 22-08-2013 06:02 PM
The UN Refugee Agency
The terms asylum-seeker and refugee are often confused: an asylum-seeker is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated.
National asylum systems are there to decide which asylum-seekers actually qualify for international protection. Those judged through proper procedures not to be refugees, nor to be in need of any other form of international protection, can be sent back to their home countries.
The efficiency of the asylum system is key. If the asylum system is both fast and fair, then people who know they are not refugees have little incentive to make a claim in the first place, thereby benefitting both the host country and the refugees for whom the system is intended.
During mass movements of refugees (usually as a result of conflicts or generalized violence as opposed to individual persecution), there is not - and never will be - a capacity to conduct individual asylum interviews for everyone who has crossed the border. Nor is it usually necessary, since in such circumstances it is generally evident why they have fled. As a result, such groups are often declared "prima facie" refugees.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c137.html
The 1951 Refugee Convention (as broadened by the 1967 Protocol) provides that the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:
"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."
http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=179&Itemid=54
on 22-08-2013 06:28 PM
People coming here over land do go through number of countries, but unless these countries are signatory to the refugee convention they do not accept refugees. If you look at the map you will see that people coming here from Afghanistan, Iran or Sri Lanka do not pass through any country where they can apply for asylum.
.