PDA

View Full Version : Immigration policy



Pages : 1 [2] 3

antichrist
24-11-2010, 10:56 PM
Equality before the law is a fundamental concept of our legal system, reinforced by a raft of anti-discrimination laws.

I'm surprised to learn that you don't believe immigrants make any contribution to this country.

About the only inequality I would consider is what the Swedes recently adopted - for serious crime migrants (even naturalised ones) get deported. It is definitely unequal and unfair, double punishment, but that is me.

50 years ago the ethnics had a good name overall but, mainly drug trading, have seen go off-colour. They had to be here 15 years (I think) before naturalisation, we should revert to that.

arosar
25-11-2010, 12:39 AM
Equality before the law is a fundamental concept of our legal system, reinforced by a raft of anti-discrimination laws.

I'm surprised to learn that you don't believe immigrants make any contribution to this country.

I'm talking about these friggin' blow-ins from countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (remember them? they kill Aussies there) and these Tamils (aren't they a terrorist mob too?). It's totally unacceptable that they hit our shores right this second and, yep, they get to enjoy our laws. Not a single tax paid, nada. They enjoy our laws. What a joke that is.

AR

antichrist
25-11-2010, 06:33 AM
I'm talking about these friggin' blow-ins from countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (remember them? they kill Aussies there) and these Tamils (aren't they a terrorist mob too?). It's totally unacceptable that they hit our shores right this second and, yep, they get to enjoy our laws. Not a single tax paid, nada. They enjoy our laws. What a joke that is.

AR

Aussies started killing before Iraqis killed them - we helped USA bomb the Mohammed and Christ out of them. Destroyed all of their infrastucture etc, gave them more corrupt rulers and now you are pooping on them - give them a break. They deserve to be here more than your mob coz they are genuine refugees.

The main issue behind Arab/Islamis terrorism is the treatment of Palestinians, and Australia helped set up Israel in UN 60 years ago as well as supporting Israel in many UN votes.

You know the history there were no weapons of mass destruction, Bush, Blair and Howard are in disgrace over it. Also you know the Tamils were slaughtered and you want to pick on them. Did you get a knock back this morning?

Ian Murray
25-11-2010, 08:21 AM
I'm talking about these friggin' blow-ins from countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (remember them? they kill Aussies there) and these Tamils (aren't they a terrorist mob too?). It's totally unacceptable that they hit our shores right this second and, yep, they get to enjoy our laws. Not a single tax paid, nada. They enjoy our laws. What a joke that is
Not supported by the facts - it's the refugees fleeing from the Taliban, not the Taliban fleeing from the refugees.

Restricting legal rights to taxpayers only is a rather extreme concept. Being a retiree, that would leave me unprotected. In any case, refugees have no opportunity to pay taxes until they're granted visas and can find work. Which they do of course - they're willing to do the jobs Australians won't.

arosar
25-11-2010, 08:39 AM
Youse two ref-lovers ought to bang your heads together I reckon.

Now what are youse talkin' about here they come to work? Course they dont't! Course they don't! Fact is right, they come here for the dole.

Look here OK, these people hit a fair few countries, countries that have the same beliefs as these mob do, before they hit our shores. So we ought to say to them, stay put where you are.

AR

Ian Murray
25-11-2010, 02:24 PM
Now what are youse talkin' about here they come to work? Course they dont't! Course they don't! Fact is right, they come here for the dole.
Crap. Some facts:-

The resettlement of refugees is not just an exercise in international goodwill. Refugees make substantial contributions to their new country – expanding consumer markets for local goods, opening new markets, bringing in new skills, creating employment and filling empty employment niches.
• There may be short-term costs as refugees are resettled and adjust to their new surroundings but, once successful resettlement has occurred, refugees are able to quickly make permanent cultural, social and economic contributions and infuse vitality and multiculturalism into the communities into which they are resettled.
• The profile of the humanitarian intake is also heavily skewed towards the younger age cohorts, with many arriving as children and receiving much of their education in Australia. The young age profile of humanitarian entrants makes a very positive contribution to a labour market in which new retirees now exceed new labour force entrants.
• Migration and the intake of refugees can diversify and enhance the skill level of the population, increase economies of scale and foster innovation and flexibility. Refugees are often entrepreneurial as they face the need to set up and establish themselves in a new environment. The 2000 Business Review Weekly’s annual “Rich 200” list, for example, showed that five of Australia’s eight billionaires were people whose families had originally come to the country as refugees.
• The entrepreneurial prowess of non-English speaking background (NESB) migrants is also evident in the New Enterprise Initiative Scheme (NEIS). An evaluation of the program found that NESB migrants had business survival rates (i.e. enterprises still running two years after the program) that were significantly higher (65%) than those rates for the native-born and for
immigrants from English-speaking countries (55%).

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/resources/Contributions_of_refugees.pdf

arosar
25-11-2010, 05:49 PM
You're a comedian, you know that, mate? Honestly. Here I spell it out.

Different. Time. Different. People. Different. Mentality. Not. Genuine. Refugees.

Look, I know you think you're being noble and all. But we gotta stop 'em boats. Tell these people, they ain't welcome. The more agro our response, the better.

AR

antichrist
25-11-2010, 07:38 PM
You're a comedian, you know that, mate? Honestly. Here I spell it out.

Different. Time. Different. People. Different. Mentality. Not. Genuine. Refugees.

Look, I know you think you're being noble and all. But we gotta stop 'em boats. Tell these people, they ain't welcome. The more agro our response, the better.

AR

AR
exactly one year ago about yesterday in the Philippines about 57 Filipino journalists etc were executed, about 30 years ago under Marcos marital law I could remember dozens getting slaughtered every week - salvaging it was called. Many of these libertarians and freedomfighters stood and fight rather than flee to another country, still today about 100 labour representatives getting killed a year there.

We should be sponsering their widowed spouses, taking the lead in bringing in such refugees.

The Muslims did it for Jews during the Catholic Inquisitions.

Due to their personal experiences many such refugees make them emplemary citizens in protecting human rights in this country as well - because they realise what it means to lose such rights.

Even Bobby Fischer was a refugee and needed protection - our hero.

Ian Murray
26-11-2010, 12:24 AM
...Different. Time. Different. People. Different. Mentality. Not. Genuine. Refugees.
The report I quote was commissioned in December 2008 and released in February 2010. The facts and findings are up to the minute

Igor_Goldenberg
28-11-2010, 06:18 PM
I'm surprised there has been no comment on the unanimous decision by the High Court to uphold refugees' rights to equal treatment before the law. Their right to appeal to the courts is confirmed.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-victory-for-basic-rights-20101111-17pbt.html
In a plain language - once you sneak in by whatever unlawful means, you are entitled to a procedure that genuine lawful refugee are denied. On top of that they have to wait longer and are in a greater danger because they don't have enough money to pay people smugglers.

BTW, who is more likely to become a model citizen - the one who arrived here lawfully or the one who shows complete disregard to the law?

antichrist
28-11-2010, 10:04 PM
In a plain language - once you sneak in by whatever unlawful means, you are entitled to a procedure that genuine lawful refugee are denied. On top of that they have to wait longer and are in a greater danger because they don't have enough money to pay people smugglers.

BTW, who is more likely to become a model citizen - the one who arrived here lawfully or the one who shows complete disregard to the law?

Igor, you are completely wrong. There is no law that says that refugees must come as per John Howard's manual of sucking and crawling and political pawns.

Those landing unassisted are queue jumpers but that does not make them illegal. There is talk of processing all refugee applicatons in order of receipt that would put them at bottom of queue. A way out.

But if you agree with this you should also agree that all rich people in society should not be able to jump queues, e.g., those with private medical insurance getting in first as they do, etc etc.

And by the way those Jews fleeing Nazi Germany by ship direct to UK could also be considered queue jumpers.

MichaelBaron
29-11-2010, 10:04 AM
Crap. Some facts:-

The resettlement of refugees is not just an exercise in international goodwill. Refugees make substantial contributions to their new country – expanding consumer markets for local goods, opening new markets, bringing in new skills, creating employment and filling empty employment niches.
• There may be short-term costs as refugees are resettled and adjust to their new surroundings but, once successful resettlement has occurred, refugees are able to quickly make permanent cultural, social and economic contributions and infuse vitality and multiculturalism into the communities into which they are resettled.
• The profile of the humanitarian intake is also heavily skewed towards the younger age cohorts, with many arriving as children and receiving much of their education in Australia. The young age profile of humanitarian entrants makes a very positive contribution to a labour market in which new retirees now exceed new labour force entrants.
• Migration and the intake of refugees can diversify and enhance the skill level of the population, increase economies of scale and foster innovation and flexibility. Refugees are often entrepreneurial as they face the need to set up and establish themselves in a new environment. The 2000 Business Review Weekly’s annual “Rich 200” list, for example, showed that five of Australia’s eight billionaires were people whose families had originally come to the country as refugees.
• The entrepreneurial prowess of non-English speaking background (NESB) migrants is also evident in the New Enterprise Initiative Scheme (NEIS). An evaluation of the program found that NESB migrants had business survival rates (i.e. enterprises still running two years after the program) that were significantly higher (65%) than those rates for the native-born and for
immigrants from English-speaking countries (55%).

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/resources/Contributions_of_refugees.pdf
Ian, You are making so very strong points here...in favor of supporting immigration. But how about we substitute the word ''refugees'' everywhere in the text above with ''professional and business migrants''. I am very sure that contribution of those who come under the professional migration scheme is by far more significant than the one made by the refugees.

Also, the refugee communities (while having some success as discussed above) have 1) very high crime rate and 2) fairly high unemployment rate. We do need a population increase but lets focus on bringing in the ''quality'' migrants!

arosar
29-11-2010, 11:23 PM
Right...I'm just going to drop this story about the Oregon Bomber (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11852953) right here.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
30-11-2010, 02:47 PM
Families exploiting reunion loophole. (http://www.theage.com.au/national/families-exploiting-reunion-loophole-20101129-18dy2.html)

antichrist
30-11-2010, 06:57 PM
................Also, the refugee communities (while having some success as discussed above) have 1) very high crime rate and 2) fairly high unemployment rate. We do need a population increase but lets focus on bringing in the ''quality'' migrants!


I know so called quality refugees who come from devastated Europe 60 years ago. Now they are billionaires, but they have broken more laws then poor refugees, the difference is that the rich ones got away with it; robbed more money from the govt by avoiding hundreds of millions of dollars of taxation, a lot more than social security welfare tit may be.

The wealthy refugees although corrupt and lawbreakers get Orders of Australia - the working class mildly bludging refugee only get a bad reputation.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-12-2010, 09:17 AM
When SIEV X sunk, refugee advocates blamed Howard (never mind that it sunk in Indonesian water). Then they blamed Howard for changing the law (never mind that changing the law stopped people smugglers and death in the ocean).
Then they cheered Rudd/Gillard for reversing the law (never mind that it resumed people smuggling trade and death in the ocean).
Why don't they blame Gillard for recent death at Christmas Island? It was in Australian waters (not Indonesian) and was a direct result of Gillard policy (unlike SIEV X under Howard).
And all supporters of illegal arrivals on this board were strangely silent (despite having enough time to express their opinion).
Is it another issue that make leftists choke?

arosar
22-12-2010, 09:29 AM
UNHCR commish confirms that many of these illegals are not refugees (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/rejected-asylum-seekers-should-go-home-un-20101219-191kj.html). It's confirmed. But many of these fkn hippie leftists continue to insist otherwise and wanna make good neighbours. The government should simply flex their muscles, send in the SAS and drag these FOBs onto the next plane and send them back. These people don't belong here.

AR

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2010, 09:58 AM
UNHCR commish confirms that many of these illegals are not refugees (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/rejected-asylum-seekers-should-go-home-un-20101219-191kj.html).

They're not illegals either. They're just unsuccessful claimants.

deanhogg
22-12-2010, 12:50 PM
The Immigration policy in Australia is not waterproof, it will be continued to be exploited by smugglers nevertheless ,if people who are continually looking
for a better life they will keep coming at any cost as shown with that
disaster on Christmas Island . With Technology today why couldn't they (customs people)
intercept the boat before it reach Australia waters with satellite navigation ?
Blaming previous Governments and current Government is not complete
answer .First we need to look at where these boat's are coming from and
prevent them entering our waters in first place . If its Indonesia or whoever it
is ,we need more discussion to take place . Remember this is not just Australia's
problem .

Manack
22-12-2010, 01:27 PM
UNHCR commish confirms that many of these illegals are not refugees (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/rejected-asylum-seekers-should-go-home-un-20101219-191kj.html). It's confirmed. But many of these fkn hippie leftists continue to insist otherwise and wanna make good neighbours. The government should simply flex their muscles, send in the SAS and drag these FOBs onto the next plane and send them back. These people don't belong here.

AR

91% of asylum seekers that arrived by boat over the last year were granted refugee status. So 91% of them belong here as much as the other million refugees that have settled in Australia since 1945.

The other 9% are sent back. I don't see what the problem is.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-12-2010, 02:05 PM
They're not illegals either. They're just unsuccessful claimants.
They are not illegal claimants, they are just illegal entrants.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-12-2010, 02:08 PM
The Immigration policy in Australia is not waterproof, it will be continued to be exploited by smugglers nevertheless ,if people who are continually looking
for a better life they will keep coming at any cost as shown with that
disaster on Christmas Island . With Technology today why couldn't they (customs people)
intercept the boat before it reach Australia waters with satellite navigation ?

They often do. What should they do next?


Blaming previous Governments and current Government is not complete
answer .First we need to look at where these boat's are coming from and
prevent them entering our waters in first place . If its Indonesia or whoever it
is ,we need more discussion to take place . Remember this is not just Australia's
problem .
Howard's policy worked pretty well, we hardly had any boats before August 2008. After Rudd changed the policy, they boats started arriving in hundreds.
So I do blame current government for changing the policy to encourage people smugglers. And I especially blame them for not reversing the policy when implications became crystal clear.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-12-2010, 02:12 PM
91% of asylum seekers that arrived by boat over the last year were granted refugee status. So 91% of them belong here as much as the other million refugees that have settled in Australia since 1945.
Yes and no. Government directed immigration authority to use softer criteria and fasten the processing. While many of them are genuine, I am sure that real figure would be well below 91% if the same criteria were applied to illegal arrival as to other refugees.
And for everyone arriving by boat there is one refugee overseas that has to wait longer because his place is taken.

Manack
22-12-2010, 02:47 PM
Yes and no. Government directed immigration authority to use softer criteria and fasten the processing. While many of them are genuine, I am sure that real figure would be well below 91% if the same criteria were applied to illegal arrival as to other refugees.
And for everyone arriving by boat there is one refugee overseas that has to wait longer because his place is taken.

That is just untrue.

"All unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia are subject to the same assessment criteria as other Asylum applicants and are also subject to comprehensive security and health checks."

In fact you will find that those who arrive on boat are significantly more likely to be genuine refugees than the other applicants.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

Manack
22-12-2010, 03:01 PM
Howard's policy worked pretty well, we hardly had any boats before August 2008. After Rudd changed the policy, they boats started arriving in hundreds.

They also jumped from 157 boat arrivals in the year Howard took office to 4179 around when his first term was ending. Are Howard's policy's responsible for that or do you think some other factors may be at play? Say like two major wars in the region where they are mostly coming from.

Just the same as now do you think the large increase in arrivals over the two years are due to the Rudd policies or say major conflict in Sri Lanka and a combat surge in Afghanistan?

I think you are giving our prime ministers too much credit.

Manack
22-12-2010, 03:34 PM
And for everyone arriving by boat there is one refugee overseas that has to wait longer because his place is taken.

Boat arrivals take up about 15%-20% of Australia's annual tiny refugee intake.

Both boat arrival refugees and the slim minority of refugees worldwide which are part on the UNHCR resettlement program are equally deserving to our protection and help.

True its a shame that people are so desperate that they will risk everything to flee the horrors they are trying to escape by whatever means are available to them. But I don't think that's any reason to condem them.

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2010, 03:45 PM
They are not illegal claimants, they are just illegal entrants.

They are unauthorised entrants. The law uses the term "unlawful non-citizens" but they haven't actually committed a specific offence. The real "illegals" are the visa overstayers, of whom there are far more, and who are widespread in the community rather than being cooped up in detention centres. This is well covered in pp 2-4 of the link posted by Manack above.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-12-2010, 10:11 AM
They also jumped from 157 boat arrivals in the year Howard took office to 4179 around when his first term was ending. Are Howard's policy's responsible for that or do you think some other factors may be at play? Say like two major wars in the region where they are mostly coming from.

I am not aware of any policy changes during the first and second term of Howard government. If there were any, they should be examined for the causal link. If there weren't any, then other factors must be considered.
However, there was a policy change in 2001-2002, with the massive reduction in boat arrival after that. It is a causal link.


Just the same as now do you think the large increase in arrivals over the two years are due to the Rudd policies or say major conflict in Sri Lanka and a combat surge in Afghanistan?
I remember Ian Murray posting data that shown about 10% increase (IIRC) in worldwide refugee numbers. For Australia this increase is more then 50 times.
And there is a clear link between policy change in August 2008 and surge in number of arrivals, as can be seen from the graph below (and verified on IMMI web site (http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-20101029.pdf)):
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/boats11_thumb.jpg


I think you are giving our prime ministers too much credit.
Me? giving pollies a credit? Never :lol: :lol: :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
23-12-2010, 10:16 AM
Boat arrivals take up about 15%-20% of Australia's annual tiny refugee intake.
I have a feeling those numbers are outdated and are much closer to 35-40%.
We currently have ~5600 people in detention and our refugee quote is about 13,000.


Both boat arrival refugees and the slim minority of refugees worldwide which are part on the UNHCR resettlement program are equally deserving to our protection and help.
That could be an argument in favour of increasing overall refugee intake (which I don't necessarily disagree), but not for allowing illegal entries.


True its a shame that people are so desperate that they will risk everything to flee the horrors they are trying to escape by whatever means are available to them. But I don't think that's any reason to condem them.
Some of them are economical refugees. And what about those that do not have means (like tens of thousands dollars) to escape? They are in a much worse situation and must receive our help first. However, they are effectively displaced by boat people.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-12-2010, 10:23 AM
They are unauthorised entrants. The law uses the term "unlawful non-citizens" but they haven't actually committed a specific offence. The real "illegals" are the visa overstayers, of whom there are far more, and who are widespread in the community rather than being cooped up in detention centres. This is well covered in pp 2-4 of the link posted by Manack above.

You are happy to argue that boat people are not "illegal" and merely "unlawful", but then on what ground you call visa overstayer "illegal"? I see some inconsistency, to say the list.

IMO, visa overstaying is a smaller failure. At least they arrived in Australia lawfully by obtaining visa. For that they had to present documents (unlike some boat arrival who destroy them or at least claim not to have them) and go through security check. Government had an option of not allowing them in in the first place.

There is a difference between guest not willing to leave your house (very annoying) and some barging in uninvited.

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2010, 10:24 AM
I have a feeling those numbers are outdated and are much closer to 35-40%.
We currently have ~5600 people in detention and our refugee quote is about 13,000.

That's only a valid comparison if all of those in detention will be accepted and admitted within in one year and then replaced by a similar number in the following year who will also be processed just as quickly. All these things would seem highly unlikely.

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2010, 10:49 AM
You are happy to argue that boat people are not "illegal" and merely "unlawful", but then on what ground you call visa overstayer "illegal"?

That they have specifically violated the conditions of a visa they were granted and are subject to specific punishments for so doing. (They can be excluded from being granted temporary entry visas to Australia in the near future).


There is a difference between guest not willing to leave your house (very annoying) and some barging in uninvited.

The asylum seeker isn't barging into the house uninvited; they're hanging around on the doorstep asking for help. Even if their reasons for asking for help are invalid and their presence on the doorstep is a nuisance, it's not quite the same thing as them hanging around unwanted in the house!

Igor_Goldenberg
23-12-2010, 01:46 PM
That's only a valid comparison if all of those in detention will be accepted and admitted within in one year and then replaced by a similar number in the following year who will also be processed just as quickly. All these things would seem highly unlikely.
In this case I'd put the figure at 45%. However, I left it lower precisely because some of them might not be granted visa in the following year. However, the number of people in detention does not include those who were granted visa already and left the detention, so approximation would work both way.

anyway, the figure provided by Manuck (15-20%) could have been valid last year, but much higher now.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-12-2010, 01:51 PM
That they have specifically violated the conditions of a visa they were granted and are subject to specific punishments for so doing. (They can be excluded from being granted temporary entry visas to Australia in the near future).
And boat people violated Australian law that requires a visa for entry, and shown disregard for the law.




The asylum seeker isn't barging into the house uninvited;
Yes they are


they're hanging around on the doorstep asking for help.
Many of them not. What about young men who have no documents and pretend to be teenagers? Many of them taking us for a ride.
If they are so desperate, why didn't they try to come during Howard years?
His government still allowed genuine refugees in. If they are in a desperate fear for their life (despite being in relatively Indonesia with enough money to pay people smugglers), detention in Nauru and TPV would be better then certain death at home, wouldn't it?


Even if their reasons for asking for help are invalid and their presence on the doorstep is a nuisance, it's not quite the same thing as them hanging around unwanted in the house!
Indeed, it's much worse!

deanhogg
23-12-2010, 03:23 PM
They often do. What should they do next?




Howard's policy worked pretty well, we hardly had any boats before August 2008. After Rudd changed the policy, they boats started arriving in hundreds.
So I do blame current government for changing the policy to encourage people smugglers. And I especially blame them for not reversing the policy when implications became crystal clear.On this occasion they failed miserably as shown with those images of
boat being smashed to pieces near Christmas Island .. And my heart sunk with those pictures following day .
You can quote all figures you like it doesn't bring those Asylum seekers back
and many other victims .We need humane way to fix this problem or slow down boats from making it
here in first place . Perhaps upgrading technology capabilities ? Strengthening
our ties with our neighbours ? Put your Immigration hat on Igor and tell me
you're solution, remember you are on notice :D :D

Igor_Goldenberg
23-12-2010, 05:30 PM
On this occasion they failed miserably as shown with those images of
boat being smashed to pieces near Christmas Island .. And my heart sunk with those pictures following day .
You can quote all figures you like it doesn't bring those Asylum seekers back
and many other victims .We need humane way to fix this problem or slow down boats from making it
here in first place . Perhaps upgrading technology capabilities ? Strengthening
our ties with our neighbours ? Put your Immigration hat on Igor and tell me
you're solution, remember you are on notice :D :D
I'd start with restoring the policy that worked well and see how it goes.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-12-2010, 08:39 AM
Jumping asylum queue pays off (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/jumping-asylum-queue-pays-off/story-fn59niix-1225975665987)

No wonder they choose boats.

deanhogg
24-12-2010, 12:48 PM
Jumping asylum queue pays off (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/jumping-asylum-queue-pays-off/story-fn59niix-1225975665987)

No wonder they choose boats. First of all thanks for that link ..Quite
fascinating plight that man endured (Hussain). And he's Cousin Ahmad who
successfully got here by jumping the queue . Strange how things fall in to
place for one and not the other ,its insane really.. No consistency . Its like if
you are at right place right time you have chance refugee status and obviously
necessary funds too. l wonder how wide spread this situation is or is it just handful of isolated cases? .We certainly need a proper Pacific solution not just some half-bake one to avoid more tragedies in future .

Cheers Igor , Merry Christmas to your family

BTW- what is going on with your waist line ?:)

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2010, 06:53 PM
And boat people violated Australian law that requires a visa for entry, and shown disregard for the law.

Not being able to safely obtain a visa is not the same thing as showing disregard for the law.

Furthermore Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention under which any law requiring a visa, as applied to a person fleeing persecution, is effectively invalidated. It is not an offence to arrive in Australia without a visa.


Yes they are

You missed the point of my counter-analogy. A valid analogue for barging into the house uninvited would be if someone was loose on the Australian mainland in a major city with no visa and no valid excuse. But if someone is on Christmas Island in detention, or in some other detention or assessment process, they are not in "the house" as far as most of us are concerned - although they are within limited corners of our territory.



Many of them not. What about young men who have no documents and pretend to be teenagers? Many of them taking us for a ride.

Then the analogy for that is someone who is knocking on the door under false pretences. They're a nuisance but we can easily have them removed if we want to. They're still not "in the house".

I do think there are a lot of problems with Labor's current approach and that many of them stem from political positioning (desire to differentiate from Howard approach and still give lip service to acting tough.) And I agree that where claimants are not legitimate they should be deported quickly.

There are a lot of problems with judging legitimacy of applicants from some countries at the moment, and these mean it's not surprising that applicants may genuinely think they have a chance only to be refused. Some of these (esp the situation with Sri Lanka and Afghanistan) did arise through apparent winding-back of conflict on this government's watch.

PS antisense's father's cat (a mature adult of age at least 18) offers the following contribution to the debate:


bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbabzBBBBBB

Garvinator
24-12-2010, 07:01 PM
Not being able to safely obtain a visa is not the same thing as showing disregard for the law.

Furthermore Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention under which any law requiring a visa, as applied to a person fleeing persecution, is effectively invalidated. It is not an offence to arrive in Australia without a visa.
And that is where the Howard Government policy so effective in stopping the boats. To have any rights to make an application after coming by boat, a person had to reach the mainland (effectively). All the islands were excised from the Australian migration zone.

I think the whole Gilliard policy can be summed up in a short sentence. Gillard refuses to use Nauru because it would look too much like going back to Howard policies. Even though a fully built, ready to go detention centre is already available. So Gillard would rather try and force a centre of a country that does not want it (East Timor) than use a detention centre in a country that does want it.

Talk about putting politics before sensible decision making.

Goughfather
25-12-2010, 08:51 AM
Not being able to safely obtain a visa is not the same thing as showing disregard for the law.

Furthermore Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention under which any law requiring a visa, as applied to a person fleeing persecution, is effectively invalidated. It is not an offence to arrive in Australia without a visa.

I wouldn't bother if I were you - Igor just refuses to listen. I took him very systematically and patiently through the legal ins and outs of the situation a number of months ago, to no avail.

Basil
25-12-2010, 10:10 AM
I'm not au fait with the laws.

What is the situation if Bob ('Barb') from Florida arrives at MEL international airport, resplendent in Hawaii shirt, tan and stomach and claims refugee status. After a few questions, he says 'the government is after him/ will kill him', what then? Under which law(s)?

Does Bob receive different treatment is he's non-white and is 'fleeing' a despot country? Why? Balance of probability of likelihood of persecution as claimed?

Should either Bob be detained ('housed') prior to processing of his claim? Or should either Bob be entitled to keep walking freely on a promise to 'stay in touch' in case the Australian authorities discover he's unwelcome/ criminal/ scammer/ simply not a genuine refugee?

antichrist
25-12-2010, 10:21 AM
I'm not au fait with the laws.

What is the situation if Bob ('Barb') from Florida arrives at MEL international airport, resplendent in Hawaii shirt, tan and stomach and claims refugee status. After a few questions, he says 'the government is after him/ will kill him', what then? Under which law(s)?

Does Bob receive different treatment is he's non-white and is 'fleeing' a despot country? Why? Balance of probability?

Should either Bob be detained ('housed') prior to processing of his claim? Or should either Bob be entitled to keep walking freely on a promise to 'stay in touch' in case the Australian authorities discover he's unwelcome/ criminal/ scammer/ simply not a genuine refugee?

One touted "solution" is to put them on the back of the existing line, so they get processed at same rate as those in overseas holding pens. That means they could stay in detention camps for years with asssoc problems and costs - so no real solution Capt.

And don't think that Abbott has a humane problem or one that would succeed. One reason for increase of refugees under Labour is the "solution" of Sri Lanka civil war with Tigers.

there is rumour that Abbott is striking deal with Wilkie to double refugee intake in return for supporting Abbott instead. So there is a lot of hypocrisy on Liberals side. Just the same ole do anything to get back or hold onto power - whether demonising refugees and if that fails doubling their intake.

Basil
25-12-2010, 11:04 AM
One touted "solution" is to put them on the back of the existing line, so they get processed at same rate as those in overseas holding pens. That means they could stay in detention camps for years with asssoc problems and costs - so no real solution Capt.
1. What's your opinion of the 'touted' solution you cite? 2. And forgetting your diversion for a minute, can you answer the question as posed (re: the laws)?


And don't think that Abbott has a humane problem or one that would succeed. One reason for increase of refugees under Labour is the "solution" of Sri Lanka civil war with Tigers.
Forget Abbott. Can you answer the question as posed (re: the laws)?


there is rumour that Abbott is striking deal with Wilkie to double refugee intake in return for supporting Abbott instead. So there is a lot of hypocrisy on Liberals side. Just the same ole do anything to get back or hold onto power - whether demonising refugees and if that fails doubling their intake.
Forget Abbott. Can you answer the question as posed (re: the laws)?

Hobbes
25-12-2010, 11:04 AM
there is rumour lie published by Wilkie that Abbott is striking deal with Wilkie to double refugee intake in return for supporting Abbott instead. So there is a lot of hypocrisy on Liberals lefty 'independents' side. Just the same ole do anything to get back or hold onto power
FYP

antichrist
25-12-2010, 11:18 AM
FYP

what does "P" stand for? post?

arosar
25-12-2010, 05:24 PM
The only people who wanna show these FOBs some lovin' are clueless whiteys. Most blow-ins you talk to are against FOBs. Majority opinion is that we don't approve of these boat people. There's absolutely no getting away from the fact that these people are costing hard working Aussie tax payers plenty of money. They have to be kicked out.

AR

antichrist
25-12-2010, 06:02 PM
The only people who wanna show these FOBs some lovin' are clueless whiteys. Most blow-ins you talk to are against FOBs. Majority opinion is that we don't approve of these boat people. There's absolutely no getting away from the fact that these people are costing hard working Aussie tax payers plenty of money. They have to be kicked out.

AR

they are only costing hard-earnt tax money coz that is Howard deemed it to be (and keating who started it). Under Howard's plan each individual cost a few hundred thousands of dollars before finally being admitted anyway. So you tell me who is the fool.

And many of the draconian measures have recently declared illegal by one of the higher courts - and a lot of damages paid out to individual refugees who have been psychologically scarred by their incarceration. All so Howard could win an election.

If they were very rich they could buy their way out here, like the Hong Kongese before 1997 - and they recycled the money so many could get out. So as I have stated earlier, it is a class issue. A 3rd world issue as against a 2nd or 1st world issue.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-12-2010, 06:03 PM
I wouldn't bother if I were you - Igor just refuses to listen. I took him very systematically and patiently through the legal ins and outs of the situation a number of months ago, to no avail.
Combination of "systematically, patiently and Goughfather" is as real as a tooth fairy or St Klaus.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-12-2010, 06:11 PM
Not being able to safely obtain a visa is not the same thing as showing disregard for the law.
Only if you abstain from travel. If you still go in despite being refused, it is a blatant disregard for the law.


Furthermore Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention under which any law requiring a visa, as applied to a person fleeing persecution, is effectively invalidated. It is not an offence to arrive in Australia without a visa.
Been through this line of arguments. If that was true, they would be able to fly by AirAsia ($200, no accidents yet, 8 hours fly from KL - cheaper, safer and faster then by boat).

Are you saying entering Australia by boat without visa is lawful?




You missed the point of my counter-analogy. A valid analogue for barging into the house uninvited would be if someone was loose on the Australian mainland in a major city with no visa and no valid excuse. But if someone is on Christmas Island in detention, or in some other detention or assessment process, they are not in "the house" as far as most of us are concerned - although they are within limited corners of our territory.

No, your analogy is simply incorrect. Christmas island detention is already overfilled, so they are moved to mainland, and many are "released into community"


Then the analogy for that is someone who is knocking on the door under false pretences. They're a nuisance but we can easily have them removed if we want to. They're still not "in the house".

They can not be "easily removed" under current system of processing. It was the case during Howards "Pacific solution", but not any more.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-12-2010, 06:13 PM
BTW- what is going on with your waist line ?:)
It shows 100% resilience to adverse economic conditions and continues years and years of uninterrupted growth.:D

Goughfather
25-12-2010, 10:03 PM
Combination of "systematically, patiently and Goughfather" is as real as a tooth fairy or St Klaus.

Igor, I was speaking to the fellow adults, not to yourself. If you wish to wilfully continue to expose your ignorance in an area where you are clearly out of your depth, you're welcome to do this, but I'll pull you up on it if I so desire.


Only if you abstain from travel. If you still go in despite being refused, it is a blatant disregard for the law.

This race has been run and won several times before. A mere restatement of your assertion from a number of months ago does not constitute analysis.


Been through this line of arguments. If that was true, they would be able to fly by AirAsia ($200, no accidents yet, 8 hours fly from KL - cheaper, safer and faster then by boat).

Yes, we've been through this line of argument before and yet you merely restate your assertion. You presume that the individuals involved are fully aware of their options, not to mention the fact that their right to seek asylum would not necessarily be recognised by an intermediary country. Of course, the obligation to process an asylum seeker under international law only applies when an individual enters the Australian jurisdiction, so such claims can be circumvented before an individual seeks to leave an intermediary country and thus before they have entered Australian territorial borders.


No, your analogy is simply incorrect. Christmas island detention is already overfilled, so they are moved to mainland, and many are "released into community"

No, given that the understanding of "house" or "dwelling" is very specific according to common law, Kevin's representation of the appropriate analogy is more accurate. To further elucidate, the situation would be akin to something like trespass, when the vagrant has been located on the front lawn. Notwithstanding your annoyance, you've made a commitment to ascertain why this vagrant is seeking shelter and if his reasons are appropriate to provide him with board (food not necessarily being provided). As opposed to him barging through the door, you pull him into your house before locking him away in the cellar while considering your position for an indefinite period of time.


They can not be "easily removed" under current system of processing. It was the case during Howards "Pacific solution", but not any more.

Even if this is so, you've merely picked up on a red herring. This conversation is about the rights of asylum seekers and the responsibilities of the Commonwealth government, if any. That one approach may be quicker than another does not necessarily mean that it is more fair or just, nor that it complies more fully with our obligations under international law.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-12-2010, 09:22 PM
Igor, I was speaking to the fellow adults, not to yourself. If you wish to wilfully continue to expose your ignorance in an area where you are clearly out of your depth, you're welcome to do this, but I'll pull you up on it if I so desire.

You can speak to adults, of course, but you cannot call them "fellow", because it assumes (incorrectly) that you are in the same category. Another simple logical fallacy you are so prone to.
All "assertion" you are raving about haven't been refuted or even questioned - at least by you.


Even if this is so, you've merely picked up on a red herring. This conversation is about the rights of asylum seekers and the responsibilities of the Commonwealth government, if any.
The topic "immigration policy" is a little bit wider.:doh: :doh: :doh:

Garvinator
30-01-2011, 08:58 AM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-locking-up-more-children-in-detention-than-john-howard/story-e6freooo-1225996704418


JULIA Gillard is locking up more than 1000 children in immigration facilities, beating the Howard Government's own "cruel" record.

And rising numbers of boatpeople are locking out thousands of asylum seekers waiting in overseas refugee camps.

The Coalition will move to guarantee places for asylum seekers who are languishing in overseas refugee camps when Parliament resumes, accusing the Prime Minister of allowing people smugglers to run Australia's refugee intake.

New figures obtained by The Sunday Mail confirm 1046 minors are being held in detention. The previous high-water mark was nearly 10 years ago when 842 children where held in detention in September, 2001, according to the Human Rights Commission.

Opposition spokesman Scott Morrison said the hypocrisy of Labor's failed border protection policies were exposed by yet another record broken on children in detention.

Refugee advocate Pamela Curr said the Gillard Government was "no better than the last".

"The Prime Minister announced last year that children will be released from detention. I can tell you I understand four unaccompanied minors have been released."

She said the Government had suggested 700 women and children would be released by June, but to date she believed only about 20 women who were about to give birth or had very young babies had also been released.

The number of applicants who apply from offshore refugee camps has fallen from 3233 people last yeard.

Mr Morrison said: "The cruel fact of Labor's failed border protection and immigration policies is that they reward asylum seekers who can afford to get on boats, at the expense of those who can't".

The number of boat arrivals claiming asylum peaked at 6535 last year, compared with 148 in 2007.

Basil
30-01-2011, 10:31 AM
Lefties make me wanna puke.

Capablanca-Fan
30-01-2011, 12:19 PM
If leftards didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all! (Cf. Garvinator's post above)

But the Left won’t vilify Gillard for locking up more children than Howard (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/but_the_left_wont_vilify_gillard_for_locking_up_mo re_children_than_howard/)
Andrew Bolt – Sunday, January 30, 11 (07:24 am)

But the “refugee” lobby that so vilified John Howard says almost nothing against Julia Gillard (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/more-than-1000-children-in-locked-up-in-immigration-facilities/story-e6frf7l6-1225996705436):


JULIA Gillard is locking up more than 1000 children in immigration facilities, beating the Howard Government’s “cruel” record ...

Despite vowing to release women and children from detention when Labor was elected, new figures obtained by the Sunday Herald Sun confirm 1046 minors are being held in detention.

The previous high-water mark was nearly 10 years ago when 842 children where held in detention in September, 2001, according to the Human Rights Commission.

Can you imagine how vilely Howard would have been abused by “compassionate” commentators if he’d had Gillard’s record (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/boltdec1/story-fn6bfkm6-1225964089095):


It was Howard’s alleged barbarity to asylum seekers in particular that earned him the foulest abuse from people who showed none of the compassion they demanded from him. You know them and their kind, and how they luxuriated in abusing Howard.

“A man with the heart of a caraway seed,’’ jeered Mike Seccombe of the Sydney Morning Herald…

A “cold-hearted prick’’, said footballer Michael Long…

(He has) “bloodless lips of string’’, added Herald Sun columnist Jill Singer…

“Unflushable turd,” sniggered author Mungo MacCallum.

The then Labor president Carmen Lawrence even endorsed a Rock Against Howard CD with tracks such as John Howard is a Filthy Slut.


This illustrates three truths.

First, many of the Left are tribalists, and tend to judge politicians not by their deeds but by what side they are on.

Second, policies should be judged not by intentions but consequences. A policy is not more “compassionate” if it has more people dying at sea and more children locked up.

Third, Gillard’s boat people policies have been a disaster.

Ian Murray
30-01-2011, 03:10 PM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-locking-up-more-children-in-detention-than-john-howard/story-e6freooo-1225996704418
It's all a total media beat-up!! There are no kids behind the razor wire - those still being processed are all in community detention or low-security residential facilities. Get the facts at http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-20110114.pdf

Detention policy at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/82detention.htm

Ian Murray
30-01-2011, 03:48 PM
But the Left won’t vilify Gillard for locking up more children than Howard (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/but_the_left_wont_vilify_gillard_for_locking_up_mo re_children_than_howard/)
Andrew Bolt – Sunday, January 30, 11 (07:24 am)
That's our Andrew - never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

There are no children locked up in immigration centres today, unlike the hundreds during the Howard years - see the national inquiry findings on the Human Rights Commission site at http://www.hreoc.gov.au/HUMAN_RIGHTS/children_detention_report/summaryguide/4_facts.htm

Igor_Goldenberg
30-01-2011, 07:43 PM
If a child is kept in a detention centre while Howard is a PM - he is behind a razor wire.
If a child is kept in the same or similar detention centre when Rudd or Gillard is a PM - he is in a "low-security residential facility".
How convenient:doh: :doh: :doh:

Ian Murray
30-01-2011, 07:58 PM
If a child is kept in a detention centre while Howard is a PM - he is behind a razor wire.
If a child is kept in the same or similar detention centre when Rudd or Gillard is a PM - he is in a "low-security residential facility".

Nowhere remotely near the same or similar. For a description of residential facility see http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/facilities/locations/portaugustaIRH/

The kids in community detention are living freely in the community, with oversight by aid organisations

Under Howard they were behind the wire at Woomera, Nauru etc

antichrist
30-01-2011, 10:17 PM
Nowhere remotely near the same or similar. For a description of residential facility see http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/facilities/locations/portaugustaIRH/

The kids in community detention are living freely in the community, with oversight by aid organisations

Under Howard they were behind the wire at Woomera, Nauru etc

I gave printed copies of my chess lessons to a Catholic mob who were looking after such children outside of detention centres, in western suburbs of Sydney - they pleaded me to help them

antichrist
31-01-2011, 10:01 PM
in today's smh a vietnamese guy has successfully got compensation of a fortune for Howard's government destroying his fishing boat that he brought boat people in. In 2003 53 asylum seekers came, Howard put them on Christmas Island and spent $50M fighting them in the courts etc. 100% were deemed genuine refugees so all that money and heartache wasted.

Ian Murray
01-02-2011, 06:47 AM
in today's smh a vietnamese guy has successfully got compensation of a fortune for Howard's government destroying his fishing boat that he brought boat people in. In 2003 53 asylum seekers came, Howard put them on Christmas Island and spent $50M fighting them in the courts etc. 100% were deemed genuine refugees so all that money and heartache wasted.
Online coverage here (http://www.smh.com.au/national/government-faces-bill-for-destroyed-asylum-seekers-boat-20100714-10b4q.html) and here (http://www.smh.com.au/national/canberra-settles-after-destroying-refugee-boat-20110130-1a9px.html)

antichrist
01-02-2011, 10:36 AM
and what a beauty that HOward was turfed out of his own seat, there is some justice in the world after all - why hasn't the faced the onslaught that Bush and Blair faced for illegally and immorally invading Iraq all based on lies. And tens or hundred of thousands of Iraqis killed because GW had the same itch in his undies that his father had.

Now USA is broke and must suk up to China.

this is some on topic here coz the Iraqis became immigration refugees to Australia

Igor_Goldenberg
07-03-2011, 01:07 PM
How is Gillard's East Timor processing centre progressing?

Ian Murray
07-03-2011, 09:53 PM
How is Gillard's East Timor processing centre progressing?
A non-event. No mention in the budget forward estimates, while a new facility is to be built in Darwin

Igor_Goldenberg
08-03-2011, 08:48 AM
A non-event. No mention in the budget forward estimates, while a new facility is to be built in Darwin
What gives? She was talking about East Timor all the time during last election. Are you saying she never intended it?

Oepty
17-03-2011, 10:44 PM
What gives? She was talking about East Timor all the time during last election. Are you saying she never intended it?

The East Timor suggestion was always an unplanned joke of an announcement.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
06-04-2011, 10:44 AM
Gillard is still committed to offshore processing - planning a detention centre in Tasmania (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/new-detention-centre-to-open-in-tasmania/story-fn59niix-1226033937113).

I am sure Labor supporters and Gillard apologists will try to justify it. I have booked a front seat for the show.

Ian Murray
06-04-2011, 10:00 PM
Gillard is still committed to offshore processing - planning a detention centre in Tasmania (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/new-detention-centre-to-open-in-tasmania/story-fn59niix-1226033937113).

I am sure Labor supporters and Gillard apologists will try to justify it. I have booked a front seat for the show.
At least it's onshore, but I agree with Wilkes - I'm opposed to keeping people behind barbed wire.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2011, 01:17 AM
I'll be surprised if they can even get environmental approval for that one. That Pontville site is awash with threatened plants.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 02:13 PM
At least it's onshore, but I agree with Wilkes - I'm opposed to keeping people behind barbed wire.
Labor must think it's actually offshore:lol: :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2011, 12:06 PM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/08/26/1226123/107976-110827-leak.jpg

Ian Murray
28-08-2011, 06:44 PM
The Centre for Policy Development has released A New Approach: Breaking the Stalemate on Refugees & Asylum Seekers (http://cpd.org.au/2011/08/a-new-approach-breaking-australia%E2%80%99s-stalemate-on-refugees-and-asylum-seekers/), a report which comprehensively critiques Australia’s refugee and asylum policies and finds they are inhumane, ineffective and expensive.

Australia needs a circuit-breaker in our treatment of people seeking asylum from war and persecution. On the 10th anniversary of the Tampa, Australia’s asylum and refugee policies are still sadly characterised by human tragedy, political opportunism, policy failure and great cost.

The authors of the report – John Menadue, Arja Keski-Nummi and Kate Gauthier – draw on their extensive policy experience to inject facts into a highly-politicised debate and put forward policies that ensure we treat people seeking asylum with fairness, assess their claims rigorously but with compassion, and develop policies that are in the interests of all Australians.

The report outlines 13 recommendations which all aim to ensure that Australia:

Adheres to all international conventions which we have voluntarily signed
Quickly and correctly identifies those who are refugees and grants them protection consistent with UNHCR policies and guidelines
Protects Australians from any health or security concerns
Discourages dangerous journeys, but treats fairly those who have made those journeys
Affords all people in Australia their human rights, as well as access to the legal systems which deliver them, and
Rapidly returns home in safety and dignity those who are found not to be in need of Australia’s protection.

A New Approach challenges the idea that mandatory detention deters asylum seekers from making the journey to Australia by boat and reveals that, despite public and political obsession, Australia receives just one per cent of all applications for asylum worldwide.

“It is time to plot a new course on the question of refugees and asylum seekers after more than a decade of fear and misinformation. Our report, A New Approach, points to a way past our shameful policies and aims to end the race to the bottom,” said John Menadue.

“The new approach to refugees and asylum seekers proposed by the Centre for Policy Development deserves widespread community support and should be given serious consideration across the political spectrum. With genuine political will there is no reason why Australia cannot move away from the corrosive and divisive state of the current debate and back to the bipartisan approach which served Australia so well for so long.”

- Heather Ridout, Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group

“This issue should be above and beyond politics, not one to be exploited in a mindless, short-term political race to the bottom, the “winner” being the toughest and most inhumane to those who are predominately desperate people fleeing war and persecution in search of a new life for themselves and their families.”

- John Hewson, AM. Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (1990 – 1994)

“The Centre for Policy Development’s report, ‘A New Approach’, is exactly the fresh and comprehensive approach that is needed in this policy debate. This report is the circuit breaker refugee advocates and policy makers have been looking for.”

- Samah Hadid, Human rights activist and former Australian Youth Representative to the United Nations.

“Australia’s policies for the treatment of refugees are tired, cynical, populist and punitive. I wholeheartedly support the CPD’s thoughtful, comprehensive and realistic proposals, in the belief they will enhance the contribution this country makes to the alleviation of a worldwide problem.”

- Gideon Haigh, Journalist

Hobbes
28-08-2011, 07:00 PM
A New Approach challenges the idea that mandatory detention deters asylum seekers from making the journey to Australia by boat

Uh huh.

Garvinator
31-08-2011, 06:20 PM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/high-court-scuttles-julia-gillards-malaysia-solution-for-asylum-seekers/story-e6freon6-1226126512854


IMMIGRATION Minister Chris Bowen has admitted the high court judgment to continue an injunction against the Gillard government's plan to send asylum seekers to Malaysia is a significant blow for the Government's plans to undermine the people smuggling model.

Mr Bowen has spoken of his disappointment with the ruling, which has effectively made an injunction on plans to send asylum seekers to Malaysia permanent.

``Let's make no bones about it. This is…disappointing,'' he said.

Mr Bowen said the Government had commissioned ``urgent'' legal advice for the ramifications of the judgment for offshore processing more generally.

He said the cabinet would ``carefully'' consider options.

When asked if the Government would consider the opposition's suggestion of using Nauru as an offshore processing location - if it is still legal - Mr Bowen said he couldn't rule anything in or out.

He described the decision as a significant blow for the Government's plans to undermine the people smuggling model.

When asked how the Government got its legal advice so significantly wrong on the matter, Mr Bowen said the High Court had applied a “new test”, which had not been understood before.

In a major upset for the Government, the full bench of the high court has this afternoon found the plan to be legally flawed.

“Today the High Court held invalid the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims,” a statement said.

“After an expedited hearing before the Full Bench, the Court by majority made permanent the injunctions that had been granted earlier and restrained the Minister from taking to Malaysia two asylum seekers who arrived at Christmas Island, as part of a larger group, less than four weeks ago.”

The plan has been stalled since August 7, when human rights lawyer David Manne took the matter to the nation’s top court.

Lawyers for asylum seekers caught up in the plan have argued that the deal is not lawful because Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention and will not provide enough human rights protections.

Under the plan, the Gillard Government wanted to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for 4000 genuine refugees.

The Government has always claimed to be on strong legal grounds with the plan.

However, Chief Justice Robert French said today: "The declaration made... was made without power and is invalid."

Legal Professor Don Rothwell said that by implication, Minister Chris Bowen needed to demonstrate a country was an appropriate country for which asylum seekers could be sent for offshore processing.

There can be no appeals to the High Court on this decision, however the Government may seek to amend the legislation in the parliament in order to get its plan through.

"It is always a legitimate tactic open to a Government when it loses a case like this to review the legislation,'' Prof Rothwell.

He said Minister could seek to "revive'' the Malaysia solution by issuing a valid declaration in accordance with the terms the court has identified.

He said that at face value, that could include Malaysia becoming a signatory to the UN refugees convention, or Australia and Malaysia entering into a legally binding agreement as to the treatment of asylum seekers.

"It indicates that any attempt by the Government at this point in time to make arrangements for offshore processing are significantly constrained,'' Prof Rothwell said.

Opposition Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said the judgment marked a major policy bungle.

“On Julia Gillard’s year of delivery, this minister has failed to deliver,” he said.

“(The deal’s) construction was always pretty shoddy.”

Mr Morrison said he’d been to Malaysia and it was plain that the protections claimed did not exist.

He said the Opposition still favoured the plan of re-opening Nauru for offshore processing.

Garvinator
31-08-2011, 10:01 PM
Is this the most incompetent Fed Government in Australia's history?

Basil
31-08-2011, 10:04 PM
Is this the most incompetent Fed Government in Australia's history?
No question. Utterly bereft of clue and ability.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2011, 10:15 AM
How does it compare to Whitlam?

Goughfather
01-09-2011, 12:24 PM
How does it compare to Whitlam?

Or Fraser? Or McMahon? Or Scullin, I'd have to concede?

Even if one is unsatisfied with Wayne Swan as a Treasurer, at least he wasn't as bad as John Howard, who must surely be regarded as close to the worst Treasurer in Australian history.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2011, 01:55 PM
Or Fraser? Or McMahon? Or Scullin, I'd have to concede?

Even if one is unsatisfied with Wayne Swan as a Treasurer, at least he wasn't as bad as John Howard, who must surely be regarded as close to the worst Treasurer in Australian history.
Gough,
You'd be almost a lone voice accusing other governments (apart from Whitlam) of complete failure and incompetence.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2011, 04:55 PM
Gough,
You'd be almost a lone voice accusing other governments (apart from Whitlam) of complete failure and incompetence.

I don't think any reasonable commentator would accuse Whitlam of complete failure. His government was a mixed bag - it did a great deal and had many lasting historical successes but also many embarrassments and failures. A necessary overreaction perhaps to 23 years of conservative rule.

I am surprised Fraser does not get a lot more flak. It would have been a relief to conservatives to be rid of Whitlam but Fraser's economic management was abysmal. Scullin at least had the excuse that he was hardly alone at that time in being unable to find a solution.

I mentioned before that my grandfather, a Country Party supporter even after there was no Country Party by that name, rated McMahon the worst Prime Minster he had seen, much worse than Whitlam. Then again this may not have been an uncommon sentiment in Country Party ranks around that time since McEwen temporarily blocked McMahon from becoming Prime Minister.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2011, 08:56 PM
I don't think any reasonable commentator would accuse Whitlam of complete failure. His government was a mixed bag - it did a great deal and had many lasting historical successes but also many embarrassments and failures. A necessary overreaction perhaps to 23 years of conservative rule.

I am surprised Fraser does not get a lot more flak. It would have been a relief to conservatives to be rid of Whitlam but Fraser's economic management was abysmal. Scullin at least had the excuse that he was hardly alone at that time in being unable to find a solution.

I mentioned before that my grandfather, a Country Party supporter even after there was no Country Party by that name, rated McMahon the worst Prime Minster he had seen, much worse than Whitlam. Then again this may not have been an uncommon sentiment in Country Party ranks around that time since McEwen temporarily blocked McMahon from becoming Prime Minister.
McMahon and Fraser were possible bad PMs, and Fraser definitely sabotaged well needed reforms. However, by virtue of doing nothing (which is not necessarily a bad thing for the government!) they did not demonstrate the incompetence on Whitlam's scale - the scale now rivalled by Gillard government.
I haven't been here during Whitlam years, that's why I asked how current government compares to them.
BTW, Hawke, Keating and Howard were harshly criticised and often loathed by an opposite side - but I doubt anyone seriously and credibly accused them of being an utter failure.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2011, 10:36 PM
BTW, Hawke, Keating and Howard were harshly criticised and often loathed by an opposite side - but I doubt anyone seriously and credibly accused them of being an utter failure.

In the case of Keating anyone who dared would probably end up eating their intestines for breakfast. He was a spectacularly unpopular Prime Minister though.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-09-2011, 03:07 PM
Does the latest High Court decision against offshore processing rules Tasmania out?

Ian Murray
07-09-2011, 04:23 PM
Does the latest High Court decision against offshore processing rules Tasmania out?
Within the Australian migration zone is OK. It would be much cheaper to refurbish the existing detention facilities at Port Arthur and on Norfolk Island rather than build new ones.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2011, 01:53 PM
My last post was a joke about Tasmania being offshore.
BTW, Nauru detention centre doesn't even need refurbishing.

Rincewind
08-09-2011, 03:09 PM
BTW, Nauru detention centre doesn't even need refurbishing.

Excaept that some people are saying the latest decision casts doubt about Nauru being reused.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2011, 06:09 PM
Excaept that some people are saying the latest decision casts doubt about Nauru being reused.

It does indeed cast doubts, but does not necessarily rule it out completely (judges even specifically mentioned that Malaysian case is different from Nauru).

Ian Murray
08-09-2011, 07:06 PM
My last post was a joke about Tasmania being offshore.
Of course (even if Tasmanians resent being regarded as non-Australians). Nor was I seriously advocating a return to the 1800s by reopening the Port Arthur and Norfolk Is penal colonies.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2011, 09:59 AM
Of course (even if Tasmanians resent being regarded as non-Australians). Nor was I seriously advocating a return to the 1800s by reopening the Port Arthur and Norfolk Is penal colonies.
I didn't know they were penal colonies, my bad.:lol: :lol:

Ian Murray
09-09-2011, 11:01 AM
I didn't know they were penal colonies, my bad.:lol: :lol:
My great great grandfather Jimmy Harrison did time in both Port Arthur and Norfolk. Quite a lad, our Jimmy - see http://www.users.on.net/~ahvem/page3/page2/page4/page4.html

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2011, 05:25 AM
PERSECUTION WATCH
AN ex-Muslim convert to Christianity has been attacked with boiling water and acid by Muslims at an Asylum Reception Centre in Norway.
www.Mohabatnews.com says that ‘Ali’ (not his real name), an asylum seeker in an immigration centre in Jaeren, Norway, had boiling water poured over him after he converted to Christianity and would not comply with Ramadan fasting rules. He and the other converts at the centre now fear for their lives.

Mohabat News says the incident was accompanied by the message from other asylum seekers: ‘If you do not return to Islam, we will kill you.’ Ali refuses to disclose his real name for fear of further reprisals. This is also why he is pictured face down in the accompanying image. The news agency reports that if Afghan authorities found out about the incident, and he were to be subsequently deported, Ali says he risks being sentenced to death by stoning.
Ali survived the incident, but has been left with a severely disfigured back, covered with flaking skin under bandages. Ali's Christian roommate, Reza, has been tending to the oozing wounds.

Nevertheless, Ali—his face distorted in pain—maintains a calm voice as he tells his story: ‘Two of the Muslim residents asked why I had not fasted during Ramadan. When I would not answer, they began to discuss the matter. One of them said that he knew I was Muslim and converted to Christianity, and that they had to engage in Jihad,’ Ali told Mohabat News.

Ali stated that one resident held him down while another struck him on the back of the head with a pot of boiling water, and that he collapsed to the floor. Several other Muslim residents joined in the attack. A third man walked into Ali's room and began to trash it. Police arrived an hour later, the damage already having been done, the agency said.

‘I was still on the floor when police arrived. I told them a little, but was in too much pain to talk, so I was taken to hospital,’ Ali said. After a night in the hospital, Ali went back to the reception centre, knowing that danger had not passed. When he checked the door handle to his room he found it was covered with an acidic substance that causes burns on contact. He summoned the staff, who washed away the chemical, but the Christian Afghan still does not feel safe.
— Michael Ireland, ASSIST News Service

Igor_Goldenberg
20-09-2011, 09:43 AM
What critics of Howard government inhumane Pacific solution think of Labor Malaysian solution?

Hopefully I won't have to move this question to another thread:D

Rincewind
20-09-2011, 03:04 PM
Islamofascist asylum seekers should be turfed out

What about these Christofascists using a church service to escape from mandatory detention?

Vietnamese detainees escape during church service (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-20/20110920immigration-detainees-escape-mass/2907900)

The Immigration Department says three Vietnamese detainees have escaped while attending a church service in Darwin.

The men were among 50 inmates from the Northern Immigration Detention Centre attending a mass at a church outside the centre when they evaded officers from security company Serco. ...

Igor_Goldenberg
20-09-2011, 04:47 PM
Indeed, the crime of escaping is violent, reeks of intolerance and religiously motivated, while attempting murder is just a small transgression. Another example of typical rincelogic.

Rincewind
20-09-2011, 04:54 PM
Indeed, the crime of escaping is violent, reeks of intolerance and religiously motivated, while attempting murder is just a small transgression. Another example of typical rincelogic.

Actually the strawman you constructed is entirely your own work. What are you planning to do next? Finger-painting?

Ian Murray
21-09-2011, 09:45 AM
Medical journal condemns prolonged refugee detention (http://theconversation.edu.au/medical-journal-condemns-prolonged-refugee-detention-3448?utm_source=The+Conversation+Daily+updates&utm_campaign=2fd370fb71-DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email)

A top Australian medical journal has called for an end to prolonged mandatory detention of refugees, warning that time in detention is associated with poor mental and physical health.
...
“Many of us are deeply ashamed of the way Australia treats asylum seekers,” said the MJA editorial, which was written by editor Annette Katelaris and Professor Mark Harris from the University of NSW’s Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity.

“Our politicians and media obsess about the way they reach our shores, but, as doctors, our role is to care for them and to advocate for their best interests. We have become increasingly concerned about their wellbeing.”

The editorial said Australia resettles about 14,000 refugees annually, a small proportion of the 15 million worldwide, and that immigration detention costs are expected to reach $800 million this financial year.

“It is well known that the detention environment is harmful, and that time in detention is associated with deteriorating mental and physical health,” the editorial said.

“It is our professional responsibility to sometimes speak out on policy issues that affect health. The profession can take some pride in its contribution to many public policies (like those that have helped reduce smoking deaths).”

Refugees should undergo health, identity and security checks within 30 days of arriving and the time limit should be no more than 14 days for children, the editorial said.
...

Igor_Goldenberg
21-09-2011, 10:51 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^

Another beat-up. Jews on St. Louis would prefer lengthy detention in the refugee camp to the death in Nazi's concentration camp.
If asylum seekers are genuine refugee fleeing from persecution in fear of their live (and not just a queue jumpers as many see them), they wouldn't find detention camp as "harmful environment" (article's claim) as the environment they flee from.
Also genuine refugee wouldn't try to murder ex-Muslim converted to Christianity (see post #343 by Jono)

Igor_Goldenberg
21-09-2011, 10:56 AM
Ian,

What do you think of Labor's "Malaysian solution"? how does it correspond to:
- Gillard's promise not to send asylum seekers to countries that our not signatories to UN refugee convention.
- Labor in general and Gillard particularly criticising Howard's Pacific solution?

Ian Murray
21-09-2011, 11:38 AM
Another beat-up. Jews on St. Louis would prefer lengthy detention in the refugee camp to the death in Nazi's concentration camp.
If they fled to Australia by boat, would you have them shipped offshore somewhere into indefinite detention?

If asylum seekers are genuine refugee fleeing from persecution in fear of their live (and not just a queue jumpers as many see them), they wouldn't find detention camp as "harmful environment" (article's claim) as the environment they flee from.
So you're saying that, after fleeing to seek a better life for themselves and their families, being confined indefinitely does them no harm?

Also genuine refugee wouldn't try to murder ex-Muslim converted to Christianity (see post #343 by Jono)
I find it abhorrent that you and Jono are using a crime in Norway to incite xenophobia and ethnic hatred here in Australia

Ian Murray
21-09-2011, 11:45 AM
Ian,

What do you think of Labor's "Malaysian solution"? how does it correspond to:
- Gillard's promise not to send asylum seekers to countries that our not signatories to UN refugee convention.
- Labor in general and Gillard particularly criticising Howard's Pacific solution?
I believe the Malaysia and Pacific 'Solutions' are inhumane and indefensible. As you know, my view is that all refugees should be processed in Australia, and processed as quickly as possible.

It is absurd that such a small problem which has such little effect on our lives should be politicised to such an extent. There are much more important issues which both sides of politics should be addressing.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-09-2011, 01:32 PM
If they fled to Australia by boat, would you have them shipped offshore somewhere into indefinite detention?
Can you cite anyone who was in the detention indefinitely?
If I was on board of St Luis, I'd rather spend a year or two on Nauru then go back to Germany


So you're saying that, after fleeing to seek a better life for themselves and their families, being confined indefinitely does them no harm?
Once again you are claiming that someone has been confined indefinitely. How many people were still in detention when Labor came in office in 2007? And how many have been in detention since Labor closed Nauru in 2008?


I find it abhorrent that you and Jono are using a crime in Norway to incite xenophobia and ethnic hatred here in Australia
I find it abhorrent that you and others (one certain poster on this board is especially notorious for that) jump to the first opportunity to vilify your opponents by claiming "xenophobia", "ethnic hatred", etc., instead of addressing the issue raised.

The piece that Jono quoted shows that many refugees are likely not to be genuine. At least they don't deserve to jump queue.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-09-2011, 01:34 PM
I believe the Malaysia and Pacific 'Solutions' are inhumane and indefensible. As you know, my view is that all refugees should be processed in Australia, and processed as quickly as possible.

It is absurd that such a small problem which has such little effect on our lives should be politicised to such an extent. There are much more important issues which both sides of politics should be addressing.

So, what you think of Gillard criticising Pacific solution as inhumane, promising to never send asylum seekers to countries that didn't sign refugee convention, and then pushing for Malaysian solution?

Ian Murray
21-09-2011, 05:01 PM
Can you cite anyone who was in the detention indefinitely?
If I was on board of St Luis, I'd rather spend a year or two on Nauru then go back to Germany
...
Once again you are claiming that someone has been confined indefinitely.
Not one refugee is detained for a definite period of time - all are detained indefinitely, with no predetermined release date. A criminal conviction is a better deal - the length of sentence is known from the start.

I find it abhorrent that you and others (one certain poster on this board is especially notorious for that) jump to the first opportunity to vilify your opponents by claiming "xenophobia", "ethnic hatred", etc., instead of addressing the issue raised.
I called a spade a spade. Jono didn't raise any issue, only quoting news of an atrocity in Norway which had no connection whatsoever with Australia. His only personal contribution was his "Islamofascist" tagline. That's inciting ethnic hatred

The piece that Jono quoted shows that many refugees are likely not to be genuine. At least they don't deserve to jump queue.
It shows nothing of the sort. There is no reference to the refugee status of any of the participants.

Goughfather
21-09-2011, 06:36 PM
Can you cite anyone who was in the detention indefinitely?

Ahh, that's the problem. You don't know what the term "indefinitely" means.


If I was on board of St Luis, I'd rather spend a year or two on Nauru then go back to Germany

What a stunning endorsement: "Australia's processing system is fine. After all, it compares fairly favourably with Auschwitz."

You really are a first rate twit.


I find it abhorrent that you and others (one certain poster on this board is especially notorious for that) jump to the first opportunity to vilify your opponents by claiming "xenophobia", "ethnic hatred", etc., instead of addressing the issue raised.

And while you express your unwarranted outrage, you do exactly what you accuse IM of doing. You respond to IM's suggestion of xenophobia by jumping to the first opportunity to cast aspersions upon IM while failing to address the issue raised.

Not only a twit, but a hypocrite too.


The piece that Jono quoted shows that many refugees are likely not to be genuine. At least they don't deserve to jump queue.

What an illogical conclusion to draw. You use the term "many" (indicating that you are indeed happy to demonise asylum seekers and Muslims), while failing to recognise that this event is not only reported in another area of the world, but exceptional enough to be newsworthy.

Of course, if you really wanted to know how many asylum seekers were genuine, you would do well to look at the figures concerning the proportion of asylum seekers that are eventually given refugee status. That said, I'm guessing that the facts simply get in the way of the narrative you are trying to present.

Hobbes
21-09-2011, 07:31 PM
Of course, if you really wanted to know how many asylum seekers were genuine, you would do well to look at the figures concerning the proportion of asylum seekers that are eventually given refugee status.

Uh, sure, that would really show how many illegal immigrants were genuine refugees. :doh:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_our_gatekeepers_told_to_let_em_in
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/surge-in-visa-success-rates-luring-boatpeople/story-fn9hm1gu-1226124895416

Goughfather
21-09-2011, 07:51 PM
Uh, sure, that would really show how many illegal immigrants were genuine refugees. :doh:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_our_gatekeepers_told_to_let_em_in
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/surge-in-visa-success-rates-luring-boatpeople/story-fn9hm1gu-1226124895416

That's your ammunition? An article in The Australian which suggests that the acceptance rate is high (which is pretty much what I was implying in the first place) and an opinion piece from Andrew Bolt in which a few anonymous sources are cobbled together?

Ian Murray
21-09-2011, 08:05 PM
Interestingly, I googled the Norwegian story. It originated with an Iranian Christian organisation then was picked up and carried by a whole slew of pro-Christian anti-Islamic sites. But no mention by any mainstream media. Nothing to confirm there is any truth in the report.

Goughfather
21-09-2011, 08:17 PM
Interestingly, I googled the Norwegian story. It originated with an Iranian Christian organisation then was picked up and carried by a whole slew of pro-Christian anti-Islamic sites. But no mention by any mainstream media. Nothing to confirm there is any truth in the report.

Clearly, this is a massive conspiracy to censor negative coverage of Islam and to marginalise Christianity. Although only clear as long as you live in the scary world of Jono's paranoid delusions.

[Jono's reply has been moved here: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=13537 - mod]

Ian Murray
21-09-2011, 08:41 PM
Clearly, this is a massive conspiracy to censor negative coverage of Islam and to marginalise Christianity. Although only clear as long as you live in the scary world of Jono's paranoid delusions.
Obviously the leftard Muslim-sympathising Norwegian government has slapped a D-Notice on the world press.

Such a shame Axiom is no longer with us. He would just love this - another worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth :)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-09-2011, 10:15 AM
Not only a twit, but a hypocrite too.


That pretty much sums up all your posts.

Rincewind
22-09-2011, 11:02 AM
That pretty much sums up all your posts.

Stunning repartee. The BB equivalent of "I know you are but what an I?" What's next? "Ner, ner de ner ner!"? :lol:

I didn't need GF to tell me you are a first-class twit but I would comment that at least GF did qualify his comments with reference to your post and thus presented evidence supporting his claim that you are a twit and a hypocrite. Rather than counter any of those points, or present reasons why you believe GF is a twit or a hypocrite you simply made the unsubstantiated comment, therefore adding more evidence supporting GF's position.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-09-2011, 11:07 AM
Not one refugee is detained for a definite period of time - all are detained indefinitely, with no predetermined release date. A criminal conviction is a better deal - the length of sentence is known from the start.
Suppose the detention is for a predefined time. If the status of the application is not determined by the end of that period, what is the further course of action?
And if the application is refused and the appeal is lodged, doesn't it extend the detention time?
I am not necessarily arguing for the indefinite detention, but I'd like to see the critics offer an alternative workable solution.


I called a spade a spade. Jono didn't raise any issue, only quoting news of an atrocity in Norway which had no connection whatsoever with Australia. His only personal contribution was his "Islamofascist" tagline. That's inciting ethnic hatred
Islam is not an ethnicity, btw.[/QUOTE]
Anyway, why didn't you accuse Rincewind of the same? After all, in the post 345 he called people Chistofascist, even those they did not commit religiously motivated atrocity?

Igor_Goldenberg
23-09-2011, 11:10 AM
I didn't need GF to tell me you are a first-class twit but I would comment that at least GF did qualify his comments with reference to your post and thus presented evidence supporting his claim that you are a twit and a hypocrite. Rather than counter any of those points, or present reasons why you believe GF is a twit or a hypocrite you simply made the unsubstantiated comment, therefore adding more evidence supporting GF's position.

GF did not, actually, substantiated his comments. It is understandable that you confused his strawman for a justification, but it was shown many times that making logical conclusions is not your strongest trait.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-09-2011, 11:13 AM
That said, I'm guessing that the facts simply get in the way of the narrative you are trying to present.


That's your ammunition? An article in The Australian which suggests that the acceptance rate is high (which is pretty much what I was implying in the first place) and an opinion piece from Andrew Bolt in which a few anonymous sources are cobbled together?
And this poster accuses others of hypocrisy:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Rincewind
23-09-2011, 11:29 AM
GF did not, actually, substantiated his comments. It is understandable that you confused his strawman for a justification, but it was shown many times that making logical conclusions is not your strongest trait.

Ignore, you really have to learn the difference between reality and your imagination. In reality, people believe you are a twit and hypocrite for the reasons already expounded. In your imagination you have a complete command of English, logic and dinosaurs are nothing more than overgrown lizards. :lol:

ER
23-09-2011, 04:18 PM
I visited Malaysia very recently. The country faces a huge illigal immigration influx. I was surprised to find that there is an extremely developed (formal, informal? I am not sure) subgovernmental migrant absorption industry acting like some sort of an employment office.
In many parts of downtown KL one finds signs like this

https://picasaweb.google.com/117579133234979286240/MalaysiaMigrants?authkey=Gv1sRgCIK97OLuwL2EmgE#

As soon as these people (mainly from Bangladesh) register themselves they are taken to work places where they are provided with accommodation - usually in the workplace and start working asap. Building industry is booming in KL and other cities and migrants provide an X% of the working force there. Many are also work in hospitality taking jobs such as assistants of cooks, kitchen hands etc. An ex policeman I met in the 87 bus from Mid Valley to the city told me that some of these hard working people have established themselves quite successfully in KL and some have started their own business.

Ian Murray
23-09-2011, 06:31 PM
Suppose the detention is for a predefined time. If the status of the application is not determined by the end of that period, what is the further course of action?
And if the application is refused and the appeal is lodged, doesn't it extend the detention time?
I am not necessarily arguing for the indefinite detention, but I'd like to see the critics offer an alternative workable solution.
Australia is the only country in the world which imposes indefinite mandatory detention on all asylum seekers. No-one else finds it necessary.

Anyway, why didn't you accuse Rincewind of the same? After all, in the post 345 he called people Chistofascist, even those they did not commit religiously motivated atrocity?
I think you'll find Rincey is mocking Jono, not inciting Christophobia.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2011, 12:42 AM
Australia is the only country in the world which imposes indefinite mandatory detention on all asylum seekers. No-one else finds it necessary.
Most countries are no where near as welcoming for refugees. For example, Mexico has very stringent border controls on its south, while clamoring for the US to open its borders even more than they are.


I think you'll find Rincey is mocking Jono, not inciting Christophobia.
Part and parcel of the same thing, where Leftatheopaths like you and RW are concerned, as well as those within the wider church with practically identical beliefs like GF.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2011, 12:45 AM
Indeed, the crime of escaping is violent, reeks of intolerance and religiously motivated, while attempting murder is just a small transgression. Another example of typical rincelogic.
A wider problem of Leftlogic. We see it also with Murraylogic; that concern about intolerant Islamofascist immigrants who attack Christian immigrants = xenophobia, and of course GFlogic where he has nothing of substance but the typical baseless air of assumed intellectual superiority of the Anointed.

Ian Murray
24-09-2011, 07:40 AM
Most countries are no where near as welcoming for refugees. For example, Mexico has very stringent border controls on its south, while clamoring for the US to open its borders even more than they are.
A poor example - Mexico offers much better treatment of refugees and asylum seekers than Australia.

Mexico’s Landmark Law Protects Refugees and Asylum Seekers (http://www.refugees.org/about-us/in-the-news/press-releases/mexicos-new-law-protects.html)


...The landmark legislation fosters local integration of refugees in Mexico, granting access to health services, health insurance, education, recognition of academic credentials, and permission to work. It conforms to international protection practices; adheres to the definition of the term “refugee” according to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol; includes principles of family unity, the best interests of the child, no forced returns, non-discrimination, and no penalty for irregular entry; and recognizes gender-based persecution as grounds for asylum.

What’s more, Mexico’s new law extends protection to individuals who do not have refugee status but are at risk of torture, maltreatment, or whose lives are in danger. Most refugees and asylum seekers who come to Mexico are from Latin America and reside primarily in urban areas.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2011, 11:05 AM
A poor example - Mexico offers much better treatment of refugees and asylum seekers than Australia.
IM's rose-coloured glasses notwithstanding:


The Law Library of Congress released a report in April 2006 titled (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/04/mexico%E2%80%99s-immigration-laws-the-untold-story/), Immigration Law Sanctions and Enforcement in Selected Foreign Countries: Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Switzerland. The report observed how Mexican law considers “[i]legal entry a federal crime … penalized with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine from three hundred to five thousand Mexican Pesos, and deportation.” Repeat offenders receive even harsher sanctions of 10-year imprisonment and a fine of up to five thousand pesos and deportation.

Thus it was hypocritical of the Mexican president to criticize Arizona's new law when its own immigration laws are much tougher (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1):


Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

Ian Murray
24-09-2011, 11:26 AM
IM's rose-coloured glasses notwithstanding:


The Law Library of Congress released a report in April 2006 titled (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/04/mexico%E2%80%99s-immigration-laws-the-untold-story/), Immigration Law Sanctions and Enforcement in Selected Foreign Countries: Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Switzerland. The report observed how Mexican law considers “[i]legal entry a federal crime … penalized with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine from three hundred to five thousand Mexican Pesos, and deportation.” Repeat offenders receive even harsher sanctions of 10-year imprisonment and a fine of up to five thousand pesos and deportation.

Thus it was hypocritical of the Mexican president to criticize Arizona's new law when its own immigration laws are much tougher (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1):


Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

You don't seem to understand the differences between refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. A layman's guide:-

Refugees - those crossing borders to escape from an immediate threat to life (e.g. war, famine)

Asylum seekers - those crossing borders to seek protection from persecution

Illegal immigrants - those entering a country without authority by evading border checks, or overstaying visa validity limits

Ian Murray
25-09-2011, 01:57 PM
We see it also with Murraylogic; that concern about intolerant Islamofascist immigrants who attack Christian immigrants = xenophobia
And a very tolerant way it is that you express your concern:
Islamofascist asylum seekers should be turfed out

Thankfully there are more balanced Christian viewpoints (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p25s1-wosc.html)

Capablanca-Fan
29-09-2011, 05:22 AM
And a very tolerant way it is that you express your concern:
Islamofascist asylum seekers should be turfed out
Would you rather have such people in our country beating up apostates or claiming that women are "cat's meat" who deserve to be raped?

Thankfully there are more balanced Christian viewpoints (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p25s1-wosc.html)
"Christian Science" is neither Christian nor science. That was a typical naive dhimmitudinous piece of tripe.

Ian Murray
26-10-2011, 07:06 PM
Another senseless, tragic death in detention (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3601600.html?WT.svl=theDrum)


The man who took his life last night in Villawood was a refugee waiting for a security check.

He had been through the rigorous Australian refugee process and found to be a refugee to whom Australia owed protection. Rest in peace Shooty - your death will not be in vain.

Why was he still in detention? That is a question for the Government. In answer to the question - "Does ASIO require irregular maritime arrivals to remain in detention whilst it undertakes its security assessment?" - ASIO has unequivocally stated:

"It is not a requirement under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 that irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs) remain in detention during the security assessment process. The detention of IMAs is managed by the DIAC, in accordance with Australian Government policy." ASIO ANNUAL REPORT 2011

The Government and the Department of Immigration were informed 18 months ago that ASIO did not require the detention of people during this time. ASIO in frustration put it in their annual report publicly two weeks ago.

So we are left to ask why there are 1,591* refugees unnecessarily in detention awaiting security checks when they have been found to be refugees including the man who lost hope about 3:00am this morning and took his life.

This man had begged to be allowed into community detention. He had Australian friends ready to provide him with accommodation and care. The Department and the Minister knew this and yet chose to keep him in detention....

The Government has a choice – they can continue long-term detention or they can expand what they have started and release people into community detention on bridging visas. From February to June 1,500 people were quietly released into the community through community detention while their claims are processed - the sky did not fall in. It worked - the community response was fantastic and people's health improved the day they walked out of detention.

There are currently thousands of asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas throughout Australia while undergoing the refugee determination process. While life is certainly tough for them, they have their freedom and are not detained. Community processing works and is something all asylum seekers should be offered. Detention is against the Government's own detention values, is arbitrary and is harmful – as Shooty's unnecessary death has proven....

There are many vested interests in the detention industry. Many people, including SERCO and DIAC staff, are making the sort of money they will never see in their lives again. Guards on $2,100 per week and DIAC staff earning $100 per day extra on top of their salaries. Many contractors - food suppliers, private airlines, architects, engineers and building companies, global healthcare companies etc - are involved in this trough and these voices are fighting hard against community processing for financial reasons. These voices claim that people will not be supported in the community and that detention is better. A man who had his leg amputated recently was returned to detention using this argument.

This Government has a choice – releasing people into the community for the processing of their claims or keeping the detention industry rich while peoples' spirits shrivel and die. Six suicides and seven deaths in detention since Labor took office is a brutal legacy.

For those who missed Asylum on Four Corners on Sunday night, catch up here (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/10/20/3344543.htm). It is compelling viewing.

Kevin Bonham
30-10-2011, 10:59 PM
Posts moved

Religious discussion that was at least two levels of separation removed from on-topic has been moved here: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=13537

In doing so I have also added a link to the moved discussion to Goughfather's swipe at Jono (#360) in response to which the discussion sprang up.

If you wish to discuss the moving of posts please do so in the Help and Feedback section and not here.

Hobbes
02-11-2011, 02:40 PM
The inevitable outcome - again - of the foolish policy of encouraging illegal immigrants to come to Australia by boat (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/asylum-seekers-die-as-australia-bound-boat-sinks-off-coast-of-java/story-e6freuzr-1226183013723)


Up to 26 asylum seekers are feared drowned - including children - after their Australian-bound boat sank off Java yesterday.

Ian Murray
02-11-2011, 07:21 PM
Up to 26 asylum seekers are feared drowned - including children - after their Australian-bound boat sank off Java yesterday.
Another tragedy, but a risk asylum seekers accept when trying to reach Australia. It is not a government function to prevent people from taking risks

What Deterrence Really Means (http://newmatilda.com/2011/09/19/what-deterrence-really-means)
by Nick Riemer
newmatilda.com
19 Sep 2011


The need to deter refugees from risking their lives on boats has been the argument used to justify the Malaysia refugee swap. Australia, the Government insists, simply must prevent anything like a recurrence of December’s horrifying shipwreck on Christmas Island. Far from being confirmed as yet another violation of asylum seekers’ rights, Malaysia is presented as nothing short of a humanitarian measure, which friends of refugees should welcome as a better option for asylum seekers themselves.
....
The idea that there is anything laudable in the Malaysia deal is mistaken. With their talk of saving lives, political and media apologists for the Government’s plan, along with reluctant part-apologists for its deterrence aspect, are endorsing an outcome that should be unconscionable: the effective deprivation of refugees’ right to take calculated risks about what is best for them.

This, not "saving lives", is the relevant description of the deal’s effect.

Denying people the opportunity to risk their lives also means denying them the opportunity to improve them. Since there is no "queue", refugees deterred from a boat trip are also effectively prevented from ever gaining resettlement in Australia. The notion that this could count as a humanitarian outcome is a powerful indication of how a decade of relentless anti-refugee propaganda has eroded our ability to assess both the dangers refugees are fleeing, and the precariousness of their existence in places like Malaysia or elsewhere in South East Asia.
....
Everything suggests that the vast majority of asylum seekers consider the risk of a dangerous ocean crossing well worth taking. Indeed, the detention system is currently incarcerating a number of refugees who have come here, by boat, for the second time, having voluntarily returned to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban — before being forced to come here again after conditions at home deteriorated.

These second timers give the lie to any glib assumption that refugees themselves would welcome the deterrence of the Malaysia deal. If people have risked their lives on a smuggler’s boat twice, they know the risks and are prepared to assume them. Asylum seekers rarely if ever express regret at having made the boat trip, even when it proved to be far more dangerous than anticipated. ...

Igor_Goldenberg
02-11-2011, 07:42 PM
It is not a government function to prevent people from taking risks

Does it mean you would support drug legalisation and oppose resrictions on gambling, like Wilkie's pokie reform?
Do you also oppose seatbelt and helmet law?

Ian Murray
02-11-2011, 08:07 PM
Does it mean you would support drug legalisation and oppose resrictions on gambling, like Wilkie's pokie reform?
Do you also oppose seatbelt and helmet law?
Don't be silly now. Do you think governments should outlaw risky activities like mountain and rock climbing, skydiving, ocean yacht racing, flying, whitewater rafting - you name it, the list goes on?

There can be a social cost in search and rescue operations and hospitalisation but is that enough to legislate against people taking physical risks? Where do you draw the line? Maybe all those sporting injuries and the odd sporting deaths could be avoided if sport was banned.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-11-2011, 08:35 PM
Ian,

I will answer your question after you answer mine (#381).

Rincewind
02-11-2011, 10:35 PM
I will answer your question after you answer mine (#381).

I think you should have paid more attention to Ian's first imperative.

Ian Murray
03-11-2011, 07:05 AM
Ian,

I will answer your question after you answer mine (#381).
My questions were rhetorical - no answers expected

Hobbes
03-11-2011, 08:34 AM
Another tragedy, but a risk asylum seekers accept when trying to reach Australia.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/people-were-trapped-below-it-was-the-worst-nightmare-20111102-1mvt6.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/national/people-were-trapped-below-it-was-the-worst-nightmare-20111102-1mvt6.html



ASYLUM seekers begged the captain of the tiny vessel not to take them out to sea but were refused and within an hour of its journey to Australia the vessel sunk, drowning at least eight.


It seems the illegal immigrants are not quite as frivolous with their own lives as Ian Murray is on their behalf!

Igor_Goldenberg
03-11-2011, 09:48 AM
My questions were rhetorical - no answers expected
My questions weren't, and the answer will be appreciated.

Do you support drug legalisation?
Do you oppose resrictions on gambling, like Wilkie's pokie reform?
Do you oppose seatbelt and/or helmet law?

Ian Murray
03-11-2011, 11:30 AM
My questions weren't, and the answer will be appreciated.

Do you support drug legalisation?
Do you oppose resrictions on gambling, like Wilkie's pokie reform?
Do you oppose seatbelt and/or helmet law?
1. Marijuana maybe, others no
2. Ambivalent - how to differentiate between responsible gamblers and problem gamblers
3. No - infringements of personal freedom (hard to justify in this case) far outweighed by reduction in social costs

The core question remains: should governments interfere in legal individual freedom of choice when there is an element of physical risk to the individual? As I see it interference can only be justified when the risk to society exceeds the individual risk.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-11-2011, 12:39 PM
1. Marijuana maybe, others no
2. Ambivalent - how to differentiate between responsible gamblers and problem gamblers
3. No - infringements of personal freedom (hard to justify in this case) far outweighed by reduction in social costs

The core question remains: should governments interfere in legal individual freedom of choice when there is an element of physical risk to the individual? As I see it interference can only be justified when the risk to society exceeds the individual risk.

My answer in NO. But I am happy to apply it universally and not only when it suits my view point or concerns activities I approve.
Which means that I support legalization of drugs, (despite strongly disapproving drug taking),
oppose restriction on gambling (despite not gambling myself) and oppose seatbelt and helmet laws (despite wearing them myself and forcing my children to wear them as well).

You seem to be happy with government restricting activities that you personally don't approve of, but don't like when they try to restrict something you support. This position is inconsistent and invalidates your argument in #380

Ian Murray
03-11-2011, 01:10 PM
My answer in NO. But I am happy to apply it universally and not only when it suits my view point or concerns activities I approve.
Which means that I support legalization of drugs, (despite strongly disapproving drug taking),
oppose restriction on gambling (despite not gambling myself) and oppose seatbelt and helmet laws (despite wearing them myself and forcing my children to wear them as well).

You seem to be happy with government restricting activities that you personally don't approve of, but don't like when they try to restrict something you support. This position is inconsistent and invalidates your argument in #380
To avoid anarchy, there have to be laws restricting some personal freedom. I'm sure you don't really believe that whether or not you drive on the left or right side of the road, or stop for red traffic lights, should be a matter of personal choice

pappubahry
03-11-2011, 10:58 PM
My answer in NO. But I am happy to apply it universally and not only when it suits my view point or concerns activities I approve.
Which means that I support legalization of drugs, (despite strongly disapproving drug taking),
oppose restriction on gambling (despite not gambling myself) and oppose seatbelt and helmet laws (despite wearing them myself and forcing my children to wear them as well).

You seem to be happy with government restricting activities that you personally don't approve of, but don't like when they try to restrict something you support. This position is inconsistent and invalidates your argument in #380
You seem to be spend a good deal of time on this thread arguing for very heavy government restrictions on the freedom of movement. You are, I believe, strongly in favour of free trade and free movement of capital, so why not the free movement of labour? I don't see anyone here consistently adhering to libertarian principles.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-11-2011, 04:00 PM
To avoid anarchy, there have to be laws restricting some personal freedom. I'm sure you don't really believe that whether or not you drive on the left or right side of the road, or stop for red traffic lights, should be a matter of personal choice
The case you listed endangers others. All I pointed out that you happy to apply "It is not a government function to prevent people from taking risks" principle only for something you personally approve.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-11-2011, 04:09 PM
You seem to be spend a good deal of time on this thread arguing for very heavy government restrictions on the freedom of movement. You are, I believe, strongly in favour of free trade and free movement of capital, so why not the free movement of labour? I don't see anyone here consistently adhering to libertarian principles.

Btw, I never argued against the immigration itself, only against unlawful one. And I am on record advocating higher immigration intake.
Open borders would be quite alright in a libertarian society, even though criminal checks won't hurt either. But we do not live in libertarian society, hence it's not feasible.

Ian Murray
04-11-2011, 04:12 PM
The case you listed endangers others. All I pointed out that you happy to apply "It is not a government function to prevent people from taking risks" principle only for something you personally approve.
I really can't follow your argument, Igor. That I'm not a libertarian? I've never claimed to be. But at least I am a bit more than you are - I don't call asylum seekers 'illegal immigrants' and want the government to lock them up on Nauru.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-11-2011, 04:24 PM
I really can't follow your argument, Igor. That I'm not a libertarian? I've never claimed to be. But at least I am a bit more than you are - I don't call asylum seekers 'illegal immigrants' and want the government to lock them up on Nauru.

You argued that "It is not a government function to prevent people from taking risks". I actually agree with that principle.
But then it become evident that you are only happy to apply this principle very selectively, to the cases you support - like illegal immigrants.

Question:
- How many boat people would you like Australia to accept every year?

Ian Murray
04-11-2011, 04:54 PM
You argued that "It is not a government function to prevent people from taking risks". I actually agree with that principle.
But then it become evident that you are only happy to apply this principle very selectively, to the cases you support - like illegal immigrants.
You're making a general assumption about me on very little 'evidence'

Question:
- How many boat people would you like Australia to accept every year?
All those we are obliged to protect under the Refugees Convention

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2011, 10:04 AM
You're making a general assumption about me on very little 'evidence'

All those we are obliged to protect under the Refugees Convention
If one million come by the boat, should we accept them all?

Another question:
Quite a few asylum seekers from Iran were found not to be genuine refugees (and not accepted). what should we do with them (Iran doesn't let them back in)?

Ian Murray
06-11-2011, 10:38 AM
If one million come by the boat, should we accept them all?
Of course. If the likes of Pakistan, Israel, Syria and Iran can accommodate over a million refugees, then Australia is certainly better placed to do so.

Your preference might cause some difficulties - fitting those million IMAs on Nauru would not be easy, and would be very expensive

Quite a few asylum seekers from Iran were found not to be genuine refugees (and not accepted). what should we do with them (Iran doesn't let them back in)?
I don't know (neither does anyone else). As they tend to be educated middle-class Christians or non-religious, only legal reasons stop them being accepted here.

Hobbes
18-12-2011, 12:52 PM
What Deterrence Really Means (http://newmatilda.com/2011/09/19/what-deterrence-really-means)
by Nick Riemer
newmatilda.com
19 Sep 2011


...Asylum seekers rarely if ever express regret at having made the boat trip, even when it proved to be far more dangerous than anticipated. ...


Somewhat of a biased sample, the drowned ones don't get a vote.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/asylum-seeker-boat-sinks-off-coast-hundreds-missing/story-e6freuy9-1226224978840

antichrist
18-12-2011, 02:49 PM
Igor_Goldenberg

If one million come by the boat, should we accept them all?

AC
Now if anyone was following Palestine and Israel debate they would learn that during Nazi era many countries refused mass refugee entry by Jews wanting to avoid Hitler.

And here we have our mate Igor, of the same people of those refugees 70 years ago, opposing modern day refugees fleeing wars, religious persecution, human rights violations etc

I wish I could view life's complications in such a simplistic manner

Ian Murray
18-12-2011, 11:14 PM
Somewhat of a biased sample, the drowned ones don't get a vote.
They voted with their feet.

Hobbes
18-12-2011, 11:31 PM
They voted with their feet.

Sorry, that makes no sense. You quoted an article by a refugee activist, claiming that illegal immigrants rarely if ever express regret at having made the boat trip, i.e. after they have arrived alive. The many who die on the way here don't get a chance to say they wished they had stayed at home instead of believing the refugee activists and the people smugglers. Hence a biased sample (assuming there was a legitimate survey at all, instead of an activist saying what he would like to be true.)

Ian Murray
18-12-2011, 11:39 PM
Sorry, that makes no sense...
They know the risks and accept them - have been doing so for decades. They're voting with their feet.

Hobbes
18-12-2011, 11:51 PM
They know the risks and accept them - have been doing so for decades. They're voting with their feet.

Ok, I am just repeating myself so I will give up after this, but you are making a different point.

1) Your point, and the point of other compassionate bleeding heart lefties, is that it doesn't matter how many drown because they knew what they were getting into, and anyway better that a few hundred darkies drown than they have to stay on Nauru under a Howard government plan.

2) My point, was commenting on your activist's quote. He claimed that even if the trip turned out to be much more dangerous than expected, very few illegals regretted the trip afterwards. My point is that only the people whose trip never reached the dangers of the boat sinking, and passengers drowning, have the opportunity to regret the trip.

It seems pretty easy to understand, I thought.

Ian Murray
19-12-2011, 12:05 AM
Ok, I am just repeating myself so I will give up after this, but you are making a different point.
You are making glib assumptions in support of the ALP claim that the 'Malaysia Solution' was for the asylum seekers' own protection. Neither the Govt nor you has the right to make that decision for them.

Hobbes
22-12-2011, 07:58 AM
http://images.smh.com.au/2011/12/21/2853414/art-spooner-op-illo221211-420x0.jpg

Robert Manne deserves credit for his (somewhat ungracious) article admitting to mistakes by the kneejerk Howard-haters in an article entitled "How the left got it wrong (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-the-left-got-it-wrong-20111221-1p5jd.html)".



What follows is a blunt summary of the position I have now reached:

There is no possibility of finding a solution to the problem of asylum seeker boat arrivals that will not be seriously morally, legally and politically flawed.

There is probably no alternative to some form of offshore processing. Public opinion is opposed to the spontaneous arrival of asylum seeker boats. We now know that onshore processing will not stop the boats. We now also know that boats sailing from Indonesia to Australia will never be safe.

With regard to offshore processing, so far only two models have emerged. One is the Malaysia solution. Its critical and probably insuperable moral and legal problem is that it means Australia abandons 800 people, for whom we have involuntarily assumed responsibility, to a necessarily uncertain fate.

antichrist
22-12-2011, 08:26 PM
http://www.billboard.com/news/ray-stevens-has-youtube-hit-with-pro-arizona-1004094914.story#/news/ray-stevens-has-youtube-hit-with-pro-arizona-1004094914.story

ElevatorEscapee
22-12-2011, 09:12 PM
Both Libs and Labour are playing a stupid game, with each trying to prove how much meaner they are on refugees than the other side... The losers out of all of this are the refugees.

I find that really sad and disappointing, especially as a reflection of my own country. That's just really, really sad. :sad:

antichrist
22-12-2011, 11:50 PM
Both Libs and Labour are playing a stupid game, with each trying to prove how much meaner they are on refugees than the other side... The losers out of all of this are the refugees.

I find that really sad and disappointing, especially as a reflection of my own country. That's just really, really sad. :sad:

I gave up on this country 20 or 30 years ago, if you lived through Gough's time you knew what living was

Basil
23-12-2011, 08:20 AM
The losers out of all of this are the refugees.

I find that really sad and disappointing, especially as a reflection of my own country. That's just really, really sad. :sad:
Hey Nig, the asylum seekers are being processed on-shore. That was the plan. A generation of soft-clocks voted for it. What's the problem? Why are you whining?

Hang on just a sec. Are you saying that you don't like onshore processing? Are you saying it doesn't work? Are you saying that Kevin Rudd cocked it up when he tore down the Liberal policy of offshore processing?

Nig? You there? Anyone?

antichrist
23-12-2011, 09:09 AM
CApt didnt you like this chap?

http://www.billboard.com/news/ray-stevens-has-youtube-hit-with-pro-arizona-1004094914.story#/news/ray-stevens-has-youtube-hit-with-pro-arizona-1004094914.story

ElevatorEscapee
24-03-2012, 02:10 PM
Hey Nig, the asylum seekers are being processed on-shore. That was the plan. A generation of soft-clocks voted for it. What's the problem? Why are you whining?

Hang on just a sec. Are you saying that you don't like onshore processing? Are you saying it doesn't work? Are you saying that Kevin Rudd cocked it up when he tore down the Liberal policy of offshore processing?

Nig? You there? Anyone?

Hi How,

I suspect you may have been a little emotional when you posted the above.

I very much want asylum seekers to be treated as human beings, and with their claims being processed here in Australia (on shore), however, both sides of politics at the time seemed to want them "processed" off-shore as a "deterrant"- the Liberals wanted them "processed" in Nauru - Labor wanted them "processed" in Malaysia.

Personally, I am deeply horrified that my country has an horrific "mandatory detention" rule for asylum seekers who arrive by boat (as apposed to those who arrive by plane)... and that this approach seems to be bi-partisan, so I can't vote against it. :(

If this were applied fairly then there should be mandatory imprisonment for English backpackers who overstay their tourist visas! ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
27-03-2012, 10:08 AM
Personally, I am deeply horrified that my country has an horrific "mandatory detention" rule for asylum seekers who arrive by boat (as apposed to those who arrive by plane)... and that this approach seems to be bi-partisan, so I can't vote against it. :(
Those that arrive by plane obtain a visa first. I haven't heard of anyone who arrived by boat with the visa to be detained


If this were applied fairly then there should be mandatory imprisonment for English backpackers who overstay their tourist visas! ;)
Actually, I know someone who was detained because officials claimed (wrongly!) that his visa (not tourist!) expired. His wife had to struggle with two little children during legal battle and he had to spend close to two years behind bars despite doing nothing wrong.

And backpackers visa over stayers don't have government assistance like welfare and Medicare. They also have been vetted before coming to Australia (they had a visa, remember) and usually go back to where they came from.

Desmond
27-03-2012, 07:03 PM
I received this email chain letter:


This is so wrong!!!!!!
Are you aware of the following?
The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:-

BENEFIT

AUSTRALIAN AGED PENSIONER // ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN AUSTRALIA

Weekly allowance $253.00 // $472.50

Weekly Spouse allowance $56.00 // $472.50

Additional weekly hardship allowance $0.00 // $145.00

TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT $16,068.00 // $56,680.00

YES !!! These people get $40,612.00 'MORE' than our own True Blue Aussies
After all, the average pensioner has paid taxes and contributed to the growth of this country for the last 40 to 60 years
AUSTRALIA........SAVE IT BEFORE WE LOSE IT..............ITS NOT TO LATE !!
.
Forward this email to everyone you know, write in your name and state on the list and SUPPORT OUR PENSIONERS FIRST,
The bigger the list the more chance our pensioners have.......DO IT !!!


I replied all:


This email is not correct.

Illegal immigrants and refugees are not the same thing. Let's not conflate the two. It is not illegal for people to seek refuge in our country. They break no laws in doing so. A refugee is someone crossing borders to escape from an immediate threat to their life. Illegal immigrant is usually someone overstaying their visa.

Also, the government treats them differently with regard to payments. A single person, refugee or no, eligible for Newstart allowance will receive $486.40 per fortnight. An illegal immigrant is not eligible for Newstart allowance. They have no valid visa, may not seek work, ipso facto may not receive Newstart allowance.

A single aged pensioner receives $689 per fortnight. Approx $200 per fortnight more than refugees, or indeed anyone on Newstart allowance.

Pensioners are not paid much, no arguments there. But let's not drag refugees into it. They are politicized enough aren't they?

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart_rates.htm
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/settle_pay_humrefugee.htm
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/age_rates.htm

Hobbes
27-03-2012, 07:36 PM
I replied all

Everyone on your list must have been extraordinarily grateful to you ... or ... wait a moment ... do you think it possible they were just as annoyed to get your spam as they were to get the original spam?

Desmond
27-03-2012, 07:41 PM
Everyone on your list must have been extraordinarily grateful to you ... or ... wait a moment ... do you think it possible they were just as annoyed to get your spam as they were to get the original spam?
FOFW

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2012, 07:58 PM
A path I followed in a similar case where someone I knew very slightly was emailing me false spammy crap was that I emailed him a correction, and asked him to immediately email it to everyone he sent the original to.

When he didn't do so, I blocked him from my email, permanently, and sent him an email telling him I was doing so and why.

I do think that people who insist on emailing generic crap to the loosest possible lists of very passing acquaintances should at least have the decency to include an unsubscribe function.

Ian Murray
28-03-2012, 10:22 AM
Those that arrive by plane obtain a visa first.
They arrive on a tourist visa or similar, then apply for asylum (i.e. the visa was obtained under false pretences)

And backpackers visa over stayers don't have government assistance like welfare and Medicare.
Of course not - they are illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers on the other hand are entitled by treaty to our protection

Ian Murray
03-05-2012, 10:56 AM
Indonesia slams Bishop over asylum policy 'arrogance' (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-03/indonesia-targets-bishop-over-asylum-policy/3986562)


An Indonesian official has accused Australia's Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, of promoting an arrogant policy on asylum seekers.

Ms Bishop has been in Jakarta for meetings with top officials including the deputy chairman of Indonesia's parliament, Hajriyanto Thohari.

Mr Thohari says the Coalition's policy to send asylum seeker boats back where possible is unfair on Indonesia.

He says he told Ms Bishop that Australian policy on asylum seekers should be more humane and he has accused her of being arrogant in explaining the Coalition's position.

"In my opinion, that view is a view that is solely focused on Australia's perspective, without considering Indonesia at all as the country that experiences the negative impacts of the illegal immigrant issue," he said.

Ian Murray
28-05-2012, 12:17 PM
ASIO's Reign May Be Over (http://newmatilda.com/2012/05/24/asios-reign-may-be-over)
Ben Eltham
newmatilda.com
24.5.2012

...ASIO has an important role in Australia’s immigration system. ... it is involved in security assessments of many asylum seekers. ASIO explains its role ... "a visa may not be issued (or must be cancelled) where ASIO determines the applicant to be directly or indirectly a risk to ‘security’ (as defined in the ASIO Act)."

According to this week’s Senate estimates testimony, there are currently 57 asylum seekers in immigration detention as a result of an adverse ASIO assessment. This figure includes six children.

The reasons for negative ASIO assessments are not made public. Nor are they released to asylum seekers or their lawyers. As a result, there is no way for asylum seekers to challenge the veracity of ASIO’s assessments. What information is an assessment based on? Is it accurate? Has it been subjected to appropriate evidentiary scrutiny? We don’t know, and neither do the people assessed.

It’s also worth noting that those involved have not been charged with any crime. Claiming asylum in Australia is perfectly legal under the Migration Act. But, once a negative assessment is decided, there is often no option for that asylum seeker’s repatriation. The result is a system of effectively indefinite detention, without charge.

This is the manifestly unjust situation that prominent human rights lawyer David Manne is now taking to the High Court, in a legal challenge to the constitutionality of Australia’s immigration security assessment regime. The case is being bought on behalf of a Sri Lankan refugee who has spent more than three years behind the razor wire.

As David Manne told Lateline last night, "I mean, the predicament is this stark: a refugee is locked up indefinitely on the basis of a negative security assessment made under a secret process on information he doesn’t have and for reasons he’s not told and without independent review or scrutiny of the decision. It’s like being sentenced to life imprisonment without even having been charged, tried and convicted. I mean, it’s like a secret trial. We don’t know the process, we don’t know the rules." ...

Ian Murray
28-06-2012, 06:55 PM
The open parliamentary debate on the plight of the refugees was predictably resolved along party lines. No-one wins, least of all the refugees.

Basil
14-07-2012, 05:16 PM
The Gillard government now actively and regularly referring to "the people smuggling business". I'd suggest "The science is in": It's people smuggling. And it's a business.

This government comprises the same people who sent their supporters into pseudo-intellectual ecstasy when they canned the Howard government's border policies. /soft-clock idiots

In glorious complementary parallel, the Gillard government today confirmed that Australia's intake of refugees through legal traditional channels is declining as the quotas are being filled with people-smuggled intakes refugees. /soft-clock idiots

Carry everybody — you're all doing tremendously well.

ElevatorEscapee
14-07-2012, 06:58 PM
^^ Interesting comments from above.

I personally would like to see "offshore processing" extended to include those who seek to hold political office in Australia, and have them spend years waiting until Australian beauracrcy completes the process...

The RAN should place Tony Abbott, John & Jeanette Howard, Phillip Ruddock & Pauline Hansen on a ricketty, leaking boat and give them just enough petrol to reach Nauru.

Gillard, Swan & Co should be placed on a similarly leaky boat and sent to Malaysia.

And perhaps cruelest of all... Andrew Wilkie should be shipped back to Tasmania.... ;)

pax
15-07-2012, 01:25 PM
The Gillard government now actively and regularly referring to "the people smuggling business". I'd suggest "The science is in": It's people smuggling. And it's a business.

This government comprises the same people who sent their supporters into pseudo-intellectual ecstasy when they canned the Howard government's border policies. /soft-clock idiots

In glorious complementary parallel, the Gillard government today confirmed that Australia's intake of refugees through legal traditional channels is declining as the quotas are being filled with people-smuggled intakes refugees. /soft-clock idiots

Carry everybody — you're all doing tremendously well.

What's your solution then, genius? Do you support Abbott's brilliant plan of establishing "Christmas Island mk II" on Nauru? Do you think that will make a blind bit of difference? Do you support his policy of towing back sinking boats to countries that refuse to accept them?

Don't get me wrong, Gillard has made a total mess of asylum policy here, but the real morons in this debate are the ones who think they have magic solutions.

Basil
15-07-2012, 05:14 PM
What's your solution then, genius?
Touched a nerve I see :D The purpose of the post was nothing to do with asserting a 'solution'. I was merely highlighting the cock-up in all its abject glory. Labor in full swing.


Don't get me wrong, Gillard has made a total mess of asylum policy here.
Much better and on point.

Ian Murray
15-07-2012, 05:39 PM
...the Gillard government today confirmed that Australia's intake of refugees through legal traditional channels is declining as the quotas are being filled with people-smuggled intakes refugees. /soft-clock idiots
The Howard government introduced the nexus between the two sources of refugees.

As for irregular arrivals, why should visa-holders who arrive by air and lie about their asylum-seeking intentions be better treated than arrivals by boat who honestly seek asylum?

Basil
15-07-2012, 07:12 PM
As for irregular arrivals, why should visa-holders who arrive by air and lie about their asylum-seeking intentions be better treated than arrivals by boat who honestly seek asylum?
They shouldn't. But we're talkng about the smuggled who simply wish for a better life (hidden among the legits). Either way, I'm not bothered if you're not. But I'd be surprised that you'd sleep well knowing that genuine regugees are stuck at the exit points becuase Oz had hundreds/ thousands of free-loaders who've arrived on a leaky boat.

Of course, if you believe no such free-loaders exist among us (via the leaky boat) then we're back to square one, and my post a couple above; viz, the science is in (re:smuggling and business) —*and this makes you guys the new-age deniers.

pax
15-07-2012, 07:38 PM
Touched a nerve I see :D The purpose of the post was nothing to do with asserting a 'solution'. I was merely highlighting the cock-up in all its abject glory. Labor in full swing.

A cock-up which Abbott is intent on perpetuating for as long as possible of course. Labor and Liberal alike are hypocrites in the extreme here.

Patrick Byrom
15-07-2012, 08:22 PM
They shouldn't. But we're talkng about the smuggled who simply wish for a better life (hidden among the legits). Either way, I'm not bothered if you're not. But I'd be surprised that you'd sleep well knowing that genuine regugees are stuck at the exit points becuase Oz had hundreds/ thousands of free-loaders who've arrived on a leaky boat.

Of course, if you believe no such free-loaders exist among us (via the leaky boat) then we're back to square one, and my post a couple above; viz, the science is in (re:smuggling and business) —*and this makes you guys the new-age deniers.
The existence of people-smugglers doesn't prove that the people being smuggled are not refugees (see Casablanca).

When you refer to "free-loaders", I assume you don't mean claimants that are rejected, and therefore don't affect Australia's refugee intake at all?

You're presumably referring to those who are accepted, some of whom you believe are not genuine. Evidence, please?

Basil
15-07-2012, 08:55 PM
The existence of people-smugglers doesn't prove that the people being smuggled are not refugees (see Casablanca).
I'm not familar with "Casablanca". I do agree that the existence of people-smugglers doesn't prove that those smuggled aren't refugees.


When you refer to "free-loaders", I assume you don't mean claimants that are rejected, and therefore don't affect Australia's refugee intake at all?
Of course (save for the cost burden of processing the rejected try-ons, which is minor but noted anyway).


You're presumably referring to those who are accepted, some of whom you believe are not genuine. Evidence, please?
I am — and — I have no evidence :D
Equally, do you deny they exist?
If you elect to say that you'll wait for proof, can I ask that if proof surfaces, would you concede anything of substance at all? I ask as I'm still reeling from your very excellent argument that Gillard didn't break a core promise :D

* I have a niggling idea that evidence is mounting in this regard, but nothing I'd care to assert as fact — and I certainly haven't done any homework beyond what passes as news which comes across my desk. But's all vey wobbly isn't it? People-smugglers taking bog-loads of cash from genuine refugees??? We do now know the majority of refugees are economic refugees (as opposed to persecuted), so it seems odd that the economic refugees have got the readies to get on the boat.

By the way, do agree with the world pax that the Gillard government has cocked this policy up? For the record, I'm expecting that you won't :D

Patrick Byrom
15-07-2012, 10:03 PM
I'm not familar with "Casablanca". I do agree that the existence of people-smugglers doesn't prove that those smuggled aren't refugees.
Humphrey Bogart plays a people smuggler, and Ingrid Bergman plays a refugee with plenty of readies to buy passage - ring a bell?


I am — and — I have no evidence :D
Equally, do you deny they exist?
It's hard to accept a claim of "hundreds/thousands" without evidence - the total number of claimants in this category is not even 5 000!


We do now know the majority of refugees are economic refugees (as opposed to persecuted), so it seems odd that the economic refugees have got the readies to get on the boat.
About 80% of boat people are accepted as 'persecuted' refugees, so I've no idea what you mean :hmm:


By the way, do agree with the world pax that the Gillard government has cocked this policy up? For the record, I'm expecting that you won't :D
You're right - I think the current policy is generally better than that of the Howard government, but I wouldn't claim it's perfect.

Ian Murray
15-07-2012, 11:57 PM
They shouldn't. But we're talkng about the smuggled who simply wish for a better life (hidden among the legits).
There are not enough economic refugees to skew immigration policy - that minority can be screened out later

But I'd be surprised that you'd sleep well knowing that genuine regugees are stuck at the exit points becuase Oz had hundreds/ thousands of free-loaders who've arrived on a leaky boat.
Both sides of politics disregard our international obligations towards relieving the plight of refugees. The number of humanitarian migrants we accept via UNHCR should be unrelated to the number of asylum-seeking arrivals by air or boat.

Basil
16-07-2012, 01:10 AM
Humphrey Bogart plays a people smugglerr
I've never watched the film! No bells.


It's hard to accept a claim of "hundreds/thousands" without evidence - the total number of claimants in this category is not even 5 000!
Let's settle for hundreds. For the second asking, do you deny they exist?


About 80% of boat people are accepted as 'persecuted' refugees
I can't readily locate the recent announce on the stats I heard opposing your assertion and supporting mine — there's sooooo much info out there. BTW I think you'll be in trouble from many quarters for referring to these people as boat people. Even protagonists on this board get quite squirty over that one.


Both sides of politics disregard our international obligations towards relieving the plight of refugees.
Probably agreed. But can you get Pat to agree with that! :owned:


The number of humanitarian migrants we accept via UNHCR should be unrelated to the number of asylum-seeking arrivals by air or boat.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that if cashed-up boat arrivals are in fact beating the system (non-genuine, i.e. they're fleeing from Mr Jack Shit), then genuine refugees are cooling their heels year after year on the river banks of nowhereland, thanks to you, Pat and the other 1 in 4 who who think the government's doing a bang-up job.

Basil
16-07-2012, 01:17 AM
By the way, do agree with the world pax that the Gillard government has cocked this policy up? For the record, I'm expecting that you won't.

You're right - I think the current policy is generally better than that of the Howard government, but I wouldn't claim it's perfect.
Classic. Thank you.

Patrick Byrom
16-07-2012, 01:52 AM
I've never watched the film! No bells.
It's a classic - download it today!


Let's settle for hundreds. For the second asking, do you deny they exist?
In the absence of any supporting evidence, I'll settle for 12.


I can't readily locate the recent announce on the stats I heard opposing your assertion and supporting mine — there's sooooo much info out there. BTW I think you'll be in trouble from many quarters for referring to these people as boat people. Even protagonists on this board get quite squirty over that one.

This document (http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf) confirms my numbers, and refers to them as "boat arrivals".


Probably agreed. But can you get Pat to agree with that! :owned: I agree also - why wouldn't I?


Nonetheless, the fact remains that if cashed-up boat arrivals are in fact beating the system (non-genuine, i.e. they're fleeing from Mr Jack Shit), then genuine refugees are cooling their heels year after year on the river banks of nowhereland, thanks to you, Pat and the other 1 in 4 who who think the government's doing a bang-up job.
And thanks to John Howard, who linked the two groups in the first place. And, as I assume you voted for him, you are also responsible. :owned:

Ian Murray
16-07-2012, 02:02 PM
Let's settle for hundreds. For the second asking, do you deny they exist?
There were 403 asylum claims rejected (http://www.theage.com.au/national/refugees-rejected-in-error-20111003-1l5ea.html) from Jan-Sep last year. 254 were appealed to the Federal Court; of the 43 cases decided 13 were dismissed and the rest upheld or withdrawn by Immigration. Highlighted were the number of assessment errors made by Immigration.

So the number of non-genuine refugees is small bordering on negligible. The majority of them still arrive by air, so stopping the boats does not stop the influx - the obsession with 'leaky boats' is emotive but unhelpful.

There is a simple way of course to stop the boats, the risks to life and put the people smugglers out of business. Allow asylum seekers to travel to Australia by air. Qantas could use the extra business also.

Basil
16-07-2012, 06:10 PM
There is a simple way of course to stop the boats, the risks to life and put the people smugglers out of business. Allow asylum seekers to travel to Australia by air. Qantas could use the extra business also.
I have no issue with this. Now we're just debating the point of assessment. I know you favour onshore. I think we should try it for a year — just so we can see the rampant abuse of the system. You don't think it will happen — I can't prove otherwise — so let's just spin the wheel!

Ian Murray
16-07-2012, 09:35 PM
I have no issue with this. Now we're just debating the point of assessment. I know you favour onshore. I think we should try it for a year — just so we can see the rampant abuse of the system. You don't think it will happen — I can't prove otherwise — so let's just spin the wheel!
It can be made to work, but regional cooperation is needed. Of the 90,000 Vietnamese refugees resettled here in the 70s and 80s, only 2000 travelled by boat, with the rest flown in. They were accommodated in transit camps in SE Asia while being processed by us under deals struck by Fraser then Hawke with regional governments.

Howard's Pacific Solution - locking them out of sight on Nauru for a few years before allowing them entry as refugees - was a poor alternative, but not as bad as Abbott's plan to return them under navy guns to a hostile Indonesia.

Basil
17-07-2012, 05:25 AM
... but not as bad as Abbott's plan to return them under navy guns to a hostile Indonesia.
Where they would have completely done their dough!

Ian Murray
17-07-2012, 08:00 AM
Where they would have completely done their dough!
Yep, that's a point. However it is not a great idea to announce plans to offload our refugees onto another country, like East Timor or Indonesia, without first reaching agreement with that country.

Damodevo
18-07-2012, 02:06 PM
Why do people like IM assume so readily that these are genuine refugees when even people smugglers have managed to hood-wink their way in.

Dr Jayasekara is a lecturer in security studies at Macquarie University and a former adviser to the Sri Lankan government during peace negotiations with the Tamil Tigers, who were defeated by Sri Lankan government forces in May 2009.

He said one of the more striking aspects of the resurgence in boats from Sri Lanka, which now sail directly across the Indian Ocean to the Cocos Islands or Christmas Island, was that Sinhalese were now among the passengers.

While Sri Lanka's minority Tamils are frequently recognised as refugees, the country's majority Sinhalese are not.

"It seems that it is economic opportunism," Dr Jayasekara said of the trend. "It's not necessarily related to the conflict." (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/sri-lankans-rush-to-flee-before-deadlock-breaks/story-fn9hm1gu-1226428537056)

pax
20-07-2012, 02:12 PM
Why do people like IM assume so readily that these are genuine refugees when even people smugglers have managed to hood-wink their way in.

Why do so many people use the fact that a few asylum seekers are not genuine as a reason to oppose the humane treatment of all asylum seekers?

Ian Murray
11-09-2012, 09:56 PM
As bad as our treatment of asylum seekers is, we're a long way from Israel's 'Sinai Solution" - starve them at the border for more than a week, then turn them back into the desert.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/cast-to-their-fate-1.464152

Igor_Goldenberg
20-09-2012, 10:18 AM
Why do so many people use the fact that a few asylum seekers are not genuine as a reason to oppose the humane treatment of all asylum seekers?
Reminds me and old joke:
"Lawyers are good. Unfortunately tiny 99% that are crooks give the bad name to the whole industry"

Ian Murray
20-09-2012, 08:25 PM
Reminds me and old joke:
How?

Ian Murray
24-11-2012, 09:21 PM
The ‘no advantage’ myth in refugee processing (http://theconversation.edu.au/the-no-advantage-myth-in-refugee-processing-10940?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+CID_783391a66 2cdb821b0b374b0369cc3f1&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=The%20no%20advantage%20myth%20in%20refuge e%20processing)


Kerry Murphy
Lecturer, Migration Law Program
Australian National University
22.11.12


In August 2012, the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers created a new myth in the language of asylum seekers and refugees. That was the idea of “the no advantage principle”. It is a variation on the “refugee queue” myth and is taking on a life of its own. This is because the Government is struggling to explain the fiction of “no advantage” as a fact.

In the Panel Report at 3.49- 3.50 it states:


3.49 Other IMAs not in need of moving to Australia would remain in Nauru until their refugee status is determined and resettlement options are finalised.

3.50 Irrespective of whether IMAs stay in Nauru for the period of their status determination or are moved to Australia, the same principle would apply to all. Their position in relation to refugee status and resettlement would not be advantaged over what it would have been had they availed themselves of assessment by UNHCR within the regional processing arrangement.

Thus the myth begins. The problem is there is no processing time for refugee cases anywhere on the planet. The case takes the time it takes. The reason why some wait years for resettlement is not due to any “queue” or “no advantage test” but simply about quotas. Australia has now increased the total program to 20,000 places, onshore and offshore together [until the Opposition back-flipped]. So when the number of visas to be issued is reached in a certain year, other cases are left in an administrative storage until the next visa year begins...

pax
24-11-2012, 09:35 PM
Reminds me and old joke:
"Lawyers are good. Unfortunately tiny 99% that are crooks give the bad name to the whole industry"

Any evidence for that piece of garbage?

Igor_Goldenberg
26-11-2012, 10:15 AM
Any evidence for that piece of garbage?
That's your response to any joke you don't like?
Are you a lawyer?
Did I offend you?

Rincewind
26-11-2012, 10:31 AM
That's your response to any joke you don't like?
Are you a lawyer?
Did I offend you?

No you small minded idiot. Your "joke" implies that 99% of asylum seekers are seeking asylum illegitimately. Is there any evidence for that opinion?

MichaelBaron
27-11-2012, 10:46 AM
I've always felt there should be an ''optional tax'' for those who want to support a greater intake of the ''fake'' refugees. You want them? Cool - then let you be the ones to pay for them! I would rather have my tax money going to more worthy causes.

Another factors to be considered is:
1) What is the crime rate in the refugee communities and how do these crimes impact the rest of the population?
2) What is the unemployment rate?
3) If not for these so-called refugees (I am using ''so-called'' cause few of them are genuine) , wouldn't we be able to grant PR (Permanent Residence) to many more worthy applicants from all over the world? So many overseas students (young, educated, smart, good-natured) have to leave Australia as they are not able to qualify for PR. So many established professionals want to come and work here. And whom do we get instead?

Rincewind
27-11-2012, 10:56 AM
(I am using ''so-called'' cause few of them are genuine)

This seems to be a belief also professed by Ignor, but is there any basis for it in reality? If you have any evidence for this claim then I'd be interested to hear it.

MichaelBaron
27-11-2012, 11:47 AM
This seems to be a belief also professed by Ignor, but is there any basis for it in reality? If you have any evidence for this claim then I'd be interested to hear it.

Well, starting with the fact that a place on a boat costs $10000+! Where would the money come from? In Bangladesh for insanced 1/3d of the population lives on less than 2 dollars a day.

Secondly, why do they try to go as far as Australia rather than to a neibouring country or even a safer community?

Rincewind
27-11-2012, 11:51 AM
Well, starting with the fact that a place on a boat costs $10000+! Where would the money come from? In Bangladesh for insanced 1/3d of the population lives on less than 2 dollars a day.

Secondly, why do they try to go as far as Australia rather than to a neibouring country or even a safer community?

I'm not sure if you are having a problem with the concept of evidence, or if you just don't have any. Can you clarify?

MichaelBaron
27-11-2012, 12:49 PM
I'm not sure if you are having a problem with the concept of evidence, or if you just don't have any. Can you clarify?
Evidence? see my post above!
Secondly, cause in Australia they can have a better life

Ian Murray
27-11-2012, 01:41 PM
Well, starting with the fact that a place on a boat costs $10000+! Where would the money come from? In Bangladesh for insanced 1/3d of the population lives on less than 2 dollars a day.

Secondly, why do they try to go as far as Australia rather than to a neibouring country or even a safer community?

Debunking the Myths about Asylum Seekers (http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/int_health_asylum_seekers.pdf)


Myth 5 - They’re Not Real Refugees Anyway
Fact: 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

Myth 6 – They Must Be ‘Cashed up’ to Pay People Smugglers
Fact: It is alleged that people who have the resources to pay people smugglers could not possibly be genuine refugees. The UNHCR disputes claims about ‘cashed up’ refugees saying that payments made to people smugglers in fact range from $4000 - $5000 AUD. In reality, many families and communities pool their resources in an attempt to send their relatives to safety. People smuggling is a crime that the international community needs to combat. However, this does not negate the legitimacy of asylum seekers’ claims, nor their need to seek refuge. The international community, in eradicating people smuggling, is also required to address the growing numbers of asylum seekers throughout the world. As a Western nation, Australia has a role to play

Rincewind
27-11-2012, 03:00 PM
Evidence? see my post above!

Ok some unsbustantiated figures which are probably exaggerated and no one disputes that people smugglers are gouging refugees. But this neither proves or disproves that the majority have no legitimate claim to refugee status.


Secondly, cause in Australia they can have a better life

If you mean free from persecution, I believe that is their hope. However it is sadly not the reality.

pax
27-11-2012, 04:33 PM
That's your response to any joke you don't like?
Are you a lawyer?
Did I offend you?

Your implication is that 99% of asylum seekers are not genuine, which is clearly false. No, I'm not a lawyer, and no, I'm not particularly offended. Just galled by your uncharitable attitude to people who are persecuted and desperate.

MichaelBaron
27-11-2012, 09:42 PM
Your implication is that 99% of asylum seekers are not genuine, which is clearly false. No, I'm not a lawyer, and no, I'm not particularly offended. Just galled by your uncharitable attitude to people who are persecuted and desperate.


Pax, so would you agree with an optional tax to support these people? You can pay for them if you like!

MichaelBaron
27-11-2012, 09:45 PM
Ok some unsbustantiated figures which are probably exaggerated and no one disputes that people smugglers are gouging refugees. But this neither proves or disproves that the majority have no legitimate claim to refugee status.



If you mean free from persecution, I believe that is their hope. However it is sadly not the reality.

Its not about being persecuted. For example, why do refugees from Africa have to come all the way to Australia other than for better life? If they are scared about being persecuted, they would surely go anywhere in the world (certainly makes sense to go t refugee camps in the neibouring countries) rather than search for better life many seas away. I am not disapproving their behaviour, would I be in their shoes I would have probably done exactly the same thing...I just do not see why we should take responsiblity for them

Rincewind
27-11-2012, 10:02 PM
Its not about being persecuted. For example, why do refugees from Africa have to come all the way to Australia other than for better life? If they are scared about being persecuted, they would surely go anywhere in the world (certainly makes sense to go t refugee camps in the neibouring countries) rather than search for better life many seas away. I am not disapproving their behaviour, would I be in their shoes I would have probably done exactly the same thing...I just do not see why we should take responsiblity for them

Often refugee camps just across the border are no safer than than staying in their own country. This was seen in the delorable sanitary conditions of the refugee camps in the countries surrounding Rwanda during their civil war, for example. IN some cases refugee camps just across the border at targetted by the military. In many cases you are talking about the developing world and giving them lion share of refugee intake not practical in the short term and only perpetuates povety in those countries in the long term. Anyway geographical proximity is no system to be allocating asylum intake.

pax
28-11-2012, 12:30 AM
Pax, so would you agree with an optional tax to support these people? You can pay for them if you like!

If it was optional, it wouldn't be a tax now, would it?

pax
28-11-2012, 12:36 AM
Its not about being persecuted. For example, why do refugees from Africa have to come all the way to Australia other than for better life? If they are scared about being persecuted, they would surely go anywhere in the world (certainly makes sense to go t refugee camps in the neibouring countries) rather than search for better life many seas away. I am not disapproving their behaviour, would I be in their shoes I would have probably done exactly the same thing...I just do not see why we should take responsiblity for them

Not your problem eh? Stick 'em in a refugee camp for the rest of their lives, where there are no jobs, no permanent shelters, not enough food, poor security, massive overcrowding, poor sanitation? How would you go in one of those camps for a week, Michael? How about a month, or a year, or a decade?

If Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world does not help those in need, then who should?

pax
28-11-2012, 12:40 AM
Pax, so would you agree with an optional tax to support these people? You can pay for them if you like!

I tell you what, Michael. I'll pay your share of tax for immigration support, if you pay my share for military spending. Deal?

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2012, 03:47 AM
I tell you what, Michael. I'll pay your share of tax for immigration support, if you pay my share for military spending. Deal?
A bad deal. Military spending protects all Australians equally, and Australian taxpayers have a right to expect this. But they have no obligation to support those from other countries coming to Australian shores illegally. Obviously neither MB nor IG are against immigration per se.

Ian Murray
28-11-2012, 07:48 AM
...those from other countries coming to Australian shores illegally. ...
It is perfectly legal for refugees to arrive at the Australian border and ask for protection - they have that legal right under the Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, binding Australia to providing protection and support.

Rincewind
28-11-2012, 08:13 AM
I tell you what, Michael. I'll pay your share of tax for immigration support, if you pay my share for military spending. Deal?

Will someone please pay my contribution for Howard's brain-dead National School Chaplaincy program?

Ian Murray
28-11-2012, 08:28 AM
Obviously neither MB nor IG are against immigration per se.
They both migrated to Australia, presumably seeking a better life. However for reasons best known to themselves they resent refugees seeking a better life here.

MichaelBaron
28-11-2012, 10:18 AM
They both migrated to Australia, presumably seeking a better life. However for reasons best known to themselves they resent refugees seeking a better life here.

Ian, absolutely! We came here for better life. However, the reason we/our families got accepted (professional migration) had nothing to do with Australia wanting to ''take care'' of us.

I am strongly in favour of immigration! However, I support professional immigration only!~ People who come under the professional immigration program are here not just to enjoy ''life in Australia'' but also to contribute to the society through their hard work! And this is indeed a huge difference!~

Rincewind
28-11-2012, 10:23 AM
I am strongly in favour of immigration! However, I support professional immigration only!~ People who come under the professional immigration program are here not just to enjoy ''life in Australia'' but also to contribute to the society through their hard work! And this is indeed a huge difference!~

You don't think that position is slightly self-serving?

Ian Murray
28-11-2012, 12:10 PM
Ian, absolutely! We came here for better life. However, the reason we/our families got accepted (professional migration) had nothing to do with Australia wanting to ''take care'' of us.

I am strongly in favour of immigration! However, I support professional immigration only!~ People who come under the professional immigration program are here not just to enjoy ''life in Australia'' but also to contribute to the society through their hard work! And this is indeed a huge difference!~
Do you mean only graduates or equivalent are capable of contributing to society through hard work?

Bear in mind that Australia is seriously under-populated. As it stands at present we are unable to maintain an efficient manufacturing base with such a small domestic market.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2012, 12:41 PM
You don't think that position is slightly self-serving?
Why? MB and IG are contributors to Australian revenue, not a drain on taxpayers. Even worse are those who want to try to turn Australia Islamic.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2012, 12:44 PM
Bear in mind that Australia is seriously under-populated. As it stands at present we are unable to maintain an efficient manufacturing base with such a small domestic market.
Then stop aborting babies! But I have no problem with hard working migrants, professional or not, who actually appreciate Australia.

pax
28-11-2012, 01:11 PM
A bad deal. Military spending protects all Australians equally, and Australian taxpayers have a right to expect this. But they have no obligation to support those from other countries coming to Australian shores illegally. Obviously neither MB nor IG are against immigration per se.

Australians equally have obligations to refugees under the refugee convention. Just because you or MB don't like it doesn't change that fact.

Rincewind
28-11-2012, 01:30 PM
Why?

To maintain the position that the only form of migration one supports is the very method whereby that individual themselves migrated seems very much an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude.

MichaelBaron
28-11-2012, 02:00 PM
You don't think that position is slightly self-serving?

In a way it is, but then again - I am not referring to my personal experience alone. I am currently lecturing at uni, and it is truly depressing to watch overseas students struggle so hard for PR on completion of their studies (and some of them are not eligible) while some half-literate people are being brought into our country only to create more problems and more costs.

MichaelBaron
28-11-2012, 02:03 PM
Do you mean only graduates or equivalent are capable of contributing to society through hard work?

Bear in mind that Australia is seriously under-populated. As it stands at present we are unable to maintain an efficient manufacturing base with such a small domestic market.
Ian, I agree that we are under-populated.

As for the the manufacturing base, there are other issues I believe that result in the decline. However, if it is lack of the ''semi-skilled'' workers that is an issue - this problem could be addressed by inviting the trained workers to come here.
Professional migration is not only for ppl with degrees. Those who excel in their trades should also be accepted!

Rincewind
28-11-2012, 02:24 PM
In a way it is, but then again - I am not referring to my personal experience alone. I am currently lecturing at uni, and it is truly depressing to watch overseas students struggle so hard for PR on completion of their studies (and some of them are not eligible) while some half-literate people are being brought into our country only to create more problems and more costs.

In the case of those seeking asylum the question is one of need. You cannot say anything about their skills but that would seem to be beside the point. If your neighbour's house is burning down and he comes to use your hose, you don't ask to see his college degree.

Ian Murray
28-11-2012, 03:32 PM
In a way it is, but then again - I am not referring to my personal experience alone. I am currently lecturing at uni, and it is truly depressing to watch overseas students struggle so hard for PR on completion of their studies (and some of them are not eligible) while some half-literate people are being brought into our country only to create more problems and more costs.

It is a myth that all refugees are illiterate peasants. The majority that come to Australia are educated middle class people - whose education, profession or political opinions have drawn them to the attention of the authorities and resulted in their persecution.

By definition refugees are survivors. They have survived because they have the courage, ingenuity and creativity to have done so. These are qualities which we value in Australia. The challenge for Australia is to assist newly arrived refugees to process the experiences of their past and rebuild their lives in Australia. If we do this we will reap the benefits of the qualities and experiences they bring to Australia.

http://www.safecom.org.au/refugees1.htm

MichaelBaron
29-11-2012, 01:19 AM
In the case of those seeking asylum the question is one of need. You cannot say anything about their skills but that would seem to be beside the point. If your neighbour's house is burning down and he comes to use your hose, you don't ask to see his college degree.

So would you get them to live PERMANENTLY in your house?

MichaelBaron
29-11-2012, 01:22 AM
It is a myth that all refugees are illiterate peasants. The majority that come to Australia are educated middle class people - whose education, profession or political opinions have drawn them to the attention of the authorities and resulted in their persecution.

By definition refugees are survivors. They have survived because they have the courage, ingenuity and creativity to have done so. These are qualities which we value in Australia. The challenge for Australia is to assist newly arrived refugees to process the experiences of their past and rebuild their lives in Australia. If we do this we will reap the benefits of the qualities and experiences they bring to Australia.

http://www.safecom.org.au/refugees1.htm

I have a feeling that refugee communities have a) high crime rate and b)high unemployment rate. Not sure about how political their reasons are...but it is a known fact (as shown by the ''special literacy'' classes run by NMIT TAFE AMES and some other providers of government-funded English programs for refugees that some of them are not even able to read and write in their native languages!

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2012, 07:05 AM
To maintain the position that the only form of migration one supports is the very method whereby that individual themselves migrated seems very much an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude.
Not at all. But at present, it's so expensive and bureaucratic to immigrate legally (both to Australia and US), and way to easy to do so illegally. Legal immigration should be easier, and illegal immigration harder.

Rincewind
29-11-2012, 08:16 AM
Legal immigration should be easier, and illegal immigration harder.

I agree but of course seeking asylum is not illegal.

Rincewind
29-11-2012, 08:20 AM
So would you get them to live PERMANENTLY in your house?

In my analogy I didn't intend the house represent the country but if in yours it does then sure?

MichaelBaron
29-11-2012, 09:26 AM
In my analogy I didn't intend the house represent the country but if in yours it does then sure?

Well, then the optional tax is the way to go! You can pay for them :)

Rincewind
29-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Well, then the optional tax is the way to go! You can pay for them :)

No because if the houses represent countries in your analogy then we are room mates. :P

MichaelBaron
29-11-2012, 04:27 PM
No because if the houses represent countries in your analogy then we are room mates. :P
We are not roommates we are housemates...so lets pay our rent separately :)

MichaelBaron
29-11-2012, 04:35 PM
No because if the houses represent countries in your analogy then we are room mates. :P
We are not roommates we are housemates...so lets pay our rent separately :)

ER
29-11-2012, 04:47 PM
We are not roommates we are housemates...so lets pay our rent separately :)

C'mon Michael, you are an internationally acclaimed author now; :clap: what's this pay rent business? Just use your German publisher's advance money to buy a couple of houses! :P :lol:

MichaelBaron
29-11-2012, 10:07 PM
C'mon Michael, you are an internationally acclaimed author now; :clap: what's this pay rent business? Just use your German publisher's advance money to buy a couple of houses! :P :lol:

Jak, thx for counting the money in my pocket :). The houses are to be rented out...rather than to be given away for free. What I have - I worked for! Btw, I am very middle-class - no 6 figure sums in my bank account

ER
29-11-2012, 11:57 PM
Jak, thx for counting the money in my pocket :).

I didn't;

1) I don't want my arm broken :P
2) you said it's in the bank! :lol:


The houses are to be rented out...rather than to be given away for free.

good thinking! :clap:


What I have - I worked for!

None ever disputed that! :clap:


Btw, I am very middle-class - no 6 figure sums in my bank account

C'mon man, that's not middle-class that's proletariat! :P :owned: :lol:

Ian Murray
30-11-2012, 12:07 PM
Not at all. But at present, it's so expensive and bureaucratic to immigrate legally (both to Australia and US), and way to easy to do so illegally. Legal immigration should be easier, and illegal immigration harder.
Considering that most illegal immigrants are legal visitors overstaying their visas, how could overstaying be made harder? Fitting them with radio collars on arrival?

pax
30-11-2012, 12:21 PM
Not at all. But at present, it's so expensive and bureaucratic to immigrate legally (both to Australia and US), and way to easy to do so illegally. Legal immigration should be easier, and illegal immigration harder.

Presumably you support the Labor government's increased humanitarian immigration quotas then? And oppose the coalition's promise to reduce said intake?

Ian Murray
01-03-2013, 07:53 AM
Full-page ad published in Melbourne's The Age yesterday:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/526125_435192879901050_1197282319_n.jpg

Basil
19-07-2013, 09:26 PM
Snort.

Ian Murray
19-07-2013, 09:34 PM
I'd vote Lib if Turnbull was leader.

antichrist
21-07-2013, 07:32 PM
the latest anti-boat refugee ad advising that you will not settle in Australia is completely wasted. The ad shows a presumably refugee boat - but the hitch is that there is no one on the boat to hear the message. Plus I dont think they will be selling or distributing the australian newspapers out on the open sea, nor do i think that the refugees english is that hot.

In about 1991 I can remember visiting refugee camps of Vietnamese in Palawan in Philippines and had one of those meat and salad rolls they make. They were there for years awaiting acceptance to an other country, many to OZ. Eventually they were all gone with no hassle.

The Vietnamese are in the same boat as the current boat people from the Middle East, they were bombed in civil wars that were encouraged and supported by Australia hanging onto Yankees coat tails - so why different treatment. So we do have an obligation to help settle these bods coz we are directly responsible for wrecking their country without any valid reason.

Damodevo
21-07-2013, 11:50 PM
Full-page ad published in Melbourne's The Age yesterday:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/526125_435192879901050_1197282319_n.jpg

And this is a giant load of propogandarist godswallop. Recent government study found 85% still on welfare after 5 years;


NOW (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_boatloads_of_welfare_recipients/) even the Gillard Government knows the truth about its bungled refugee program.

The people it’s bringing in are costing us billions, with 85 per cent of refugees on Centrelink benefits in their first five years here.

Worse, it’s the “refugees” who push in—the boat people we don’t pick, and who exploit the Government’s weak laws—who cost us most.

The vast majority of boat people say they are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka, and these are exactly the refugees most likely to be unemployed and living on welfare, even after five years.

Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults have a job and 94 per cent receive benefits, which means every boatload of Afghans landing here is a boatload almost entirely of people we’ll be paying handouts to for years.

And as for 'fleeing threat' even Bob Carr (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/bob-carr-fights-back-on-asylum-policy/story-e6frgd0x-1226675071454) recognises most are 'economic immigrants'


Foreign Minister Bob Carr's claim that Australia needs to toughen the way it assesses refugee applications because too many asylum-seekers, especially those from Iran, are economic migrants rather than genuine refugees triggered howls of protest this week from refugee advocates, lawyers and academics.

Ian Murray
22-07-2013, 05:56 PM
And this is a giant load of propogandarist godswallop. Recent government study found 85% still on welfare after 5 years;
Bolt is cherry-picking in his usual style. For the full story see p.33-39 of the report Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf)


And as for 'fleeing threat' even Bob Carr (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/bob-carr-fights-back-on-asylum-policy/story-e6frgd0x-1226675071454) recognises most are 'economic immigrants'
Exactly where does he say 'most' are economic migrants?

Desmond
22-07-2013, 06:56 PM
Exactly where does he say 'most' are economic migrants?IIRC Carr put the figure at 90%+. Not sure if it was an extraordinary gaffe or if he really thinks that.

Rincewind
22-07-2013, 07:26 PM
IIRC Carr put the figure at 90%+. Not sure if it was an extraordinary gaffe or if he really thinks that.

I thought Carr's claim was for 'some boats' not a percentage of all boat arrivals over an extended period.