A group of 10 refugees assessed by ASIO as threats to national security have been freed to live in the Australian community after the agency quietly reversed its decision.

Some of the group had been held in immigration detention more than five years without having been charged with a crime under a system civil liberty advocates have slammed as "completely unsatisfactory".

Most of the men have been released since August from a detention centre in Melbourne's north, where the majority of the remaining 34 refugees given a negative assessment by ASIO are still being held.

Two others have also had their assessments overturned since August, but it is understood they have not been granted a visa for release yet.

New figures provided to Fairfax Media show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases. In five other cases the review has obtained new information, leading ASIO to change its assessment.

But ASIO has also made its own decisions to reverse its previous findings, gradually reducing the overall number of refugees with adverse assessments from a total of 54 in mid-2013. The group had numbered 44 in August 2014, the Immigration Department said.

ASIO has defended the assessments, saying they are based on "knowledge and information available at the time and in the context of the security environment", and can be reopened with new information.

NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Stephen Blanks said it was good ASIO had cases under review but the lack of transparency was "completely unsatisfactory".

"The public is entitled to know why these people are locked up, and why the security agency has changed its mind and decided they can be released into the community," Mr Blanks said.

"Locking people up is not something that should be done in secret."

The group, which includes two women held in Sydney's Villawood detention complex, are not permitted to know the detail of the ASIO findings against them or challenge the rulings in court.

The security agency does not request the refugees with adverse assessments be kept in detention - that decision is made by the immigration minister.

The government refuses to issue visas to refugees with adverse findings, but they cannot be returned home and no other country will accept them, effectively resulting in indefinite detention.

Attorney General George Brandis had threatened to scrap the review of the ASIO findings when in opposition, but decided last month to extend the role for two years.

The review, by former justice Margaret Stone, has upheld the ASIO assessments in 24 cases.

A spokesperson for ASIO said it had issued 12 revised assessments for refugees in immigration detention since August.

"ASIO reviews security assessments when new information becomes available," the spokesperson said.

"New information can relate to the individual or to external factors, including changes in the security environment."

New information could be obtained from the visa applicant, through investigative work, or from international or domestic partners, the spokesperson said.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/asio-reverses-finding-refugees-pose-a-threat-20150110-12jebg.html

I want Asio to err on the side of caution than be generous and  careless, as w:ith Monis.

actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind.

But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:11pm:

actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind. But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist.

Refugees freed due to incorrect assessments are now terrorists to LW.


Quote:

show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases.

____ wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:11pm: actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind. But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist. Refugees freed due to incorrect assessments are now terrorists to LW. Quote: show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases.

I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

____ wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:11pm: actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind. But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist. Refugees freed due to incorrect assessments are now terrorists to LW. Quote: show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases. I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so.

"But" means what is said before it is the opposite of what the speaker thinks.

Cheers lw.

____ wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:27pm: ____ wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:11pm: actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind. But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist. Refugees freed due to incorrect assessments are now terrorists to LW. Quote: show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases. I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so.  "But" means what is said before it is the opposite of what the speaker thinks. Cheers lw.

seriously green_goose.  Go back to school and learn some basic literacy and numeracy.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:41pm:

____ wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:27pm: ____ wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:11pm: actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind. But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist. Refugees freed due to incorrect assessments are now terrorists to LW. Quote: show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases. I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so.  "But" means what is said before it is the opposite of what the speaker thinks. Cheers lw. seriously green_goose.  Go back to school and learn some basic literacy and numeracy.

Hasn't been detrimental considering the number of times you get shown up by me.

Candy from a baby situation.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so.

based on what? your say so?  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:27pm: I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so. based on what? your say so?  :D :D :D

BASIC LOGIC.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 4:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:27pm: I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so. based on what? your say so?  :D :D :D BASIC LOGIC.

Is that like religious belief in sky fairies.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 4:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:27pm: I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so. based on what? your say so?  :D :D :D BASIC LOGIC.

wrong, logic tells you that if they reversed their original decisions, and let them go, they got it wrong.

There are obviously some doubts about these people. 

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 4:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 4:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:27pm: I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so. based on what? your say so?  :D :D :D BASIC LOGIC. wrong, logic tells you that if they reversed their original decisions, and let them go, they got it wrong.

wow.  your stupidity and ignorance is greater than I thought.  Your statement is so gullible the word scarcely does you justice.

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:46pm:

There are obviously some doubts about these people.

not according to JS who lives in a world where everything is black and white.

Easier to believe the immigration department is racist/islamophohbic. Otherwise you'd have to think for yourself

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 6:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 4:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 4:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:27pm: I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so. based on what? your say so?  :D :D :D BASIC LOGIC. wrong, logic tells you that if they reversed their original decisions, and let them go, they got it wrong. wow.  your stupidity and ignorance is greater than I thought.  Your statement is so gullible the word scarcely does you justice.

One can only hope to achieve your level of stupidity longie, however they will have to learn to live with dissapointment  ....

they got it wrong, accept it and move on.

Can't be too careful...

The greens got it wrong on refugees as well.

Bob Carr said they were economic migrants.

Cue to the leftards to reinterpret what Bob really said...lmao :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

Bob Carr said they were economic migrants.

Bob Carr was wrong.  Here are three websites that explain why.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-14/no-evidence-bob-carr-economic-migrants/4821544
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/28/bob-carr/are-boat-people-economic-migrants/
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-asylum-seekers-really-economic-migrants-15601

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

The greens got it wrong on refugees as well. Bob Carr said they were economic migrants. Cue to the leftards to reinterpret what Bob really said..

No need to reinterpret.

He was wrong.

“People are coming here, not now as a result of persecution, but because they’re economic refugees who have paid money to people smugglers.” - Foreign minister Bob Carr, Meet the Press, June 9.

"Verdict: Based on the available information, the foreign minister’s statement is incorrect."

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-asylum-seekers-really-economic-migrants-15601

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

____ wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:11pm: actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind. But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist. Refugees freed due to incorrect assessments are now terrorists to LW. Quote: show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases. I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so.

Just as simply saying someone is a threat does not implicitly make it so.

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 6:43pm:

Easier to believe the immigration department is racist/islamophohbic. Otherwise you'd have to think for yourself

I would think it applies more aptly to people who just blindly believe what they say without any thought involved.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 10:44am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 10:15am: The greens got it wrong on refugees as well. Bob Carr said they were economic migrants. Cue to the leftards to reinterpret what Bob really said.. No need to reinterpret. He was wrong. “People are coming here, not now as a result of persecution, but because they’re economic refugees who have paid money to people smugglers.” - Foreign minister Bob Carr, Meet the Press, June 9. "Verdict: Based on the available information, the foreign minister’s statement is incorrect." http://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-asylum-seekers-really-economic-migrants-15601

but nothing you posted shows he was wrong in his comments, certainly nothing in that link supports your assertion. Qaulifying for refugee status doesnt automatically make you a non economic migrant,

Ian, the  burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  It's not the job of people to prove his claim is wrong, it is for him to prove his claim is right.

Stratos wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 10:15am: Bob Carr said they were economic migrants. Bob Carr was wrong.  Here are three websites that explain why. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-14/no-evidence-bob-carr-economic-migrants/4821544 http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/28/bob-carr/are-boat-people-economic-migrants/ http://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-asylum-seekers-really-economic-migrants-15601

If you leftists can take Tony on his word I can certainly take Bob on what he actually said.

Stratos wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:05am:

Ian, the  burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  It's not the job of people to prove his claim is wrong, it is for him to prove his claim is right.

its obvious to those who do the processing for these people that their primary motive is economic. we even had an asylum seeker recently who arrived with a gold Amex card.  Anyone who has tens of thosuands of dollars for a boat trip is an economic refugee.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 10:52am:

Qaulifying for refugee status doesnt automatically make you a non economic migrant,

It does, actually.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

Stratos wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:05am: Ian, the  burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  It's not the job of people to prove his claim is wrong, it is for him to prove his claim is right. its obvious to those who do the processing for these people that their primary motive is economic. we even had an asylum seeker recently who arrived with a gold Amex card.  Anyone who has tens of thosuands of dollars for a boat trip is an economic refugee.

The amount of money one has is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining refugee status.

A multi-billionaire can be a refugee.

incorrect. Just because Australia processes them as refugees  does not mean that their motivation for coming here was not economic. I marvel at your faith in government Greggary.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:10am: Stratos wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:05am: Ian, the  burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  It's not the job of people to prove his claim is wrong, it is for him to prove his claim is right. its obvious to those who do the processing for these people that their primary motive is economic. we even had an asylum seeker recently who arrived with a gold Amex card.  Anyone who has tens of thosuands of dollars for a boat trip is an economic refugee. The amount of money one has is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining refugee status. A multi-billionaire can be a refugee.

but thats not the point is it? we are not talking about arbirarily defined status but their motivation for coming here.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:14am:

incorrect. Just because Australia processes them as refugees  does not mean that their motivation for coming here was not economic. I marvel at your faith in government Greggary.

I'm 100% correct.

The amount of money one has is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining refugee status.

A multi-billionaire can be a refugee.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:13am: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:10am: Stratos wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:05am: Ian, the  burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  It's not the job of people to prove his claim is wrong, it is for him to prove his claim is right. its obvious to those who do the processing for these people that their primary motive is economic. we even had an asylum seeker recently who arrived with a gold Amex card.  Anyone who has tens of thosuands of dollars for a boat trip is an economic refugee. The amount of money one has is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining refugee status. A multi-billionaire can be a refugee. but thats not the point is it? we are not talking about arbirarily defined status but their motivation for coming here.

Seeking asylum.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:16am:

ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:14am: incorrect. Just because Australia processes them as refugees  does not mean that their motivation for coming here was not economic. I marvel at your faith in government Greggary. I'm 100% correct. The amount of money one has is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining refugee status. A multi-billionaire can be a refugee.

but thats not the argument.  They can still be economic migrants if theior primary motive was economic. Its called logic, try it some time.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:16am:

ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:15am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:13am: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:10am: Stratos wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:05am: Ian, the  burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  It's not the job of people to prove his claim is wrong, it is for him to prove his claim is right. its obvious to those who do the processing for these people that their primary motive is economic. we even had an asylum seeker recently who arrived with a gold Amex card.  Anyone who has tens of thosuands of dollars for a boat trip is an economic refugee. The amount of money one has is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining refugee status. A multi-billionaire can be a refugee. but thats not the point is it? we are not talking about arbirarily defined status but their motivation for coming here. Seeking asylum.

for what reason?

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:18am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:16am: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:15am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:13am: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:10am: Stratos wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:05am: Ian, the  burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  It's not the job of people to prove his claim is wrong, it is for him to prove his claim is right. its obvious to those who do the processing for these people that their primary motive is economic. we even had an asylum seeker recently who arrived with a gold Amex card.  Anyone who has tens of thosuands of dollars for a boat trip is an economic refugee. The amount of money one has is completely irrelevant when it comes to determining refugee status. A multi-billionaire can be a refugee. but thats not the point is it? we are not talking about arbirarily defined status but their motivation for coming here. Seeking asylum. for what reason?

"Fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion."

so anyone can be an asylum seeker, a poor person , a rich person, a billionare, anyone seeking a better economy, Yes we get it greg.

Next you can tell me exactly what persecution these people are fleeing in Indonesia.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Next you can tell me exactly what persecution these people are fleeing in Indonesia.

They're not fleeing persecution from Indonesia.

I think you've got your wires crossed somewhere.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:32am:

so anyone can be an asylum seeker, a poor person , a rich person, a billionare, anyone seeking a better economy, Yes we get it greg.

Yes, anyone can be an asylum seeker.

However, they then must have their claim processed.

And, not all of them turn out to be refugees.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

____ wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 2:11pm: actually, nothing about the outcome shows ASIO got it wrong, only that they changed their mind. But naturally the Greens are pro-terrorist. Refugees freed due to incorrect assessments are now terrorists to LW. Quote: show an independent review by a former Federal Court judge has recommended the original ASIO assessment was "not appropriate" in seven cases. I know difficult concepts elude you but simply saying someone is not a threat does not implicitly make it so.

Exactly. They're worse.

They're terrorist suspects.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 11:33am: Next you can tell me exactly what persecution these people are fleeing in Indonesia. They're not fleeing persecution from Indonesia.

But you just claimed they were


Quote:

I think you've got your wires crossed somewhere.

I think you know you have lost this debate.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

But you just claimed they were

Incorrect.

You mentioned Indonesia, not me.

They are not fleeing persecution from Indonesia.

You are very confused.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

I think you know you have lost this debate.

au contraire

Everything I've said is completely true.

Anyone can claim asylum.

Simple as that.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:46pm:

ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:37pm: I think you know you have lost this debate. au contraire Everything I've said is completely true. Anyone can claim asylum. Simple as that.

who are you talking too? No one stated otherwise.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:37pm: But you just claimed they were Incorrect. You mentioned Indonesia, not me. They are not fleeing persecution from Indonesia. You are very confused.

boat people claiming asylum status coming from Indonesia Greggary, you not aware of that? Why do you constantly get into arguments you have no knowledge of?

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Next you can tell me exactly what persecution these people are fleeing in Indonesia.

Why have you started talking about people fleeing persecution from Indonesia?

Have you stumbled into the wrong thread?

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:44pm: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:37pm: But you just claimed they were Incorrect. You mentioned Indonesia, not me. They are not fleeing persecution from Indonesia. You are very confused. boat people claiming asylum status coming from Indonesia Greggary, you not aware of that? Why do you constantly get into arguments you have no knowledge of?

They aren't fleeing persecution from Indonesia.

I've already explained that to you?

What part don't you understand?  I can walk you through it if you like.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:44pm: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:37pm: But you just claimed they were Incorrect. You mentioned Indonesia, not me. They are not fleeing persecution from Indonesia. You are very confused. boat people claiming asylum status coming from Indonesia Greggary, you not aware of that?

Ah, I see what's got you all confused now.

Indonesia may have been their last stop on the way here, however, they aren't fleeing persecution from that particular country.

They're actually fleeing Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (in most cases).

It's the country of origin (i.e. where they were citizens) that's important, ian, not the countries that they stop in on the way (they aren't citizens of those countries).

Anyway, I'm glad I've cleared that up for you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:52pm:

[ They aren't fleeing persecution from Indonesia.

if they come from Indo and arent fleeing persecutiion then they are not genuine refugees. Thanks for coming.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 2:04pm:

ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:50pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:44pm: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:37pm: But you just claimed they were Incorrect. You mentioned Indonesia, not me. They are not fleeing persecution from Indonesia. You are very confused. boat people claiming asylum status coming from Indonesia Greggary, you not aware of that? Ah, I see what's got you all confused now. Indonesia may have been their last stop on the way here, however, they aren't fleeing persecution from that particular country. They're actually fleeing Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (in most cases). It's the country of origin (i.e. where they were citizens) that's important, ian, not the countries that they stop in on the way (they aren't citizens of those countries). Anyway, I'm glad I've cleared that up for you.

this has nothing to do with the rules under which we process these people but their genuine reason for coming here, so far you have created a very good argument that they are economic refugees. They arent fleeing persecution (your words)

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 2:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:52pm: [ They aren't fleeing persecution from Indonesia. if they come from Indo and arent fleeing persecutiion then they are not genuine refugees.

They come from Indonesia, and are fleeing persecution from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

That is, they are departing from Indonesia (on the next part of their journey), but they are not fleeing persecution from that particular country.

If you're still not clear on it just let me know, and I'll try to dumb it down a little more for you.

Cheers.

ian wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 2:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 2:04pm: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:50pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:44pm: ian wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:37pm: But you just claimed they were Incorrect. You mentioned Indonesia, not me. They are not fleeing persecution from Indonesia. You are very confused. boat people claiming asylum status coming from Indonesia Greggary, you not aware of that? Ah, I see what's got you all confused now. Indonesia may have been their last stop on the way here, however, they aren't fleeing persecution from that particular country. They're actually fleeing Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (in most cases). It's the country of origin (i.e. where they were citizens) that's important, ian, not the countries that they stop in on the way (they aren't citizens of those countries). Anyway, I'm glad I've cleared that up for you. this has nothing to do with the rules under which we process these people but their genuine reason for coming here, so far you have created a very good argument that they are economic refugees. They arent fleeing persecution (your words)

You're getting yourself all confused and flustered, ian.

I said that they aren't fleeing persecution from Indonesia (because that's 100% correct).

They are, however, fleeing persecution from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

It's just a basic English comprehension problem that's got you all confused.

Glad that I've cleared it up for you now.