Refugees and Asylum Seekers - Not

If you do a bit of research on what the the UN defines as a refugee something like the following definition is found

“Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

Stripping away the legalese it basically states that a person fleeing from persecution in their own country arriving in another country is considered a "refugee." There is a fairly clear definition of what a safe haven is in this case. Anyone arriving in say Indonesia then meets this general definition.

People who then leave Indonesia (as a non-Indonesian) no longer fall into the refugee category. They should be referred to as illegal immigrants and not "asylum seekers" or "refugees."

This latest case has also highlighted the old and now current strategy of destroying the vessel on which they are traveling so that they will be rescued and in this case brought directly to Australia. This is a strategy, not an accident.

The UN Refugee Protocol is also very clear that people returning to their own country lose any refugee status. Any person who has committed crimes of any serious nature are also not valid under the definitions.

Based on the rules then most if not all of the arrivals in this manner are not refugees.

For some reason (e.g. political mileage) this is all being ignored for current arrivals. Also the media never raises the issue that these people do not fit the definitions.

The secondary issue here is that of Indonesia. It knows that the people leaving their shores for Australia are not refugees yet they allow them. If Australia tried to force them back to Indonesia would it accept them? If not perhaps Australia should consider dropping and aid or support until they did.