An asylum seeker’s story: journey to Australia

Suspect says:

03:32pm | 16/12/10

Can’t tell if you’re trolling or not…

Leah says:

08:53pm | 16/12/10

You think, after reading about the appalling conditions of these boats, that we should sit back and let them keep coming?! How am I, by saying I want these boats stopped, criticising the individuals? I do not want to see any more illegal boats coming to Australia, I want to see those people smugglers locked away, and I want to see better processes of bringing refugees to Australia legally.

If it was just a matter of sit back and let the illegal immigrants come, in their boats or on planes or however else, then we would not know who we are letting into the country. That’s just irresponsible. There need to be better, or at least more accessible and more efficient, legal routes.

Original Oz says:

08:11am | 17/12/10

The Government should be doing all they can to stop this business of people smuggling. Any initiative can reduce or halt the flow of the boats means that potentially more lives are saved. There are numerous safe haven countries that the majority of these refugees pass through on their way to Australia. The UN needs to beef up their presence in these safe havens and start offering effective and timely processing of all refugees while at the same time providing conditions that preserve human dignity.

acotrel says:

08:29am | 17/12/10

Liberal Jack says ‘I’m alright, I’m aboard, pull up the ladder’?

Steve says:

03:37pm | 16/12/10

How many countries did he pass through were he could of gone to the australian consulate and asked for asylum in fact there is an australian embassey in jordan were he could of gone to ask for asylum instead he chose to pay $15,000 to come to Australia illegaly.

You will find the majority of Australians support immigration what we don’t support is people breaking our laws to come to this country illegaly.

I am of the belief that if they are willing to break one law to get what they want what other laws are they willing to break in the future. That is a worrying concern.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:05am | 17/12/10

You really do show your ignorance don’t you?  If he could apply in Baghdad without being slaughtered he would be a tourist and not a refugee.

The law is “everyone has the right to seek asylum”, the end.

There are no words about smugglers, or paying or queing in the law.

There is no queue, there are no quotas and the people might well have flown or passed through other countries but so what.

When people fly here from China, India, Russia, Serbia, Moldova, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Malaysia, Fiji and dozens of other far flung corners of the world they are not demonised as jumping some fucking queue or told they should have applied elsewhere.

There is no law that says any asylum seeker has to apply in a dangerous country like Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan.

But to apply for refugee status people have to be outside their own countries.

And if they applied to come here at our embassies we would tell them to piss off.  We always have.

And again into the fray for Steve.  Find the law people have broken or shut up.

There is simply no law been broken and there never has been.

62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”

As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.
31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as “unlawful” serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a “valid permission to enter and remain in Australia”. The use of the term “unlawful” does not as such refer to a breach of a law.”

NicoleG says:

08:18am | 17/12/10

I’ve posted this elsewhere luvvie, but I need to spread the word

http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-of-marilyn.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/recycled-platitudes-make-poor-debate/story-e6frg726-1225704688686

Macca says:

09:37am | 17/12/10

@Badger, haha, top bait. love it.

St. Michael says:

03:35pm | 16/12/10

Name one disaffected asylum seeker who came here via boat, Dave.  As the UK learned with its train bombings: its native Australians who do this shit, not boat people.

As for former war criminals: I hope you’re not making a reference to Charles Zentai, precious.

Steve Smith says:

03:46pm | 16/12/10

Your right Dave! Where is the balance! For years papers have been full of personal stories of triumph over hardship… where are the stories on street violence?

Actually, there is quite alot of those stories… we should narrow it down to drunken street violence… but that covers a wide range of people. Let’s narrow it down to just Muslims being violent in the streets. Now we’re fully balanced!!

Dave says:

03:53pm | 16/12/10

ABC Background Briefing “War criminals in Australia”.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2715237.htm

Historically, war criminals have come from every conflict zones, Tamils being the latest example.

St. Michael says:

04:56pm | 16/12/10

No answer to my challenge, precious? Any boat people who have been convicted of serious crimes in Australia to mention?

Joe Stephens says:

08:18pm | 16/12/10

Dave how many war criminals came by boat? For sake of balance.. you should watch Fox News.

acotrel says:

08:58am | 17/12/10

Dave, there are Australian born criminals in our jails too!

SRS says:

10:22am | 17/12/10

St. Michael,

“Name one disaffected asylum seeker who came here via boat, Dave.” - I’ve got one, how about the leader of the “Sons of Islam” bikie gang on the Gold Coast. He was a refugee from Iraq.

Time to lock our doors, so we can stop locking our doors. Think about that one, it’s not a typo.

Jayne says:

10:38am | 17/12/10

Yes SRS! Because if we don’t allow boat people in there will never be violence in Australia again and we can all leave our doors open and frolick freely around our neighbourhoods day and night with no fear at all! Woopee!!

Dave says:

10:53am | 17/12/10

In the Oz today, “Ten Sri Lankan refugees involved in the Oceanic Viking stand-off may be returned to mandatory or community detention in Australia because of adverse security assessments by ASIO.”

Plus Benbrika and the 18 other Muslim people who have been convicted of terrorism offences in this country.

SRS says:

12:04pm | 17/12/10

Janye, enjoy the Australia you so deeply stand by. When migration numbers start to top European Australian birth numbers (meaning, settlement Australia’s) and the cultural shift occurs, we’ll see how much you love Australia then.

The “Aussie” spirit everyone goes on about, that only existed because we were a largely homogeneous society until 40 odd years ago, and then in the early 90’s when the middle east started immigrating en masse, we saw dysphoric communities start to form. You going to tell me that the middle east experiment has worked for Australia? Look at Sydney as an example of great immigration and refugee communities: Yagoona, Bass Hill, Auburn, Lakemba, Greenacre, Liverpool - what’s the predominate ethnicity in these areas? Middle Eastern. These people don’t wish for a better life in all cases, they wish to be with their families and live EXACTLY how they did in their previous countries without anyone interrupting them. Then, when they start to run into conflicts with the society they’ve moved into, they scream racism from the top of the towers, and we are supposed to bow down to that crap? Give me a break, you bleeding heart lefties are all the same. You have your grandiose visions of equality and cultural harmony, but the bottom line is, it doesn’t work that way. It never has in any civilisation, and it never will. People inherently favour those of their own creed.

St. Michael says:

12:35am | 19/12/10

Once again, for the Liberal mouth-breathers out in Sydney’s West: how many of these men were SIEV refugee arrivals, and how many turned up here by aircraft?

There is a difference.  Most notably that the vast majority are via plane, not SIEV.  The ones on the SIEVs are not former war criminals.  The ten you’ve mentioned, assuming that ASIO’s security assessments are correct, have been successfully weeded out.  That is what the assessment process is for, and it’s worked.  Successfully.  And wow, 10 out of the sum total of occupants of the 221 SIEVs? I’d call that good odds.  Compare it to the proportion of rejected asylum seekers arriving here by plane.

But again, the majority of Aussie terrorists were born here.

I especially love it when the anti-refugee activists start to lose ground on actual stats and then resort to the tired old “floodgates” approach.  Would be more impressive if our refugee intake was anywhere near that of the UK or America, whether you go by straight numbers or by the proportion of refugees to the overall Australian population. Try harder lads, you can get your lines in order by the time the next Federal election rolls round.

Steve says:

03:55pm | 16/12/10

And then what happens when the next one crashes in australian waters on purpose because they have learned from this tragedy that it is the way to do it do we take them in as well and set them up and then the one after and so on and so on because they will keep doing it. Once you do it for one then you have to do it for all then were does it stop.

Australia can’t even look after it’s own homeless and aboriginal people.

Rosie says:

06:51pm | 16/12/10

Hofefully our naval surveillance will be there to make sure they do not come close to the cliffs, pick them up and treat them like how they are treated now. Whatever, that maybe!

SRS says:

01:53pm | 17/12/10

If you’re not a racist, you’re a liar. Everyone has prejudices, unfortunately that’s human nature mate. Get off your high horse, and if you truly believe you love everyone equally, call some universities in your area and see if they are looking for people to participate in racial discrimination trials - it’s tap screen imagery, you’ll be surprised just how racist you really are.

Denial is a horrible thing.

SRS says:

11:07am | 17/12/10

Yes, they would, and culturally he would have fit in better there. He could even have moved just slightly north west to Turkey as well.

ceebails says:

12:42pm | 18/12/10

Exactly ...

Cameron says:

03:13pm | 17/12/10

Who wouldn’t? I wouldn’t.

I wouldn’t cowardly grab a hold of a life jacket for myself whilst my wife and child/children drowned.  On second thought I would be intelligent enough not to risk our lives in a leaky boat.

Additionally the truly courageous thing to do would be to stay in my home country and fight the oppressors.  Running away like a coward is never the answer.  That will not solve anything.

AliceC says:

08:04am | 17/12/10

@Cameron

And where are you referencing this fact?

James1 says:

08:52am | 17/12/10

Got any evidence to prove that assertion?

Cameron says:

03:06pm | 17/12/10

I heard Ray Hadley mention it on his show in Sydney on 2GB 873 AM.

James1 says:

08:53am | 17/12/10

I don’t think that was the point.  The point was more that asylum seekers are by and large not bad people, as some would have us believe.

Ben81 says:

05:31pm | 17/12/10

No James1 I think the point here was to drag out yet another story that avoids the fact that the issue is that we need less people smuggling, not less asylum seekers.

Dan the Man says:

02:31am | 17/12/10

bahaha! IMO comment of the day to you Stephen!! Thank you for shining some decent perspective on this.

Aaron says:

10:11am | 17/12/10

Yes, let’s look at someone escaping from Afghanistan or Iraq where if they get caught by the previous regime or the “terrorists” they get returned and forced to fight.

So running to Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia etc is not going to work, as there are people whose job is to keep an eye out for dissidents who need to be returned.

Australia get’s chosen because it is harder to track down and send back some who has escaped your government, however it is also close enough that it makes it a safer and surer journey than America etc.

PeterE says:

10:37pm | 17/12/10

I am always amused by how little,  many believers in the poor-fellow-me refugee narrative really know about the region.

For example,  what are to take from this comment of Aaron’s:  “So running to Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia etc is not going to work, as there are people whose job is to keep an eye out for dissidents who need to be returned”

It sounds very much as if the aforementioned countries are riddled with fifth columnists’ who are just itching to press gang the “refugees” and ship them back home.

But our experience is greatly at odds with this:  Many have resided openly in Malaysia, Indonesia or Pakistan for decades.
And far from hiding in the shadows,  when our   uncritical SBS or ABC reporters call around, they are only too eager to identify themselves and speak up—and, they not too badly dressed either!