when is a refugee not a refugee?

i need help from someone learned in social studies....
a refugee is a person fleeing their homeland for fear of perscution and/or death.
if they have left their homeland and arrived at a new country, perhaps indonesia, they can request asylum in that country.
however, if they choose not to seek asylum, but rather get on a boat, by choice, bound for australia... are they still a refugee when they arrive here?
perhaps not, they were a refugee in indonesia... but when they left indonesia, bound for australia, they are no longer fleeing their homeland for fear of persecution (as they have already arrived at a safe haven), but rather, taking a boat to australia with the intention of entering this country illegally.
your comments appreciated.

I believe that so long as you are fleeing for the reasons that define you as a refugee, you will always be considered a refugee. That is why there is so much debate over the processing of the 'illegal immigrants'. Some are found to be legitimate refugees, others aren't and are therefore sent back.
That said, skipping countries is still frowned upon. I think the rational is that you are fleeing for safety reasons, not for a better life. You need to be willing to stay where ever you are safe, not where ever takes your fancy.
It also causes clogs in the system that delay the processing of refugees who are considered to be doing the right thing.
An example of a people who are 'doing the right thing' are the Somali Bantu. They were a slave people who were held captive in Somalia. Basically, nearly all of them fled to Kenya during the war in Somalia and are still there, living in attrocious conditions (still treated as second class citizens by the Somalian's who are also in the camps), waiting to be processed.
A lot of these people have obviously been waiting a long time and one reason for this is that their places are being taken by the 'queue jumpers'.
That said, I neither support nor condone our treatment of 'illigal immigrants'. They have been through a lot in order to come to this country and only wanted to do the best for their families. Unlike refugees and immigrants in past years, it's a lot harder to get to a good country unless you are deemed to have something to offer.

They have a legal right once in Indonesia to leave and seek refugee in the closest country that has signed the following:-
The "United Nation's Convention On Refugees"- This basically is a document a country can sign to say they will accept people that are fleeing persecution.
Because Indonesia hasn't signed this they don't have to accept people while Australia has.
Therefore the people in the first example have a legal right to seek out refugee status in the closest country that has signed this which is:- Australia.
I know this because I have researched this.It's a shame the Australian government chooses to leave out the FACTS for the Australian people .

I did a fairly interesting subject called Human Rights and Australian Politics not too long ago which dealt heavily with the issue of refugees.
The first mistake you're making is assuming Indonesian asylum law is in parallel with that of Australias.
It is not. Refugees can only seek asylum in countries that are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Indonesia is not one of these countries whilst Australia is. Whilst they maybe technically 'safe' from persecution in Indonesia, they cannot legally settle, have no rights and for all intents and purposes are still considered refugees for as long as they stay here.
So in answer to your first question, yes they still are a refugee when they arrive in Australia because they cannot seek asylum in Indonesia. The country simply has no provision for it.
Perhaps the best way to look at it is to understand that a refugee will remain as such from the point they flee their homeland to the point where they are given asylum by one of the very few countries that are signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
To address Cynakill's point... Interestingly from a legal standpoint, if they are a genuine refugee, it doesn't matter how they enter the country (rickety boat or otherwise), they are not breaking the law. Under Australian and International law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." And international law requires that asylum seekers should not be penalised according to the way in which they enter a country. Around 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees.
People who arrive in Australia with no identifying documentation are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under international law! Asylum seekers are often forced to leave their countries in extreme haste and consequently carry few personal posessions. This is compounded by the governments of the countries from which they come vigorously preventing normal migration processes from occuring. 'Illegals' are people who arrive with valid visas but then overstay them. An example being the 5,000 or so overdue British tourists in Australia at the moment.
I'd also like to mention that the reason asylum seekers jump on boats and try to enter Australia that way is because the so called 'queue' at the UNHCR in Jakarta has not actually moved at all . Australia hasn't taken a single refugee from the UNHCR queue in 3 years. Many of the refugees that have drowned off the Australian coast had alrady been granted refugee status by the UNHCR.. Australia had simply chosen not to let any of them in despite this.
I implore you to do some of your own research in this area before you make up your own mind either way on the matter. Don't just listen to the bullshit Howard government line on asylum seekers that has seen members of cabinet lie to the Australian people (children overboard, equating asylum seekers with terrorists) for their own political expediency.
Peace out.
Macksta

^^^^
thankyou wacky and macksta.. just the response i was looking for
cheers
im still interested in other comments...like the one below here suggesting that the said refugees may have already passed thru another suitable safe haven...
any comments?
[ 08 January 2003: Message edited by: eddi spgeddi ]

Macksta, I think the issue with people coming to Australia is not that it's through Indonesia perse. Realistically, even Indonesia is a long, long way from Afghanistan, etc. and to get there, they will have passed through at least one other country who will accept refugees.
Please note, I am simply playing the devils advocate here!

yeah just because a country is signatory to the convention doesn't mean they accept refugees.
And you need to remember that the vast majority of refugees do actually apply for asylum in countries closer to the Middle East. In the year 2000, 300 000 refugees arrived in Europe to seek asylum. Contrast that with the 4,174 that arrived in Australia.
Breaking it down further, Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British People, whereas Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Aus. citizens.
You need to break out of the "we are being swamped by refugees" mentality that the Government has instilled in us. Cos it's crap, we receive such a tiny trickle compared to the rest of the world.. all the more reason to accept those few that do come our way.

But if Australia started taking in more refugees, other refugees would take it as a sign that we welcome them and it would open the floodgates!
Again, simply playing the Devils advocate here, trying to encourage the flow of ideas!

youre ace macksta.
you can download your brain right here for me.
thanks
[ 08 January 2003: Message edited by: eddi spgeddi ]

Macksta you rock buddy ,good to see someone has also done research on this important topic.
Also,good point Bossdog I was expecting someone to say that.And Macksta your reply I couldn't have said better myself.

On your last point Bossdog,if we started taking more refugees the floodgates wouldn't open because the refugees here might NOT be able to contact the one's that can't get here.This happening because people and families can get split up,have trouble contacting each other at times and refugees that don't make it here can end up all over the place and NOT hear if some have made it here or NOT.
Also,even if it was reported in the media that we were accepting more refugees, people escaping troubled countries don't all get the same media excess and may NOT even hear about it.

In the realm of international relations we are expected to fulfill our humanitarian obligations consistent with those of other states.
71 countries accept refugees and asylum seekers in some form or other..
On a per capita basis Australia is ranked 38th in that list, slightly behind Kazakhstan, Guinea, Djibouti and Syria, all developing countries.
Refugees are a truly global issue that requires a truly global answer. We should accept our share relative to the rest of the world.
Adopting an isolationist approach that looks inwards exclusively at our own interests is pure Hansonism.
I'm not even convinced that accepting more refugees would be the giant burden many people assume it would be. Refugees, much like migrants create demand for goods and services, stimulating the economy. I mean, a recent UCLA study has shown that unauthorised immigration boosts the US economy by $800 billion a year. This is basic first year economics/political economy stuff.
Not sure what more to say...
Im going to bed
Macksta
[ 09 January 2003: Message edited by: Macksta ]

Sadly people are scared by the current Federal Government into thinking that us accepting more refugees would be a big burden on us.
When the government has no facts to back this claim up ("As pointed out earler, even falsely linking refugees to being terrorists eg: The terrorists who did Sept. 11 all got into America legally and by plane").

claps mackstar!!! yay!!!!! right on!! bloody media turning ppl into min controlled zombies!!!

Not to be difficult, but how do you know that the information you have is not mis-information, much the sames as you claim the government's standpoint is?
I sit on the fence with this issue. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending how you look at it, this issue does not affect me directly and therefore, i dont really have strong opinions about it.

when is a refugee not a refugee, when the enter the country illegally work for 6 months and then only apply for asylum once they are caught...

Macksta, thanks for the information I've learnt something worthwhile today!

The following is my opinion on what should be done with refugees/boat people in Australia and my opinion only. It is neither right nor wrong -
As has been said previously, Australia needs to accept a hell of a lot more refugees. The boat people who arrive illegally should be released into society not unlike prisoners who have been conditionally released (reporting to a body on a daily basis, etc. - if they are keen to stay legally, they should have no problems with this). Their application should then be processed quickly and efficiently.
Once they have been declared a legitimate refugee, I think that they should have to spend the first two years or so in rural Australia (unless circumstanses dictate otherwise). This achieves a number of things;
1. It gets people out to rural Australia and boosts our rural econemy, thus creating growth and increased service in rural Australia.
2. It prevents 'ghetto's' from forming. The refugees will be spread out amongst smaller communities where they will be accepted and in time, where they will become locals.
Once you have lived in an area for over 2 years, it genreally becomes your home. We would see permanant repopulation out into rural Australia, which can only be good for us.
One of the problem we have now is that people come into a country that is foreign to them and they get no support and thus, don't know where they fit in. We would need to provide a lot of support for these 'new Australians', which can be paid for through the money saved from not having detention centres!
Basically, the way I look at it, this plan would really benefit Australia and it would also benefit the thousands of extra refugees we can take in each year.

Papermate to answer your question:-
I have researched this topic in depth (via library sources and web sites-NOT view related ones but sites like the offical U.N. site eg: http://www.unhcr.ch and many other one's).The same info has come up time and time again.I've even read information that admits we had signed the 'U.N. Convention On Refugees' but if we don't like it, we should just ignore it.("These were views related sites that I thought to read after the others to see how others see this,just to make sure I'm NOT just checking bias sources,they even included the same facts.")
Also,when this wasn't that big in the news,a while ago this current government admitted that Australia has signed under the 'United Nations Convention On Refugees"("The 1951 Convention").
Thus the reason John Howard has used terms like: "We will decide who will come into this country"- Basically saying look where tough because we are ignoring international law and because he knew it would be popular.
This current government is basically spreading false information("they know that it is this") because they know it's what many people want to hear and to gain popularity from it.
Finally,I won't go into full details but a more humane and cheaper system instead of detention centres is a bail like system that is working well in a european country (Off the top of my head I forget which one but I'm NOT going to make a mistake by guessing).

[ 09 January 2003: Message edited by: Wacky ]