PDA

View Full Version : Immigration policy



Pages : [1] 2 3

Ian Murray
07-04-2010, 02:08 PM
Turning people into gold (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Is-our-boom-time-over-pd20100326-3VRML?OpenDocument)
Alan Kohler
Business Spectator
28 Mar 10


It is an exquisite irony perhaps, but one of the Howard government’s greatest legacies is a population boom.

It’s ironic, of course, because John Howard won the 2001 election by appearing to be xenophobic via the children overboard affair and mandatory detention of asylum seekers. But the numbers tell a totally different story: John Howard was the most immigration-friendly national leader since European settlement in 1788. It might have been because he wanted to break the power of unions rather than a multicultural heart beating in his breast, but the effect is the same.

According to yesterday’s data from the ABS, Australia’s population grew by 452,000 in the year to September, or 2.1 per cent, putting it near the top of the international league table (just behind Singapore and Saudi Arabia).

This is the great unspoken cause of our current prosperity and the fact that we escaped the GFC virtually unscathed. More people mean more GDP – more consumer spending, more demand for housing, and therefore higher house prices and greater wealth, more construction and more jobs.

There is almost no downside to a high level of immigration: it reduces skill shortages at the same time as creating employment and helps offset the ageing of the population because new arrivals tend to be young.
....

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2010, 05:04 PM
Didn't immigration level increase under Labor government?


According to yesterday’s data from the ABS, Australia’s population grew by 452,000 in the year to September, or 2.1 per cent, putting it near the top of the international league table

Without discussing pro and cons of immigration, what does it have to do with Howard government?

arosar
07-04-2010, 05:43 PM
Well, for my money, I reckon we gotta immediately put a cap on these blow-ins until the supply of housing catches up. We also need to start taking seriously the infrastructure problem, particularly transport. Look at Sydney. It's a joke!

But more important is that we gotta teach Australians to start living in small high rise apartments. Sprawling out further and further into the woods doesn't help the environment and only keeps pressure on transport and other services.

AR

AzureBlue
07-04-2010, 06:30 PM
Rudd flips on 'big Australia'
JOSH GORDON

April 4, 2010

THE federal government will consider slashing Australia's annual migration intake to help tackle concerns about traffic congestion, housing, hospitals, water and the environment.

Just months after declaring himself in favour of a ''big Australia'', Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday warned of ''legitimate concerns'' with population growth and appointed Agriculture Minister Tony Burke as Australia's first Population Minister.

Mr Burke has been given a year to develop the country's first population plan, including a review of immigration levels.

The announcement came as another boatload of asylum seekers - the 102nd to be intercepted since Mr Rudd took office - was placed in detention at the Christmas Island facility, which has reportedly reached capacity.

Mr Rudd denied the new strategy was a smokescreen to divert attention from the recent boat arrivals, saying the idea for a population plan had come after ''extensive deliberations of the cabinet over the last month''.

He said population growth must be monitored: ''Particularly its impact on urban congestion, its impact on the adequacy of infrastructure, its impact on the adequacy of housing supply, its impact on government services, its impact also on water and agriculture and on our regions.''

Mr Rudd's change of heart followed the release last month of Treasury's Intergenerational Report, which predicted Australia's population would swell from about 22 million to 35.9 million in 2050, with overseas migration by far the biggest contributor.

Australia's growth rate is now twice the global average, even outstripping that in some developing nations including the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Figures from the Bureau of Statistics show that last financial year net overseas migration added a record 298,924 people, while natural increase (births minus deaths) added 157,792.

Victoria's population, estimated at 5.44 million at June 2009, is growing faster than the national average, with 27 per cent of all immigrants in 2008-09 choosing to set up home here.

The majority moved to Melbourne, where population growth outstripped all other capital cities for the eighth year in a row, compounding pressure on the city's public transport network, roads and housing market.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison dismissed Mr Rudd's announcement as a diversion to cover his failure to control boat arrivals. ''Effectively what he has announced is a plan for a plan after the next election,'' he said.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said Australia needed a serious debate on population.

''It's very hard to have a sustainable population strategy if you can't control our boat arrivals. You can't have a population policy without having a border protection policy,'' he said.

The Future Eaters author and former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery welcomed the move, but said the Government should create an independent board to set medium and longer-term targets that would take into account the environment, social issues and the economy.

Greens leader Bob Brown said the new strategy must be matched with action. ''The major parties' population growth plan is outstripping Australia's infrastructure, environmental capacity and affecting quality of life.''
Ads by Google

littlesprout85
07-04-2010, 07:15 PM
Alrighty Then :doh:

Come onz now ppl - lets not stab sprouty in da back before meh even get to the outback. Meh already pretty scared of the naturalization test to become an Australian:wall:

-Sprout85

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2010, 10:23 PM
Generally speaking I support large level of immigration. As far as housing/infrastructure concerned, relaxing strict zoning/regulation will let market solve those problem. Moscow is few times smaller then Melbourne, yet has three times the population.

AzureBlue
07-04-2010, 10:26 PM
Generally speaking I support large level of immigration. As far as housing/infrastructure concerned, relaxing strict zoning/regulation will let market solve those problem. Moscow is few times smaller then Melbourne, yet has three times the population.
Yes, infrastructure, transport and hospital systems etc... definitely need to develop to support a larger population in Australia.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2010, 11:26 PM
But more important is that we gotta teach Australians to start living in small high rise apartments. Sprawling out further and further into the woods doesn't help the environment and only keeps pressure on transport and other services.

AR is dead right on this - the kind of increase in population that is being talked about is going to lead to numerous extinctions and degradation of large areas of habitat unless we get serious about urban infilling (ugly as it is).

Of course that also involves getting waaay more serious about effective public transport and I think that challenge is beyond some of our biggest cities already. Unless we can solve that, might have to look at building up small cities into bigger cities but I know the economies of concentration of population wouldn't be there in such cases.

The good thing is that if the "blow-ins" come mainly from areas that are already crowded they will adapt much more easily to the kind of urban changes we will need to avoid the place being trashed by a population increase. But population increase from breeding by the quarter-acre types and outer-suburban-sprawlers might be a harder problem to manage.

arosar
08-04-2010, 08:12 AM
The good thing is that if the "blow-ins" come mainly from areas that are already crowded they will adapt much more easily to the kind of urban changes we will need to avoid the place being trashed by a population increase.

In that case, bring in more Asians. See those high rise apartments in Sydney's CBD? They got whole families living in them in 1-2 bedroom apartments!

Just joking. A lot of them are actually Asian students just saving dough on accommodation so they can spend their parents' money on the latest designer labels or on tuition fees for a masters from a degree mill. You get the drift.

But look, seriously, these people come here because this country promises them, among many other things, "space". I can hardly imagine an average Tokyoite moving from a shoebox to yet another shoebox.

And so long as Australia, Sydney in particular, keeps finding itself on any "top 10" (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/07/most.livable.cities/index.html?hpt=C1) list of "most livable" country or city, we'll always have people wanting to live here.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2010, 10:50 AM
Generally speaking I support large level of immigration. As far as housing/infrastructure concerned, relaxing strict zoning/regulation will let market solve those problem. Moscow is few times smaller then Melbourne, yet has three times the population.
Of course. The most expensive areas in the USA are the ones with the most regulation. Australia also has plenty of empty space that could be developed. The greenest areas are often those privately owned.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-04-2010, 04:42 PM
Good article my Greg Sheridan
Populate or perish still true (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/populate-or-perish-still-true/story-e6frg6zo-1225851108147)


The huge resources boom we are undergoing has led some to describe Australia as a possible Saudi Arabia of the South Pacific. I can imagine no more revolting a label than that.
Good point, but he is exaggerating.


It's true that rapid population growth poses infrastructure challenges. But the pathetic failure of state governments to provide and manage infrastructure means they all need to be turfed out or reformed.

Garvinator
08-04-2010, 08:42 PM
I think we easily have the space required to accommodate 35 million or so people without having to jam everyone into high rise apartments. That is not the issue. The issue is whether our governments and councils can provide sufficient infrastructure for these 35 million people. Judging by their track record for just 20 million, I think the answer is obvious.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-04-2010, 08:56 PM
The issue is whether our governments and councils can provide sufficient infrastructure for these 35 million people.
They can't, but it's not their job. Let private sector do it.

Desmond
08-04-2010, 09:04 PM
The population will expand to those levels, regardless of whether we shut the doors or not. So it is not really a question of immigration, but one of town planning. Having infrastructure built as the requirment grows would be nice, rather than 10 years too late. But I mean what do you expect from morons who build a 2-lane city bypass road, expect to have to duplicate it in 15 years or so.

littlesprout85
08-04-2010, 09:50 PM
Sims Australia :eh:

-Sprout85 =)

Ian Murray
08-04-2010, 10:58 PM
Population growth is inevitabe, unless we opt for zero immigration and a limit of two kids per family, and hence stagnation. If those options were put to Australians as poll or referendum questions, obviously the vast majority would say no.

So immigration policy becomes a cost/benefit analysis, one which should be decided on a long term basis rather than year-by-year.

There are benefits, not usually considered by the bloke in the street:

National security considerations, as flagged by Igor
Economic growth. More people = more demand for goods and services = larger market, greater economy of scale, lower unit prices for industry
More taxpayers to offset the declining homegrown workforce as the baby boomers from the 40s and 50s retire; more tax dollars to expand infrastructure

The cost is the strain on existing housing, transport and utilities infrastructure, which will always be in catch-up mode

Again the boat-people xenophobia is being used for political gain. The suggestion is that the reinstatement of temporary protection visas, and the repatriation of refugees when the situation stabilises in their countries of origin, will solve the problems of population growth. The figures tell a different story. There were 6200 asylum applications in 2009 (3 per 10,000 population), while the regular immigration quota for 2009/10 is 168700. By origin China was the main source of refugee claimants - all of those arrived by air.

We have a moral obligation to accept refugees, and a legal obligation under international law. It is interesting to compare our performance with other western countries (data from United Nations High Commission for Refugees):-

http://www.caq.org.au/UNHCR1.jpg
http://www.caq.org.au/UNHCR2.jpg

Adamski
08-04-2010, 11:36 PM
Well, for my money, I reckon we gotta immediately put a cap on these blow-ins until the supply of housing catches up. We also need to start taking seriously the infrastructure problem, particularly transport. Look at Sydney. It's a joke!

But more important is that we gotta teach Australians to start living in small high rise apartments. Sprawling out further and further into the woods doesn't help the environment and only keeps pressure on transport and other services.

ARAnd is Japan putting quotas on the number of "Aussies" thay admit in?:)

MichaelBaron
09-04-2010, 12:41 AM
I am a strong supporter of the professional immigration program. We can not only increase our population but also get a lot of professionals and para-professionals who can contribute to our economy. On the other hand, we should close our shores to the so-called ''boat people'' as well as those who are fabricating documents in order to exploit our family migration program. Only genuine family members should be allowed into the country. It does not cost much in countries like Iraq and Bangladesh to buy a certificate saying that you are a brother/sister of some Iraqi-born auzzie citizen as long as the citizen is happy to confirm it. To me, immigration is more about quality than about quantity.

TheJoker
09-04-2010, 12:40 PM
They can't, but it's not their job. Let private sector do it.

Except the private sector is more likely to provide an under allocation of infra-structure resources than the government because a large amount of the benefits of infrastructure cannot be monetised.

TheJoker
09-04-2010, 12:48 PM
I am a strong supporter of the professional immigration program. We can not only increase our population but also get a lot of professionals and para-professionals who can contribute to our economy. On the other hand, we should close our shores to the so-called ''boat people'' as well as those who are fabricating documents in order to exploit our family migration program. Only genuine family members should be allowed into the country. It does not cost much in countries like Iraq and Bangladesh to buy a certificate saying that you are a brother/sister of some Iraqi-born auzzie citizen as long as the citizen is happy to confirm it. To me, immigration is more about quality than about quantity.

I'd add that we should maintain the focus on immigration for educated youth. As I don't think the aging population is really an issue since we can simply balance the demographic by allowing young people to migrate. I suspect countries like india have a large number of young well educated people who would be happy to migrate to Australia given the opportunity

Igor_Goldenberg
09-04-2010, 01:44 PM
Except the private sector is more likely to provide an under allocation of infra-structure resources than the government because a large amount of the benefits of infrastructure cannot be monetised.
It depends on the type of infrastructure. Private sector will be more then happy to build houses, factories, shops and shopping centres, etc. They'll be happy to build car parks if they can operate them and charge fee.
Road improvement is a bit more problematic because it's in government hand.
However, large population = large tax base + higher productivity (higher specialisation or economy of scale)=>higher tax intake as well. More then enough money for government to squander on pet projects, something could even be left for the roads.
Phone lines, gas and water pipelines and electricity grid will be happily developed by private sector.

Is there anything I left out apart from the roads?

ER
09-04-2010, 02:13 PM
Is there anything I left out apart from the roads?

Education? Spending my hard earned cash for social security handouts? What do I care? till I retire I will spend EVERYTHING I have so I can live on social security handouts till I can spend no more! :P
Talking immigration you people seem to take land, state, country ownership too seriously! :eek:

TheJoker
09-04-2010, 04:08 PM
It depends on the type of infrastructure. Private sector will be more then happy to build houses, factories, shops and shopping centres, etc. They'll be happy to build car parks if they can operate them and charge fee.
Road improvement is a bit more problematic because it's in government hand.
However, large population = large tax base + higher productivity (higher specialisation or economy of scale)=>higher tax intake as well. More then enough money for government to squander on pet projects, something could even be left for the roads.
Phone lines, gas and water pipelines and electricity grid will be happily developed by private sector.

Is there anything I left out apart from the roads?

Hospitals, Schools and Parks.

Also certain utilities infrastructures are natural monopolies (e.g. gas and water pipelines and electricity grid) which again leads to an under allocation.

BTW I am not saying we should limit immigration due to infrastrucuture constraints, rather that we should invest in public infrastructure to facilitate immigration.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-04-2010, 05:03 PM
Hospitals, Schools and Parks.

We differ on the view how Medicine and School should be funded, but even if they are taxpayer funded, growing population provides bigger tax base to pay for it.
And funding for Parks? Not sure I understand what you mean.



Also certain utilities infrastructures are natural monopolies (e.g. gas and water pipelines and electricity grid) which again leads to an under allocation.

Higher consumer base provides more then enough funds to upgrade facilities
(without going into debate about "natural monopolies" where we also disagree).



BTW I am not saying we should limit immigration due to infrastrucuture constraints, rather that we should invest in public infrastructure to facilitate immigration.
Some politicians, including Liberal spokesman for climate action, environment and heritage Greg Hunt (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/more-people-in-an-ailing-infrastructure-wont-make-a-big-country/story-e6frg6zo-1225851579053) argue that immigration should follow improved infrastructure (if I got his view correctly, which is difficult when dealing with a politician). They probably don't understand basic economy principals that it should be another way around - immigration will drive demand for, among many other things, infrastructure.

As long as vast majority of immigrants skilled and young it will pay for itself many times. I remember that Keating government introduced two year waiting period for receiving welfare. It was only properly enforced and made unconditional by Howard government. That created disincentives for "welfare immigrants", but not, IMO, sufficient.

Boat people problem is not related to immigration/population policy, it's a matter of strict border control that must be exercised by any sovereign state. Some countries even have a mandatory jail term for border violation, including unlawful entry.

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2010, 03:48 PM
Except the private sector is more likely to provide an under allocation of infra-structure resources than the government because a large amount of the benefits of infrastructure cannot be monetised.
Most unlikely. Private sector is more likely to maintain its assets; politicians want to be remembered for building new ones and allowing old ones to decay.

Furthermore, Burt Folsom points out (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=595):


Put another way–privately run companies have strong advantages over government run (or subsidized) companies. The Ford example is one of many. John Jacob Astor, the first American to be worth $10 million, built his fortune on his privately run American Fur Company. A government-subsidized fur company was his chief competitor, and it eventually lagged so far behind Astor that Congress finally shut it down in the 1820s. In railroads, James J. Hill privately financed his Great Northern Railroad–the only transcontinental railroad never to go bankrupt. By contrast, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads–with massive federal aid–both went broke during the 1890s and both consumed millions of taxpayer dollars in financing.

When people run their own businesses, they try to appeal to other people to buy their products. When the federal government gets involved, it skews the incentives. Soon we have CEOs trying to secure federal aid from Congress more than they are trying to make products people want to buy. The historical record suggests that a free economy works better for customers than an economy riddled with federal subsidies and a web of regulations.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2010, 07:10 AM
Population growth is inevitable, unless we opt for zero immigration and a limit of two kids per family ...
There's no need for a limit of "two kids per family" ... there are plenty of people who choose to live alone (or who cannot find a partner of the opposite sex, or who are homosexual), those who are incapable physiologically of having children, those who choose not to have any children, those who choose to have only one child, those who have children that die before they grow up and reach child-bearing age, and so on. Just removing the artifical baby bonus payments would have a noticable impact in reducing population growth (and improve our long-term national IQ situation to boot). Without artificial factors such as baby bonus and immigration, our population would stabilise and might even go backwards long-term.

Ian Murray
11-04-2010, 07:48 AM
There's no need for a limit of "two kids per family" ... there are plenty of people who choose to live alone (or who cannot find a partner of the opposite sex, or who are homosexual), those who are incapable physiologically of having children, those who choose not to have any children, those who choose to have only one child, those who have children that die before they grow up and reach child-bearing age, and so on. Just removing the artifical baby bonus payments would have a noticable impact in reducing population growth (and improve our long-term national IQ situation to boot). Without artificial factors such as baby bonus and immigration, our population would stabilise and might even go backwards long-term.
Make it 2.4 - any lower leads to stagnation

Desmond
11-04-2010, 08:22 AM
Rudd labelled a redneck by the greens (http://player.video.news.com.au/theaustralian/#1464629245) for his immigration policy. ouch!

MichaelBaron
11-04-2010, 10:31 AM
I'd add that we should maintain the focus on immigration for educated youth. As I don't think the aging population is really an issue since we can simply balance the demographic by allowing young people to migrate. I suspect countries like india have a large number of young well educated people who would be happy to migrate to Australia given the opportunity
Thats right! Thats what I refer to as professional immigration

arosar
14-04-2010, 11:07 PM
I saw this (http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s2862653.htm) and I suddenly missed Sydney. Whatever you think of blow-ins, they raised the cuisine of skippies from fish n' chips to something more sophisticated. That's for sure.

AR

arosar
16-04-2010, 09:31 AM
Never mind the immigration policy. How about the interaction of our local laws and blow-ins with questionable cultures and practices?

Chief Justice Jim Spigelman didn't hold back (http://www.smh.com.au/national/sexist-migrants-create-legal-problem-20100415-shs6.html).

AR

AzureBlue
17-04-2010, 08:04 PM
I'm doing a debate on this in the coming week - I think it's mainly development/infrastructure problems with transport, schools, housing - we can't support a large population yet without developing all of these. Also jobs I think and apparently there's a cultural/social issue too with the identity of Australia or something. I'll do more research tomorrow :)

Igor_Goldenberg
06-07-2010, 02:17 PM
Recent announcement by Gillard and Abbott brought immigration policy in spotlight. I think it's very important to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Howard government had excellent policy that virtually stopped illegal immigration (while increasing skilled migration and refugee quote). Labor policy on legal immigration is quite vague (still don't know how to interpret Gillard's remark that she does not support "big Australia"). So far they more or less follow Coalition footsteps.
However, Labor policy on illegal immigration was proved to be an utter failure. Many deaths, thousands of people in detention centres, extra billion dollars wasted, etc.
Now Gillard is going back to Liberal policy, at the same time spinning that it's not a "Pacific solution" (where East Timor and New Zealand are located:doh: :doh: ).

TheJoker
06-07-2010, 02:29 PM
Recent announcement by Gillard and Abbott brought immigration policy in spotlight. I think it's very important to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Howard government had excellent policy that virtually stopped illegal immigration (while increasing skilled migration and refugee quote). Labor policy on legal immigration is quite vague (still don't know how to interpret Gillard's remark that she does not support "big Australia"). So far they more or less follow Coalition footsteps.
However, Labor policy on illegal immigration was proved to be an utter failure. Many deaths, thousands of people in detention centres, extra billion dollars wasted, etc.
Now Gillard is going back to Liberal policy, at the same time spinning that it's not a "Pacific solution" (where East Timor and New Zealand are located:doh: :doh: ).

Always thought that Keating's policy on illegal immigration which Howard continued was a reasonable trade-off.

I'd certainly consider voting for the Libs if Labour adopts a policy of legal immigration that discriminates based on ethnicity or culture.

Ian Murray
06-07-2010, 10:24 PM
Recent announcement by Gillard and Abbott brought immigration policy in spotlight. I think it's very important to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration.....
True. Of course asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants - refugees have a legal right to seek asylum in another country

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 09:01 AM
True. Of course asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants - refugees have a legal right to seek asylum in another country
Of course they are - genuine refugees don't pay people smugglers, but follow the legal process.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 09:10 AM
Excellent piece by Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_gillards_great_con/)




The worst of it - in a speech riddled with this cancer - came when Gillard announced she hoped one day to send all boat people to East Timor for processing, so they couldn’t be sure they’d end up here for the $10,000 they’d paid a people smuggler.

Sound familiar? Yes, it’s the same “Pacific Solution” John Howard once had and which Gillard condemned year after year as cruel, costly and useless.

Here she is just last year: “We also said to the Australian people ... we were going to end the Pacific Solution which had cost so much money for so little result.”

Here she is in 2007: “We have committed to ending the so-called Pacific Solution, we would not have offshore processing in Manus Island and Nauru.”

So the difference now is ... ? Well, Gillard’s plan is to send boat people this time not to Nauru but East Timor, which to the Left is a holy land. Think Gusmao. Viva the Revolution!

“My Government is not interested in pursuing a new Pacific Solution,” she said without blushing. We’re not doing what you see us doing.

And guess what? Just hearing our charming first female Prime Minister insist her Pacific Solution was not a Pacific Solution was all it took to have some commentators doubt their own judgment, and praise as “balanced” a plan they’d damned in Howard as inhumane. What a country.


Read the whole article, it's worth it.

TheJoker
07-07-2010, 10:37 AM
Of course they are - genuine refugees don't pay people smugglers, but follow the legal process.

Not necessarily true there is no reason one can't be a genuine refugee (i.e. fleeing persecution in one's own country) and also willing to pay a people smuggler to bring them to Australia. I wouldn't be surprised if most genuine refugees do not have the capability to follow the Australian legal process for being admitted as a refugee.

I am not saying that all people that arrive on boats are genuine refugees, but arriving on a boat doesn't exclude someone from being a genuine asylum seeker

Ian Murray
07-07-2010, 10:45 AM
Of course asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants - refugees have a legal right to seek asylum in another country

Of course they are - genuine refugees don't pay people smugglers, but follow the legal process.
Rubbish. The vast majority of 'boat people' asylum seekers are granted refugee status after security and character screening and allowed entry into Australia - see Immigration Dept report (http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2008-09/html/outcome1/output1-2-2.htm)

For the humanitarian side of the story, not the political football game, see http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/3%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20 asylum%20seekers%20media%202010.pdf

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 11:01 AM
Rubbish. The vast majority of 'boat people' asylum seekers are granted refugee status after security and character screening and allowed entry into Australia - see Immigration Dept report (http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2008-09/html/outcome1/output1-2-2.htm)

Whether they are granted refugee status or not does not alter the fact that they entered Australia illegally - hence they are illegal entrants.

As for being genuine - here is an example (again thanks to Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/its_like_a_jew_going_back_to_hitlers_germany_for_a _holiday_or_not_really/)):

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/ref3_thumb.jpg

Excuse me? We’ve helped a refugee escape persecution so terrible in Afghanistan that he travels back three times on holiday? And on his latest trip stays there three months?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 11:05 AM
For every illegal entrant granted refugee status there is one less lawful refugee (who applies for the visa legally!) accepted.
Australia takes 13750 refugees a year. If it takes 1500 illegal entrants as refugees, it takes only 12250 legal entrants as refugees. Don't remember leftists bleating about their fate.

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2010, 11:23 AM
Indeed, there is a huge cost and hassle to legal immigration in both Australia and America, and illegals make the queue longer.

TheJoker
07-07-2010, 11:33 AM
Whether they are granted refugee status or not does not alter the fact that they entered Australia illegally - hence they are illegal entrants

I am not sure but I think you are wrong there. Isn't it is perfectly legal to enter Australia without a valid visa provided you are a genuine asylum seeker.

Given that many refugees are fleeing from warring states, I doubt they have the time or ability to fill out a refugee application and wait for DIAC to process that application.

Goughfather
07-07-2010, 12:03 PM
I am not sure but I think you are wrong there. Isn't it is perfectly legal to enter Australia without a valid visa provided you are a genuine asylum seeker.

Given that many refugees are fleeing from warring states, I doubt they have the time or ability to fill out a refugee application and wait for DIAC to process that application.

Kind of ironic how these righties want to insist upon the bureacratic process being followed by those who don't have the means or the opportunity to follow it while they complain about being hamstrung by bureaucracy themselves :rolleyes:

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 12:04 PM
Kind of ironic how these righties want to insist upon the bureacratic process being followed by those who don't have the means or the opportunity to follow it while they complain about being hamstrung by bureaucracy themselves :rolleyes:
That they have the means to keep people smugglers completely escapes lefties mind

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 12:05 PM
I am not sure but I think you are wrong there. Isn't it is perfectly legal to enter Australia without a valid visa provided you are a genuine asylum seeker.

Given that many refugees are fleeing from warring states, I doubt they have the time or ability to fill out a refugee application and wait for DIAC to process that application.

But they don't come directly from the warring states, they go through Indonesia or Malaysia.

TheJoker
07-07-2010, 12:20 PM
But they don't come directly from the warring states, they go through Indonesia or Malaysia.

Indonesia has not signed the refugee convention and is therefore under no obligation to accept refugees, unlike Australia. Is indonesia willing to given them refugee status? If not then they will be forced to move on. Also, the law does not require an asylum seeker to seek asylum at their first port of call. Certainly Indonesia would seem the safest place for someone fleeing radical Islamist persecution.

Not sure about Malaysia. Regardless I still think you are wrong to call them illegal immigrants if they are genuine asylum seekers, as AFAIK the law gives them the right to enter and seek asylum in Australia without a valid visa.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 12:23 PM
Indonesia has not signed the refugee convention and is therefore under no obligation to accept refugees, unlike Australia. Is indonesia willing to given them refugee status? If not then they will be forced to move on. Also, the law does not require an asylum seeker to seek asylum at their first port of call. Certainly Indonesia would seem the safest place for someone fleeing radical Islamist persecution.

Not sure about Malaysia. Regardless I still think you are wrong to call them illegal immigrants if they are genuine asylum seekers, as AFAIK the law gives them the right to enter and seek asylum in Australia without a valid visa.
The point is that they are not in the imminent danger in Indonesia or Malaysia.
And given the amount they pay to people smugglers (which is substantial even by Australian standard and would be a fortune in the most countries they come from) I doubt many of them are genuine refugees.

TheJoker
07-07-2010, 12:50 PM
Some Interesting Statistics on Boat People Arrivals:

Average number of Arrivals per year:

Fraser Government: 294 (peak 868)

Hawke Government: 49 (peak 214)

Keating Government: 429 (peak 660)

Howard Government: 1,286 (peak 5,516)

Rudd Government: 161 (2008), 2750 (2009), 2982 (first half 2010)


Biggest year-on-year increase 3,521 (1999 Howard)

Biggest year-on-year decrease 5,515 (2002 Howard)

Source: www.aph.gov.au

TheJoker
07-07-2010, 01:03 PM
The point is that they are not in the imminent danger in Indonesia or Malaysia. .

They might not be in imminent danger in Indonesia, but what is Indonesia's policy with regard to asylum seekers does it simply deport them to their country of origin (where presumably they would be in imminent danger)?


And given the amount they pay to people smugglers (which is substantial even by Australian standard and would be a fortune in the most countries they come from) I doubt many of them are genuine refugees.

Being rich does not preclude someone from being a persecuted in their own country. Many of Jewish persecuted under the Nazi regime weren't exactly poor, and probably paid a handsome amount to escape Germany, would you deny that these people genuine asylum seeker status.

Personally I think anyone who is facing persecution in their home country should be able to seek asylum in Australia, regardless of how they got here or their financial status.

What I do agree with is that we need tough enough policies to non-genuine asylum seekers. And also tough policies that deter people smuggling and excessive risk taking in getting to Australia on unseaworthy craft.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 01:18 PM
Personally I think anyone who is facing persecution in their home country should be able to seek asylum in Australia, regardless of how they got here or their financial status.
Who is currently facing persecution in Iraq or Afghanistan?

TheJoker
07-07-2010, 01:30 PM
Who is currently facing persecution in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Buggered if I know. I am not familiar enough with what's happening on the ground in those countries to make a comment. That should left up to the experts to decide. I certainly wouldn't want rule out the possibility of an individual being persecuted in those or any other country.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 03:34 PM
I think its more a case of the fact that some the criticisms are still valid, it's a costly solution no doubt, I suspect it is still more expensive to maintain a fewer detainees offshore, than more detainees onshore. It's debateable that the increase in effectiveness in deterring boat arrivals offsets the additional cost. It's still inhumane to detain children.
Given virtual absence of boats in the last Howards years, it must'be been effective.


The difference is that the alternate solution turned out to be "worse". The other problem is that onshore mandatory dentention can quickly turn into a political nightmare with media and protestors etc. remember Woomera. So basically it the best option we've got warts and all (if we are intent on protecting the privledges that we have being Australian).


No argument here.

Ian Murray
07-07-2010, 07:40 PM
“Boat people are illegal immigrants.”

Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a
person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.

In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe or practicable for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels. Refugees are, by definition, persons fleeing persecution and in most cases are being persecuted by their own government. It is often too dangerous for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or approach an Australian Embassy for a visa, as such actions could put their lives, and the lives of their families, at risk. Refugees may also be forced to flee with little notice due to rapidly deteriorating situations and do not have time to apply for travel documents or arrange travel through authorised channels. Permitting asylum seekers to entry a country without travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency – the action would be ordinarily be considered illegal, but the circumstances warrant an exception.

It is also incorrect to refer to asylum seekers as migrants. A migrant is someone who chooses to leave their country to seek a better life. They decide where they migrate to and they can return whenever they like. Refugees are forced to leave their country and cannot return unless the situation that forced them to leave improves. Some are forced to flee with no warning; significant numbers of them have suffered torture and trauma. The concerns of refugees are human rights and safety, not economic advantage.

Myths and Facts about Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Refugee Council of Australia
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/3%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20 asylum%20seekers%20media%202010.pdf

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 08:11 PM
Should "boat people" go into the same queue as would-be refugee applying from overseas?
Or should they be given priority in their application consideration?

pax
07-07-2010, 10:07 PM
However, Labor policy on illegal immigration was proved to be an utter failure. Many deaths, thousands of people in detention centres, extra billion dollars wasted, etc.

Sorry, what? Both the Tampa and the SIEV X occurred under the Howard government's watch..

Goughfather
07-07-2010, 10:29 PM
Should "boat people" go into the same queue as would-be refugee applying from overseas?
Or should they be given priority in their application consideration?

They should be assessed in line with applicable international law to which Australia is a signatory.

Do you disagree?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 10:42 PM
Sorry, what? Blaoth the Tampa and the SIEV X occurred under the Howard government's watch..
Howard policy prevented repeat of the SIEVX tragedy, while Labor policy lead to more then 170 dead (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_why_no_tears_now_for_dead_asylum_seekers/).

Ian Murray
08-07-2010, 09:38 AM
“Asylum seekers who arrive on boats take places away from genuine refugees in overseas camps.”

Refugees who seek protection onshore are no less “genuine” than refugees who are resettled from offshore. Refugees who are resettled in Australia, regardless of whether they apply onshore or offshore, must meet the criteria for refugee status outlined in the UN Refugee Convention. These criteria do not make any distinction between those refugees who arrive with authorisation and those who don’t.

The myth that onshore applicants take places away from offshore applicants does have some basis in truth. However, this is not because onshore asylum seekers are trying to rort the system or “jump the queue” – they have a right to seek asylum onshore and Australia has a legal and moral obligation to protect them. Rather, it is the direct result of Australian Government policy. The onshore and offshore components of Australia’s refugee program are numerically linked, which means that every time an onshore applicant is granted a protection visa, a place is deducted from the offshore program.

The linking policy blurs the distinction between Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the Refugee Convention (addressed through the onshore component) and our voluntary contribution to the sharing of international responsibility for refugees for whom no other durable solution is available (addressed through the offshore component). The perception that there is a “queue” which onshore applicants are trying to evade is created by a policy choice which could easily be changed. No other country in the world links its onshore and offshore programs in this way.

Myths and Facts about Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Refugee Council of Australia
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/3%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20 asylum%20seekers%20media%202010.pdf

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2010, 01:25 PM
The myth that onshore applicants take places away from offshore applicants does have some basis in truth.
Then it's not a myth, is it?

Goughfather
08-07-2010, 02:27 PM
That something is a myth does not, of itself, imply falsehood. A myth is simply a paradigmatic narrative that frames the identity of the particular culture who holds to the myth. As such, it would be fair to say that pretty much all myths have some basis in truth, even if they are not literally true, strictly speaking.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 09:10 AM
Two questions to all lefties:
1. Which policy instituted by Howard government let to SIEV X sinking?
2. Which policy instituted by Rudd/Gillard government led to more then 170 death at sea in 2009-2010?

arosar
09-07-2010, 04:08 PM
My view on this can be summarised simply as follows: be humane and be brutal.

That is, let's let this people come here, let's feed them, provide shelter and clothing. But within 2 weeks to no more than a month, let's ship them back out. It's really simple.

I got a couple of problem with these bastards who come here. First, not all of them are genuine refs. Many are, in fact, moneyed. They're basically wanting a better life, looking for better business, not to escape persecution. How the hell do you think they can even afford to pay thousands of $$ to people smugglers? Cos they're rich. Some even friggin' stay in 5 star hotels in Jakarta before being shipped out for our nothern shores.

That's why a lot of these people throw away their IDs. They don't wanna be found out.

Look, there's too much hysterics over this issue. It is a fact that the vast majority of illegals actually arrive here by air. I mean shit, just look in the hundreds of private colleges across our cities! Just look at all these clowns doing postgrad courses: can't speak a f**king word of English but submit essays written in perfect fkn Queen's English. Our universities are becoming a joke. It's a double whammy that, cos not only is it a rort of the immigration system, it's making a mockery of our educational institutions.

AR

arosar
09-07-2010, 04:12 PM
Another thing.

A lot of these people then eventually end up in the immigrant heavy towns like in Western Sydney. Here's news. We don't want them here cos we're full up. The traffic in Bankstown and Parra alone are getting worse. We don't need any more of these blow-ins.

If the government lets them in, send them to WA or Queensland.

AR

Ian Murray
09-07-2010, 09:40 PM
That is, let's let this people come here, let's feed them, provide shelter and clothing. But within 2 weeks to no more than a month, let's ship them back out. It's really simple.
But illegal. We are bound to assess their asylum claims and admit those who qualify for refugee status. Those who don't are deported


I got a couple of problem with these bastards who come here. First, not all of them are genuine refs. Many are, in fact, moneyed. They're basically wanting a better life, looking for better business, not to escape persecution. How the hell do you think they can even afford to pay thousands of $$ to people smugglers?
You don't have to be poor to be a refugee. And if they're looking for a soft ride, why on earth would they risk their lives heading for Australia when there are closer, more welcoming countries?


That's why a lot of these people throw away their IDs. They don't wanna be found out.
They don't throw away their ID, they can't obtain exit documents in the first place


Look, there's too much hysterics over this issue. It is a fact that the vast majority of illegals actually arrive here by air.
They're not illegals. Those arriving by air travel on temporary visas (e.g. tourist, visitor) then seek asylum. Perfectly legal, and much cheaper and safer than via the people smugglers

Goughfather
09-07-2010, 10:03 PM
You don't have to be poor to be a refugee.

Indeed, Ian. I don't know why some people can't grasp the idea that some refugees were quite well off financially before any one of a number of factors led to their continued existence in the country of origin becoming unviable. One quite common example is regime change, which has a tendency to change one's prospects in a country very quickly indeed.

One question I'd pose to some of the righties on this board is why so-called rich asylum seekers would travel in an unseaworthy vessel, when it would be within their financial means to travel over here by plane and then seek asylum? I'd suggest that either they are not nearly so "moneyed" as suggested and that in fact many asylum seekers give their entire life savings to secure a berth in such vessels, or condition political conditions in their country of origin make coming to Australia extremely dangerous, indeed moreso than spending six months on a leaky boat.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2010, 11:43 PM
And if they're looking for a soft ride, why on earth would they risk their lives heading for Australia when there are closer, more welcoming countries?
Because they realized that KRudd was a soft touch. Most countries are much less welcoming. E.g. Mexico, which whinges at Arizona trying to enforce the federal laws against illegal immigrants, is very strict about their own southern immigrants.


They don't throw away their ID, they can't obtain exit documents in the first place.
Many of the same leftards who profess compassion for refugees now just loved the former Soviet Union that kept its people in.


They're not illegals. Those arriving by air travel on temporary visas (e.g. tourist, visitor) then seek asylum. Perfectly legal, and much cheaper and safer than via the people smugglers
And permanent legal immigration should be made much less costly and difficult.

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 01:45 AM
Because they realized that KRudd was a soft touch. Most countries are much less welcoming. E.g. Mexico, which whinges at Arizona trying to enforce the federal laws against illegal immigrants, is very strict about their own southern immigrants.
Mexico?? Get serious. The main receiving countries are:
Share of main receiving countries of asylum-seekers in total number of applications
Country/year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
United States 15% 17% 15% 13% 13%
France 15% 10% 9% 9% 11%
Canada 6% 8% 8% 10% 9%
United Kingdom 9% 9% 8% 8% 8%
Germany 9% 7% 6% 6% 7%
Sweden 5% 8% 11% 6% 6%
Italy 3% 3% 4% 8% 5%
Norway 2% 2% 2% 4% 5%
Belgium 5% 4% 3% 3% 5%
Greece 3% 4% 8% 5% 4%

Some Australians may believe that we're a magnet to asylum seekers, but in fact we're just an also-ran in the overall scheme of things


Many of the same leftards who profess compassion for refugees now just loved the former Soviet Union that kept its people in.
None I know!


And permanent legal immigration should be made much less costly and difficult.
Agreed, including asylum seekers

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2010, 10:08 AM
Two questions to all lefties:
1. Which policy instituted by Howard government let to SIEV X sinking?
2. Which policy instituted by Rudd/Gillard government led to more then 170 death at sea in 2009-2010?

Any takers?

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Any takers?
You probably had the luxury of arriving here by air, Igor, but my forebears were boat people six generations ago, resettled here courtesy of the British penal system. Fortunately (for me) there was no quota system for unauthorised arrivals at the time - any objections by the existing population were quelled by force of arms

Spiny Norman
10-07-2010, 10:31 AM
Mexico?? Get serious. The main receiving countries are:<snip>
Ian, what are the percentages as a percentage of the receiving country's population ... and what are they when added to that country's total-immigration-as-a-percentage-of-population?

If you run those numbers (I haven't), I suspect you will discover that Australia has one of the highest (if not THE highest) total immigration rates of any western country.

But I might be wrong ... does anyone know how to obtain those figures, and/or calculate them?

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Mexico?? Get serious.
Re-read what I said. Mexico has extremely strict rules for immigrants who try to cross their southern border--far stricter than the Arizona law they are bleating about.


Some Australians may believe that we're a magnet to asylum seekers, but in fact we're just an also-ran in the overall scheme of things
So why are people trying to come here then?


None I know!
Lots that I knew in my time. Even now, being a "former communist" is not regarded as so bad, yet it should make one as much a pariah as "former Nazi", given the greater death toll under Communism.

Furthermore, given the number of countries producing refugees, why do so many leftards love the UN, comprising mainly the thugs they are seeking refuge from?


Agreed, including asylum seekers
Right.

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Ian, what are the percentages as a percentage of the receiving country's population ... and what are they when added to that country's total-immigration-as-a-percentage-of-population?

If you run those numbers (I haven't), I suspect you will discover that Australia has one of the highest (if not THE highest) total immigration rates of any western country.

But I might be wrong ... does anyone know how to obtain those figures, and/or calculate them?
There are some comparison tables for refugees here (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/stats-01.html)

The foreign-born percentage of OECD populations (at 2001) is shown here (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/5/33868740.pdf), with Australia the highest after Luxembourg. However the value of the comparisons is questionable - stable highly-populated European countries vs Australia with a rapid population growth policy.

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 12:25 PM
Re-read what I said. Mexico has extremely strict rules for immigrants who try to cross their southern border--far stricter than the Arizona law they are bleating about.
I know what you said - totally irrelevant to the Australian situation and the overall intake of refugees worldwide


So why are people trying to come here then?
The people-smuggling sales pitch looks a lot more attractive than moving their families into refugee camps. I imagine the pitch doesn't mention that air travel is cheaper and safer


Lots that I knew in my time. Even now, being a "former communist" is not regarded as so bad, yet it should make one as much a pariah as "former Nazi", given the greater death toll under Communism.
Equally, rightards loved fascism in its day


Furthermore, given the number of countries producing refugees, why do so many leftards love the UN, comprising mainly the thugs they are seeking refuge from?
You're equating the General Assembly with the UN humanitarian agencies. I don't.

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2010, 01:13 PM
I know what you said - totally irrelevant to the Australian situation and the overall intake of refugees worldwide
Totally relevant to the leftist hypocrisy on illegal immigration, since hardly a peep is raised at the far harsher laws in Mexico and many other countries.


Equally, rightards loved fascism in its day
No they didn't. Fascism was a movement of the Left. American progressives (i.e. "liberals") regarded them as kindred spirits until their militarism, since they loved big government, minimum wage laws, high taxes and rigidly secular education. If by "rightards" you mean supporters of the free market and traditional morality, then the fascists opposed them.


You're equating the General Assembly with the UN humanitarian agencies. I don't.
Why not? Many thugs are on the UN Human Rights Commission. Anything connected with the UN thugocracy should not be trusted.

Spiny Norman
10-07-2010, 03:09 PM
The foreign-born percentage of OECD populations (at 2001) is shown here (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/5/33868740.pdf), with Australia the highest after Luxembourg. However the value of the comparisons is questionable - stable highly-populated European countries vs Australia with a rapid population growth policy.
Interesting that we were high on the list in 2001, and our rate of immigration has increased massively since 2001 ... see http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/popflows2008-09/pop-flows-chapter2.pdf ... table 2-1 shows it has almost doubled since then.

According to this report:
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-population-has-reached-22-million-abs-statistics-show/story-e6frfkvr-1225845408880

our population growth (natural + migration) is double the world average. 66% of that growth is due to migration.

I think its way more than is sustainable, given other government polices (refusal to release enough land for housing, refusal to build more dams for water supply, refusal to build more power stations, etc).

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2010, 03:25 PM
You probably had the luxury of arriving here by air, Igor, but my forebears were boat people six generations ago, resettled here courtesy of the British penal system. Fortunately (for me) there was no quota system for unauthorised arrivals at the time - any objections by the existing population were quelled by force of arms
I take it your ancestors arrived here legally (as I did), so what's the problem?
Btw, my brother and friend of my arrived here by boat as well. However, they obtain Australian visa first.
And how is it relevant to the questions I asked? (and you quoted)

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2010, 03:29 PM
The foreign-born percentage of OECD populations (at 2001) is shown here (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/5/33868740.pdf), with Australia the highest after Luxembourg.
Nothing wrong with high level of immigration - btw I am on record supporting it.
As long as they arrive lawfully and legally.

Spiny Norman
10-07-2010, 04:02 PM
Nothing wrong with high level of immigration - btw I am on record supporting it.
As long as they arrive lawfully and legally.
Interesting.

Tell me Igor, if 100,000,000 legal immigrants arrived each year in Australia, would you support that? I suspect not. If not, then what is discovered is that there are differing opinions as to what constitutes a reasonable (or useful, or sustainable, or whatever ...) level of legal immigration.

Or even if the level stays at around 180,000/year, but this continues for the next 100 years, increasing in proportion to our overal population, which leads us to a population of 50-60 million (or perhaps a lot more) without the resources to sustain that population ... do you support that?

Some people (typically business people in my experience) favour more immigration. I think these profit-motivated interests ought to be resisted, as the cost will be problems with cultural and social cohesion.

Basil
10-07-2010, 04:15 PM
I don't have so much time for the board atm, but I'd really really really like for the theoretical pointy-headed lefties in this thread to get stuck into the Gillard government for her disgusting? adoption of Liberal party policy.

Forget The Libs (they can't help it, right?) but what about some self-respect and public denigration of the despicable Gillard and the despicable Rudd which tried to race the Libs into this policy :wall:

Lefties make me wanna puke.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2010, 04:15 PM
Interesting.

Tell me Igor, if 100,000,000 legal immigrants arrived each year in Australia, would you support that? I suspect not. If not, then what is discovered is that there are differing opinions as to what constitutes a reasonable (or useful, or sustainable, or whatever ...) level of legal immigration.

Or even if the level stays at around 180,000/year, but this continues for the next 100 years, increasing in proportion to our overal population, which leads us to a population of 50-60 million (or perhaps a lot more) without the resources to sustain that population ... do you support that?

Some people (typically business people in my experience) favour more immigration. I think these profit-motivated interests ought to be resisted, as the cost will be problems with cultural and social cohesion.
While 100M is way too much, current level of between 200,000 and 300,000 is quite good (as long as it's mostly skilled migration).
As for resources to sustain population - increase in population (mostly working!) creates a demand sufficient to provide infrastructure.
Skilled migrants pay their way, which leads to economic growth.
Business people you mentioned are, as usual, on the money.
Higher population means higher specialisation that leads to a higher productivity.
It also increases the tax-base, which means the government will have money for the bit of infrastructure it's currently responsible for (roads, some utilities, etc.)
The only drawback is that government will have more money for pork-barrelling.
Cultural and social cohesion is an issue. To solve it we need throw out the idols of multiculturalism and political correctness. We need to collect statistics of how migrants from different countries/regions integrate, and determine the quotas accordingly.

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 08:02 PM
I take it your ancestors arrived here legally (as I did), so what's the problem?
As do the current boat people, so what's your problem?

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2010, 08:54 PM
As do the current boat people, so what's your problem?
How many of them have Australian Visa (as required by law)?
How about other questions?

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 09:41 PM
How many of them have Australian Visa (as required by law)?
How about other questions?
Asylum seekers are not required by law to have a visa. They break no laws by seeking asylum. Australia is required by law, however, to give them protection while assessing their refugee status

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2010, 09:56 PM
Asylum seekers are not required by law to have a visa. They break no laws by seeking asylum. Australia is required by law, however, to give them protection while assessing their refugee status

Fact Sheet 95 - Documents Needed to Enter Australia (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/95documents.htm)


Everyone travelling to Australia needs an approved travel document, visa or authority to enter Australia.
.............................
All other non-citizens, including people who migrated and now live in Australia permanently, must hold valid visas or authorities for re-entry to Australia.



Could you quote current Australian legislation that supports your view?

Garvinator
10-07-2010, 10:10 PM
Asylum seekers are not required by law to have a visa. They break no laws by seeking asylum. Australia is required by law, however, to give them protection while assessing their refugee statusThey are 'required' to give them protection, but asylum seekers have no formal Australian status until their asylum claims are verified and approved.

It does not matter if this processing of asylum claims occurs on Christmas Island, Naura or some other island, or on the Australian mainland. Their status remains the same.

Overall, I think one of the biggest issues with all this is not how many claims there are, but how long it takes to approve or reject asylum claims.

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 10:12 PM
Everyone travelling to Australia needs an approved travel document, visa or authority to enter Australia.
.............................
All other non-citizens, including people who migrated and now live in Australia permanently, must hold valid visas or authorities for re-entry to Australia.

Could you quote current Australian legislation that supports your view?
Overview

Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program offers protection to asylum seekers who have entered Australia, either without a visa or as temporary entrants, and who are found to be owed Australia’s protection under the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and relevant Australian laws.

Protection visa

Asylum seekers who are found to be owed Australia's protection under the Refugees Convention, and who satisfy health, character and security requirements, are granted a permanent Protection visa.

http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm

Ian Murray
10-07-2010, 10:16 PM
They are 'required' to give them protection, but asylum seekers have no formal Australian status until their asylum claims are verified and approved.

It does not matter if this processing of asylum claims occurs on Christmas Island, Naura or some other island, or on the Australian mainland. Their status remains the same.

Overall, I think one of the biggest issues with all this is not how many claims there are, but how long it takes to approve or reject asylum claims.
The benchmark Immigration best-practice policy is to complete processing within 90 days, with most completed within 42 days. Their strike rate is pretty good - 90+% from memory

Rincewind
10-07-2010, 10:17 PM
Could you quote current Australian legislation that supports your view?

Asylum seekers are protection visa applicants. As they are awaiting their application to be determined they are usually visa-less. They do not require a visa to seek asylum provided they are bona fide refugees, as defined in the United Nations 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol. If they are determined to not be valid applicants then they are expelled.

Spiny Norman
11-07-2010, 11:28 AM
For the record, I don't agree with business people who are pushing for higher levels of migration to Australia. I want to see Australia reach a stable population level and there is no sign as yet of anyone credible in politics in this country who wants to see that.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 04:47 PM
Overview

Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program offers protection to asylum seekers who have entered Australia, either without a visa or as temporary entrants, and who are found to be owed Australia’s protection under the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and relevant Australian laws.

Protection visa

Asylum seekers who are found to be owed Australia's protection under the Refugees Convention, and who satisfy health, character and security requirements, are granted a permanent Protection visa.

http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm


Asylum seekers are protection visa applicants. As they are awaiting their application to be determined they are usually visa-less. They do not require a visa to seek asylum provided they are bona fide refugees, as defined in the United Nations 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol. If they are determined to not be valid applicants then they are expelled.

Quoted legislation allows asylum seekers to apply for a visa even if they entered Australia illegally. It does not say they can legally enter Australia without visa.

Ian Murray
11-07-2010, 05:06 PM
Quoted legislation allows asylum seekers to apply for a visa even if they entered Australia illegally. It does not say they can legally enter Australia without visa.
Semantics, Igor. They have not entered Australia illegally - they break no laws by arriving to seek asylum. They are granted the protection we owe them under the Refugees Convention while their claims are processed. If approved they are then issued with protection visas; if not approved they are deported.

At no stage are they illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are mostly those who enter Australia on temporary visas and remain after the visas have expired. There are others. like ships' deserters.

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 05:41 PM
Quoted legislation allows asylum seekers to apply for a visa even if they entered Australia illegally. It does not say they can legally enter Australia without visa.

Which legislation are you referring to, Igor? I want the Act and the Section that says that those who come to Australia by boat without travel documents to seek asylum have committed a criminal offence.

And who has quoted the legislation, Igor, because you certainly haven't.

Or, like the rest of your spurious claims, are you going to tell us now that the Australian government *implied* that such asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 06:07 PM
Which legislation are you referring to, Igor? I want the Act and the Section that says that those who come to Australia by boat without travel documents to seek asylum have committed a criminal offence.

And who has quoted the legislation, Igor, because you certainly haven't.

Or, like the rest of your spurious claims, are you going to tell us now that the Australian government *implied* that such asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence?

Read post 85 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=283055&postcount=85)

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 06:23 PM
Semantics, Igor. They have not entered Australia illegally - they break no laws by arriving to seek asylum. They are granted the protection we owe them under the Refugees Convention while their claims are processed. If approved they are then issued with protection visas; if not approved they are deported.

At no stage are they illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are mostly those who enter Australia on temporary visas and remain after the visas have expired. There are others. like ships' deserters.
You can argue semantics if you wish, but please show a law that allows boat arrivals to enter Australia without visa.
If you were right and asylum seekers arrive here legally, why don't they buy a plane ticket which costs a small fraction from what smugglers charger and request asylum in the airport?
If you were right and asylum seekers arrive here legally, why is it illegal to bring them in?

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 07:50 PM
Read post 85 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=283055&postcount=85)

I read post 85. You don't refer to any piece of legislation.

Come on Igor, back up your claim. Which Act, which Section?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 07:53 PM
I read post 85. You don't refer to any piece of legislation.

Come on Igor, back up your claim. Which Act, which Section?
Don't play a fool, read department of immigration website.

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 08:02 PM
Don't play a fool, read department of immigration website.

I'm not here to do your homework, Igor.

If your point was self-evidently clear, you would have satisfied my request for a piece of legislation and a section within that legislation.

I'll ask you again. Which Act, which section?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 09:15 PM
I'm not here to do your homework, Igor.

If your point was self-evidently clear, you would have satisfied my request for a piece of legislation and a section within that legislation.

I'll ask you again. Which Act, which section?
Are you implying department of immigration website is factually incorrect or contradicts current legislation?

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 09:27 PM
Are you implying department of immigration website is factually incorrect or contradicts current legislation?

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating very clearly that contrary to your assertion, you haven't quoted any legislation and that for the fourth time, I'm asking you to provide the Act and Section that stipulates that entering Australian territorial waters for the purpose of seeking asylum is a criminal offence.

If I don't get an answer this time, I think it will be fairly clear to myself and others that you don't have a clue and that as usual, this is a case of you shooting your mouth off when you would have been better off staying silent.

By the way, how is that search going for evidence that Kevin called you (implicitly or otherwise) a homophobic bigot?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 09:57 PM
I'm not implying anything. I'm stating very clearly that contrary to your assertion, you haven't quoted any legislation and that for the fourth time, I'm asking you to provide the Act and Section that stipulates that entering Australian territorial waters for the purpose of seeking asylum is a criminal offence.

You are the only who talks about criminal offence. If you decide to completely disregard Department of Immigration without any reason, it's your problem.


If I don't get an answer this time, I think it will be fairly clear to myself and others that you don't have a clue and that as usual, this is a case of you shooting your mouth off when you would have been better off staying silent.


Coming from someone who hasn't provided a single argument of substance in almost half a thousands posts. Quite pathetic indeed.

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 10:11 PM
You are the only who talks about criminal offence. If you decide to completely disregard Department of Immigration without any reason, it's your problem.

I'm not disregarding anything. Fact sheets are not legal documents. I asked you for the legislative basis for your assertion and you came up with nothing. You lose.


Coming from someone who hasn't provided a single argument of substance in almost half a thousands posts. Quite pathetic indeed.

Given your appalling performance over the last week or so, your assessment of my contribution is worthless. Keep that in mind before you throw your next little tantrum.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 10:23 PM
I'm not disregarding anything. Fact sheets are not legal documents. I asked you for the legislative basis for your assertion and you came up with nothing. You lose.

Declaring yourself a winner does not make you a one.
If you are one of those pettifogger type check Migraton act 1958 Section 4


assessment of my contribution is worthless
Correct to say "as worthless".

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 10:42 PM
Declaring yourself a winner does not make you a one.

I never said anything of the sort. That suggests that exposing your ignorance is some kind of achievement of my part. Given that you do that all by yourself, I'm not claiming any kind of victory.


If you are one of those pettifogger type check Migraton act 1958 Section 4

Now we're getting somewhere - at least you've quoted a piece of legislation and a section within it. The only problem is that it doesn't support your argument in the slightest.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 10:56 PM
Now we're getting somewhere - at least you've quoted a piece of legislation and a section within it. The only problem is that it doesn't support your argument in the slightest.

Another non-declarative argument of substance.

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 11:04 PM
Another non-declarative argument of substance.

The onus is on you to establish that Section 4 supports your argument. Because you're not particularly bright, I'll walk you this slowly. Which subsection(s) in Section 4 do you allege supports your argument and how does it do this?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 11:26 PM
The onus is on you to establish that Section 4 supports your argument. Because you're not particularly bright, I'll walk you this slowly. Which subsection(s) in Section 4 do you allege supports your argument and how does it do this?
You are indeed a pettifogger. Get your bum of the coach and read yourself if your so interested in trivial details. Hint:
Start from the beginning of the section.

Goughfather
11-07-2010, 11:33 PM
I'm a legal practitioner Igor - I know my way around a piece of legislation.

I've read Section 4 a number of times, which is why I'm at a loss as to how you think the Section supports your argument.

Which subsection do you think supports your argument?

Ian Murray
12-07-2010, 12:20 AM
You can argue semantics if you wish, but please show a law that allows boat arrivals to enter Australia without visa.

From the Immigration website, repeated from Post 87:

Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program offers protection to asylum seekers who have entered Australia, either without a visa or as temporary entrants, and who are found to be owed Australia’s protection under the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and relevant Australian laws.

http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm
Note my italicised emphasis - applies to asylum seekers who have entered Australia without a visa or with a temporary visa


If you were right and asylum seekers arrive here legally, why don't they buy a plane ticket which costs a small fraction from what smugglers charger and request asylum in the airport?
I am right, and most of them do arrive by air - only a small fraction are boat people, who most likely buy the people smuggling sales pitch rather than take their families into refugee camps, unaware they can fly in on a tourist visa.


...why is it illegal to bring them in?
If you can't work that out for yourself, there's no point in trying to explain it. Think along the lines of 'profiteering from human misery', 'unsafe vessels' and similar.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 09:07 AM
From the Immigration website, repeated from Post 87:

Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program offers protection to asylum seekers who have entered Australia, either without a visa or as temporary entrants, and who are found to be owed Australia’s protection under the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and relevant Australian laws.

http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm
Note my italicised emphasis - applies to asylum seekers who have entered Australia without a visa or with a temporary visa

That's the point - asylum seekers who entered Australia, even illegally.


I am right, and most of them do arrive by air - only a small fraction are boat people, who most likely buy the people smuggling sales pitch rather than take their families into refugee camps, unaware they can fly in on a tourist visa.

So, you concede that to enter Australia legally one needs at least a tourist visa?


If you can't work that out for yourself, there's no point in trying to explain it. Think along the lines of 'profiteering from human misery', 'unsafe vessels' and similar.
If it was true, they they wouldn't have to use people smugglers.
According to your logic, they don't need any visa, just to board any ship or plane, arrive to Australia and ask for asylum.
Yet I am not aware of anyone boarding a plane, arriving into Australia without any visa and claiming asylum at the border control point.
Can you provide any example?

Goughfather
12-07-2010, 09:49 AM
That's the point - asylum seekers who entered Australia, even illegally.

Ian's quote doesn't use the term "illegally", nor even raise the concept.


So, you concede that to enter Australia legally one needs at least a tourist visa?

When has Ian or myself suggested anything of the sort?


If it was true, they they wouldn't have to use people smugglers.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion?


According to your logic, they don't need any visa, just to board any ship or plane, arrive to Australia and ask for asylum.

It's taken you several pages to work this out? You certainly are quite the bright spark.

Out of a sense of pity for you, I'll help you along in your argument. Section 4 certainly doesn't help you and simply explains the objective of the Act, namely to provide a framework to regulate the movement of people in and out of Australia, on a permanent or a temporary basis. You may have an least given me a prima facie case to answer if you had referred to Section 14 of the Act, which states that a person who does not meet the requirements of Section 13 is classified as an "unlawful non-citizen". However this classification only serves in effect to regulate how such individuals are to be processed and does not serve to provide commentary on the legality of their actions. Nowhere in the Act it is suggested that such individuals are acting illegally or that they are otherwise engaging in a criminal offence and nowhere is a particular penalty imposed on any individual who arrives in Australia without relevant travel documents.

Ian Murray
12-07-2010, 10:21 AM
You beat me to the draw, GF. The defence rests

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 12:26 PM
You beat me to the draw, GF. The defence rests
Come on, he didn't put in a simple argument.

Can you give example of someone arriving to Australia by plane without visa and claiming asylum at the border control?

Rincewind
12-07-2010, 12:32 PM
Come on, he didn't put in a simple argument.

Can you give example of someone arriving to Australia by plane without visa and claiming asylum at the border control?

I would say nice bait-and-switch but that presupposes a degree of premeditation. So instead I'll just ask, do you now concede the error you made in post #83?


How many of them have Australian Visa (as required by law)?

Since you are unable to point to the law they are breaking.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 12:59 PM
I would say nice bait-and-switch but that presupposes a degree of premeditation. So instead I'll just ask, do you now concede the error you made in post #83?
Since you are unable to point to the law they are breaking.
In post 85 I provided a link to Department of Immigration website, which says that non-citizens must have a visa to enter Australia.

TheJoker
12-07-2010, 01:11 PM
In post 85 I provided a link to Department of Immigration website, which says that non-citizens must have a visa to enter Australia.

How do you then explain the following passage from the linked website?


Anyone who arrives without a visa, an authority for re-entry or an Australian or New Zealand passport may be refused entry to Australia or have their entry delayed until their identities and claims to enter Australia have been checked.

To me it implies that a person may be permitted to enter Australia despite arriving without a valid visa, as long as they have a valid claim to do so (which presumably includes seekeing asylum).

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 01:20 PM
How do you then explain the following passage from the linked website?


Anyone who arrives without a visa, an authority for re-entry or an Australian or New Zealand passport may be refused entry to Australia or have their entry delayed until their identities and claims to enter Australia have been checked.
To me it implies that a person may be permitted to enter Australia despite arriving without a valid visa, as long as they have a valid claim to do so (which presumably includes seekeing asylum).
My understanding that if they arrive without a valid visa, they are refused entry until they obtain a visa (e.g. permission to entry).

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 01:29 PM
I'm a legal practitioner Igor
I should've guessed by your lack of manners, abusive language and complete shallowness of argument. Your also have a chance to qualify for all meanings of the word pettifogger.



- I know my way around a piece of legislation.

Former does not necessary imply latter.



I've read Section 4 a number of times

Congratulation on the effort, even though once is usually sufficient for most of us.


, which is why I'm at a loss...
No comments.



Which subsection do you think supports your argument?
Subsection (1) and (2).

TheJoker
12-07-2010, 01:38 PM
My understanding that if they arrive without a valid visa, they are refused entry until they obtain a visa (e.g. permission to entry).

Right so you agree it is legal (at least according to the quoted website) to arrive in Australia without a visa and to gain a visa post-arrival, provide that you have a valid claim (e.g. seeking asylum).

Desmond
12-07-2010, 01:38 PM
For those playing along at home, this is the Igor seems to be referring to:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s4.html

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 4
Object of Act
(1) The object of this Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non‑citizens.

(2) To advance its object, this Act provides for visas permitting non‑citizens to enter or remain in Australia and the Parliament intends that this Act be the only source of the right of non‑citizens to so enter or remain.

(3) To advance its object, this Act requires persons, whether citizens or non‑citizens, entering Australia to identify themselves so that the Commonwealth government can know who are the non‑citizens so entering.

(4) To advance its object, this Act provides for the removal or deportation from Australia of non‑citizens whose presence in Australia is not permitted by this Act.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 01:48 PM
And definition of the visa in Section 29:

(1) Subject to this Act, the Minister may grant a non-citizen
permission, to be known as a visa, to do either or both of the
following:
(a) travel to and enter Australia;
(b) remain in Australia.

However, I am not that interested in lawyer-speak and find plain text on the Department of Immigration site quite sufficient.
Furthermore, I am not going to debate exact legal meaning of every letter in two volumes of legislation, leave it to pettifogger types.

Desmond
12-07-2010, 01:50 PM
And definition of the visa in Section 29:

(1) Subject to this Act, the Minister may grant a non-citizen
permission, to be known as a visa, to do either or both of the
following:
(a) travel to and enter Australia;
(b) remain in Australia.

However, I am not that interested in lawyer-speak and find plain text on the Department of Immigration site quite sufficient.
Furthermore, I am not going to debate exact legal meaning of every letter in two volumes of legislation, leave it to pettifogger types.
Did you get as far as section 36 yet?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 02:05 PM
Did you get as far as section 36 yet?
Fifteen years ago, when I needed to bring my relatives in, I read through both volumes. After all, the issue was too important to trust a lawyer. Since then I forgot all non-essential details.
As for now, my brain has very little storage capacity for rubbish lawyer-gibberish. The case is not stressing either, so I can't force myself to go that far.
I'll leave it to younger pettifoggers!

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2010, 03:32 PM
I should've guessed by your lack of manners, abusive language and complete shallowness of argument. Your also have a chance to qualify for all meanings of the word pettifogger.
Not to mention a typical LeftyAnointed's narcissistic sense of moral and intellectual superiority, asserted without the slightest basis.

Desmond
12-07-2010, 03:33 PM
Fifteen years ago, when I needed to bring my relatives in, I read through both volumes. After all, the issue was too important to trust a lawyer. Since then I forgot all non-essential details.
As for now, my brain has very little storage capacity for rubbish lawyer-gibberish. The case is not stressing either, so I can't force myself to go that far.
I'll leave it to younger pettifoggers!Well then, if it's too much effort for you, let me read the couple of sentences and explain it to you. Probably should point out that I'm not a lawyer and just using my leet skillz of googling and actually reading.

As pointed out in (2) of your favourite section (sec 4), the Act provides means for non-citizens to stay in the country. Such means as might be relevant to refugees is in section 36, specifically:



MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36
Protection Visas

(2) A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:


(a) a non‑citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol;


which seems pretty clear to a layman like me that such a person is not a criminal and actually quite entitled to be here.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 03:43 PM
MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36
Protection Visas

(2) A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:


(a) a non‑citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol;
Does "applicant for the visa" means "have right to enter Australia", until the visa is granted?


which seems pretty clear to a layman like me that such a person is not a criminal and actually quite entitled to be here.
You might want to take it up with GF, as he was the only one to use the word "criminal" in this discussion.
To layman like me it seems like they are entitled to apply for protection visa, no more.

Let me ask you the same question I asked Ian:
If entering Australia for the purpose of seeking refugee status without visa is legal, why do asylum seekers pay people smugglers instead of buying a ticket for a fraction of cost, boarding a plane and asking for asylum in the airport?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 03:51 PM
One more question:
If the vessel (for some strange reason called SIEV - suspected illegal entry vessel) is not welcomed intercepted by the navy, do they intend to go to the nearest Australian port and claim asylum or land ashore and disperse?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 03:54 PM
Does "applicant for the visa" means "have right to enter Australia", until the visa is granted?I thought you would leave such distinctions to the "pettifoggers". :lol:

You might want to take it up with GF, as he was the only one to use the word "criminal" in this discussion.You certainly floated the term "illegally". If you want to pick over the difference between criminal and illegal again, are you playing the part of the "pettifogger".

Let me ask you the same question I asked Ian:
If entering Australia for the purpose of seeking refugee status without visa is legal, why do asylum seekers pay people smugglers instead of buying a ticket for a fraction of cost, boarding a plane and asking for asylum in the airport?The onus is really on you to demonstrate why it is illegal, i.e. what law is broken.

Ian Murray
12-07-2010, 03:56 PM
If entering Australia for the purpose of seeking refugee status without visa is legal, why do asylum seekers pay people smugglers instead of buying a ticket for a fraction of cost, boarding a plane and asking for asylum in the airport?
Boarding the plane is not quite that simple. Airlines are required to forward details of passengers and crew to Immigration before they board, under the Advance Passenger Processing system. Computer matching checks for current visas for non-citizens - no visa, no fly. A handful slip through and are grabbed on arrival (~1400:9300000).

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 03:58 PM
I thought you would leave such distinctions to the "pettifoggers". :lol:
You certainly floated the term "illegally". If you want to pick over the difference between criminal and illegal again, are you playing the part of the "pettifogger".
The onus is really on you to demonstrate why it is illegal, i.e. what law is broken.
Point taken, I won't take your and others pettifoggering seriously.

Let me ask you again:
Flying to Australia from either Malaysia or Indonesia is cheaper, faster and safer then travelling on the people smugglers boat.
Why do asylum seeker choose people smugglers?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 04:01 PM
Boarding the plane is not quite that simple. Airlines are required to forward details of passengers and crew to Immigration before they board, under the Advance Passenger Processing system. Computer matching checks for current visas for non-citizens - no visa, no fly. A handful slip through and are grabbed on arrival (~1400:9300000).
Why are they not permitted to fly? According to you, it's perfectly legal to travel to Australia for the purpose of asylum seeking, isn't it?

Oh, and what happens to those that slip through and are grabbed on arrival?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 04:02 PM
Point taken, I won't take your and others pettifoggering seriously.I know I'm asking too much from you, but any chance you could substantiate that statement about me? I mean I'm note exactly bogging you down in the detail of the legislation am I? Just a 2 second <ctrl>-F search would find it.

Goughfather
12-07-2010, 04:09 PM
Does "applicant for the visa" means "have right to enter Australia", until the visa is granted?

Yes, that's the point. Asylum seekers have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum and the Immigration Minister has a right to process them as "unlawful non-citizens" in accordance with the relevant processes as stipulated under the Act. Those seeking asylum are not engaging in illegal activity, whether they have a visa "that is in effect" or not, upon entering Australia.


You might want to take it up with GF, as he was the only one to use the word "criminal" in this discussion.

You suggested that such asylum seekers were not entering Australia by legal means, did you not?


To layman like me it seems like they are entitled to apply for protection visa, no more.

Exactly. That such people are "entitled" (your word) to apply for a protection visa upon entering Australia demonstrates that they are acting legally in entering Australia without a visa that is in effect. If they are determined to be ineligible for a protection visa, they may be deported. However, this does not change the basic entitlement to apply for a protection visa.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 04:22 PM
I know I'm asking too much from you, but any chance you could substantiate that statement about me? I mean I'm note exactly bogging you down in the detail of the legislation am I? Just a 2 second <ctrl>-F search would find it.
It's funny how many are asking for a substantiation without substantiating anything themselves. Were you just asking innocent questions in posts 125 and 128?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 04:40 PM
It's funny how many are asking for a substantiation without substantiating anything themselves. Were you just asking innocent questions in posts 125 and 128?Tell me you're joking. You are the worst culprit by a country lightyear.

#125 I didn't ask you anything, in fact the whole post is me explaining the argument in the context of the legislation. Called s-u-b-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-t-i-o-n.

#126 you replied to it, and you are the one to ask questions without substantiating your argument.

#128 I called you on it.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 04:42 PM
Tell me you're joking. You are the worst culprit by a country lightyear.

#125 I didn't ask you anything, in fact the whole post is me explaining the argument in the context of the legislation. Called s-u-b-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-t-i-o-n.

#126 you replied to it, and you are the one to ask questions without substantiating your argument.

#128 I called you on it.
OK, let's cut to the point.
In your opinion, is it legal to entry Australia without visa for the purpose of seeking asylum?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 05:14 PM
OK, let's cut to the point.
In your opinion, is it legal to entry Australia without visa for the purpose of seeking asylum?Can't say I'm really inclined to keep doing you research for you and answering your questions when you do not return the courtesy.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 05:24 PM
Can't say I'm really inclined to keep doing you research for you and answering your questions when you do not return the courtesy.
Do you honestly believe you are being constructive in this thread?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 07:30 PM
Do you honestly believe you are being constructive in this thread?
I have been reading the thread for a while without commenting, and I noticed that you and others were referring to legislation without quoting it. I was curious, so went and found it and quoted it in case others may have been in the same situation. Do I think it was constructive? Yes.

I pointed out to you a section that was probably more relevant to the discussion that the ones you were focusing on. Do I think it was constructive? Yes.

When you apparently couldn't be bothered to read what I had spoonfed you, I gave you my layperson summary. Do I think it was constructive? Yes.

Meanwhile you engage in childish namecalling and before long you focus on me as a target for it. You tell me I don't substiantate when that is exactly what I have been doing. When I demonstrate this to you (i.e. the demonstration is another substantiation, I substantiated my substantiations) you offer no apology and seek to change the subject.

So you tell me, who is being constructive and who is being a far quit?

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 08:53 AM
One more question:
If the vessel (for some strange reason called SIEV - suspected illegal entry vessel) is not welcomed intercepted by the navy, do they intend to go to the nearest Australian port and claim asylum or land ashore and disperse?
It is obviously in their best interests to claim asylum and be admitted as refugees, after assessment, and eventually become citizens, rather than disperse and become illegal immigrants, spending life on the run

For that reason there is no reason to keep asylum seekers in detention after initial processing, but quite safe to release them into the community on bridging visas during the assessment period. Much more humane than keeping women and kids behind razor wire

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 09:01 AM
Why are they not permitted to fly? According to you, it's perfectly legal to travel to Australia for the purpose of asylum seeking, isn't it?
Legal but not encouraged. Hence naval and air border patrols, excision of offshore islands from our migration zone, etc

Oh, and what happens to those that slip through and are grabbed on arrival?
If they apply for asylum they are detained and assessed. Otherwise they're detained and on the next return flight, at airline expense

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 09:15 AM
Legal but not encouraged. Hence naval and air border patrols, excision of offshore islands from our migration zone, etc

But what is the legal ground for air or border patrol if, according to you, it is legal to enter Australia without visa for the purpose of seeking asylum?

TheJoker
13-07-2010, 09:20 AM
But what is the legal ground for air or border patrol if, according to you, it is legal to enter Australia without visa for the purpose of seeking asylum?

Igor, FYI a Judge that was ABC's Q&A last night confirmed that it is legal to arrive in Australia to seek asylum without a visa. Both the Opposition spokeperson and Government minister agreed the entrants were not illegal but rather unauthorised. Hope that clears it up for you, you can probably find a transcript of the show at the ABC website

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 09:22 AM
I have been reading the thread for a while without commenting, and I noticed that you and others were referring to legislation without quoting it. I was curious, so went and found it and quoted it in case others may have been in the same situation. Do I think it was constructive? Yes.

I pointed out to you a section that was probably more relevant to the discussion that the ones you were focusing on. Do I think it was constructive? Yes.

When you apparently couldn't be bothered to read what I had spoonfed you, I gave you my layperson summary. Do I think it was constructive? Yes.

Meanwhile you engage in childish namecalling and before long you focus on me as a target for it. You tell me I don't substiantate when that is exactly what I have been doing. When I demonstrate this to you (i.e. the demonstration is another substantiation, I substantiated my substantiations) you offer no apology and seek to change the subject.

So you tell me, who is being constructive and who is being a far quit?

Going through every letter of legislation was very childish and completely unnecessary for the sake of discussion. That's exactly what you and GF did and, unfortunately, managed to drag me into this stupid activity as well.

Take a leaf from Ian's book, he debates a substance (even though I completely disagree with his reasoning).

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 09:25 AM
Igor, FYI a Judge that was ABC's Q&A last night confirmed that it is legal to arrive in Australia to seek asylum without a visa. Both the Opposition spokeperson and Government minister agreed the entrants were not illegal but rather unauthorised. Hope that clears it up for you, you can probably find a transcript of the show at the ABC website
Illegal or unauthorised - it's all semantics that lawyers are so keen on.
If it was legal, they'd legally buying tickets and flying in.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 09:32 AM
East Timor MPs reject asylum centre proposal (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/12/2951459.htm)

I guess Julia Gillard never said she was going to send illegal entrants to East Timor.:doh: :doh: :doh:

What stuff-up and incompetence.

Desmond
13-07-2010, 09:43 AM
Going through every letter of legislation was very childish and completely unnecessary for the sake of discussion. That's exactly what you and GF did and, Rubbish. I quoted 1 article which you had already referred to, and 1 additional one which would take less than 1 minute to read.


unfortunately, managed to drag me into this stupid activity as well.

Take a leaf from Ian's book, he debates a substance (even though I completely disagree with his reasoning).Talk about having it backwards. Either you are too pig-headed to admit it or just too stupid to realize.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:02 AM
Either you are too pig-headed to admit it or just too stupid to realize.
You might want to learn some manners. Good luck:hand:

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 10:05 AM
But what is the legal ground for air or border patrol if, according to you, it is legal to enter Australia without visa for the purpose of seeking asylum?
Legal for refugees seeking asylum to escape persecution; illegal for anyone else. Over 90% of boat people are genuine refugees

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:18 AM
Legal for refugees seeking asylum to escape persecution; illegal for anyone else. Over 90% of boat people are genuine refugees
My question was:
What is the legal ground for not letting refugees seeking asylum get a seat on the flight to Australia?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:25 AM
Igor, FYI a Judge that was ABC's Q&A last night confirmed that it is legal to arrive in Australia to seek asylum without a visa. Both the Opposition spokeperson and Government minister agreed the entrants were not illegal but rather unauthorised. Hope that clears it up for you, you can probably find a transcript of the show at the ABC website
Actually, you are right. It's unlawful, but not exactly illegal. Personally I don't see much difference, but I accept that illegal might (in some cases) imply criminal offence - even though I never implied as such.
However, if it's not illegal it does not mean it's legal, as it's still unlawful.

Desmond
13-07-2010, 10:25 AM
You might want to learn some manners. Good luck:hand:Pot meet kettle. I could point out all your rudeness (in some cases not for the first time) but actually I couldn't be bother substantiating to someone who does not have basic decency to admit what is demonstrated. Anyway, might take you a minute to read it and I wouldn't want to drown you in fine detail. :hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:47 AM
...but actually I couldn't be bother substantiating...
Of course

arosar
13-07-2010, 10:55 AM
I can't understand what youse blokes have been talking about over the last coupla days, but it seems to me that Iggy, being an ESL speaker, is just confused over legislation.

Buy anyways, I don't give a stuff if they're 'illegal' or 'unlawful'. They just need to be shipped back out quickly.

I stand by my belief that a lot of them are moneyed cheats. They don't come normally because if they do, they ain't gettin' in thanks to their well-off state.

As for skilled migration or migration overall: we need to watch the number until our housing supply rises. I mean, f**k, housing just gets less and less affordable every goddamn week. Part of the reason for that, of course, is that we've got an increasing population but sans a proportial rise in rooftops.

AR

Desmond
13-07-2010, 10:55 AM
Of courseOK so you can quote out of context. Give yourself a pat on the back. Aren't you a clever one.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 11:06 AM
My question was:
What is the legal ground for not letting refugees seeking asylum get a seat on the flight to Australia?
The Advance Passenger Processing enabling legislation, I expect

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 11:07 AM
Actually, you are right. It's unlawful, but not exactly illegal. Personally I don't see much difference, but I accept that illegal might (in some cases) imply criminal offence - even though I never implied as such.
However, if it's not illegal it does not mean it's legal, as it's still unlawful.
Unauthorised, not unlawful. Read the post again

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 11:13 AM
I can't understand what youse blokes have been talking about over the last coupla days, but it seems to me that Iggy, being an ESL speaker, is just confused over legislation.

Buy anyways, I don't give a stuff if they're 'illegal' or 'unlawful'. They just need to be shipped back out quickly.

I don't give a stuff if they're 'illegal' or 'unlawful' either, but for some posters semantics seems much more important then the substance.


As for skilled migration or migration overall: we need to watch the number until our housing supply rises. I mean, f**k, housing just gets less and less affordable every goddamn week. Part of the reason for that, of course, is that we've got an increasing population but sans a proportial rise in rooftops.
AR

I think if we relax very stringent housing and land regulations we'll have sufficient "rise in rooftops". And housing supply rise must follow immigration, not another way around.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 11:18 AM
Unauthorised, not unlawful. Read the post again
No, they are still unlawful. Otherwise they would just buy a ticket on AirAsia for less then $300. Safer, cheaper, faster.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 11:19 AM
The Advance Passenger Processing enabling legislation, I expect
I am not familiar with this legislation, but can I assume that it:
1. Does not contradict immigration law?
2. Does not allow entry to Australia without visa?

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 11:26 AM
I am not familiar with this legislation, but can I assume that it:
1. Does not contradict immigration law?
2. Does not allow entry to Australia without visa?
Nor am I, but don't make any specific assumptions without checking it out. I'm only assuming the obvious - the APP system is in place and is mandatory for airlines, so therefore it must have a basis in law.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 11:30 AM
No, they are still unlawful. Otherwise they would just buy a ticket on AirAsia for less then $300. Safer, cheaper, faster.
The word 'unlawful' is not mentioned - you're making it up.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 11:40 AM
Nor am I, but don't make any specific assumptions without checking it out. I'm only assuming the obvious - the APP system is in place and is mandatory for airlines, so therefore it must have a basis in law.
That's what I assume as well. But if it was legal to enter Australia without visa for the purpose of seeking asylum, APP system would not have a basis in law as far as refugees are concerned.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 11:42 AM
The word 'unlawful' is not mentioned - you're making it up.
I am using this word because it best describes boat arrivals, not because it's mentioned in some specific post.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 11:55 AM
I am using this word because it best describes boat arrivals,
Not so. Unlawful means contrary to law, forbidden by law. Asylum seekers have broken no laws.

Unauthorised means without authority. A bureaucratic misdemeanour

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 01:28 PM
Not so. Unlawful means contrary to law, forbidden by law. Asylum seekers have broken no laws.

Unauthorised means without authority. A bureaucratic misdemeanour
If it was bureaucratic misdemeanour and actually allowed by law, why refugee council does not challenge those bureaucrats in the court? If the law permitted entering Australia without a visa, they'd be able to secure air passage for asylum seekers.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 02:24 PM
If it was bureaucratic misdemeanour and actually allowed by law, why refugee council does not challenge those bureaucrats in the court? If the law permitted entering Australia without a visa, they'd be able to secure air passage for asylum seekers.
The laws are framed to prevent asylum seekers from reaching Australia. That's why the offshore islands were excised by the Howard government.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 03:58 PM
The laws are framed to prevent asylum seekers from reaching Australia.
OK, we agree on something.

If it was lawful for asylum seekers to enter Australia without a visa, "laws framed to prevent asylum seekers from reaching Australia" would contradict immigration laws, wouldn't they?

TheJoker
13-07-2010, 05:04 PM
If it was lawful for asylum seekers to enter Australia without a visa, "laws framed to prevent asylum seekers from reaching Australia" would contradict immigration laws, wouldn't they?

I think you'll find the reason for this is that once someone reaches our shores and requests asylum (which they are legally entitled to do) Australia is obliged, under the UN Refugee Convention, to offer them asylum if they are a genuine refugee.

Laws making it difficult for asylum seekers to reach Australia are designed to prevent a flood of asylum seekers that would both undermine our quota system and overwhelm our processing capacity. They encourage people were possible to go through a more formal and manageable process. It's got nothing AFAIK to do with proceedural fairness on the refugees part but more about the ability for Australia to effectively manage/limit our intake of refugees.

Whether a genuine threat of a flood of refugees (at unsustainable levels) is real or an irrational fear held by some parts of the community is often debated.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 08:43 PM
...They encourage people were possible to go through a more formal and manageable process....
Quite so. Over 23 million international travellers pass through Australian airports each year - to avoid (greater?) chaos they need to be processed quickly. An uncontrolled inflow of unauthorised arrivals would bog the system down, hence the APP.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:01 PM
I think you'll find the reason for this is that once someone reaches our shores and requests asylum (which they are legally entitled to do) Australia is obliged, under the UN Refugee Convention, to offer them asylum if they are a genuine refugee.

This convention (created more then 60 years ago in conditions so different from today's) needs to be thoroughly reviewed.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 10:18 PM
This convention (created more then 60 years ago in conditions so different from today's) needs to be thoroughly reviewed.
The convention and protocol (www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf) seem to provide adequate protection for refugees. What would you like to see changed?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:28 PM
The convention and protocol (www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf) seem to provide adequate protection for refugees. What would you like to see changed?
UN convention misunderstood, and it's not working (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/un-convention-misunderstood-and-its-not-working/story-e6frg6zo-1225889968841)

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:30 PM
Nauru offers Julia Gillard a Pacific option on asylum-seekers (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/nauru-offers-julia-gillard-a-pacific-option-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6frgczf-1225891320865)
Nauru does look like a sensible option, given that it has infrastructure and worked well under Howard government.
Unfortunately current government is about politics, not policies, and the latter works against Nauru.

Ian Murray
14-07-2010, 12:19 AM
Nauru offers Julia Gillard a Pacific option on asylum-seekers (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/nauru-offers-julia-gillard-a-pacific-option-on-asylum-seekers/story-e6frgczf-1225891320865)
Nauru does look like a sensible option, given that it has infrastructure and worked well under Howard government.
Worked well? It cost us squillions to hide some 1500 asylum seekers out of sight. Nauru would love to see us back - they're dead broke and will do anything for a dollar


Refugees: Australia's moral failure (http://www.safecom.org.au/burnside2.htm)
A speech by Julian Burnside QC
June 11 2002
...These people are being held unlawfully, in a way that is unconstitutional in Nauru. The Australian government could just as easily have locked them up here without constitutional protection. Rather, it was thought it politically expedient to ship them off to Nauru at a cost to Australia that is obscene. How the government seeks to justify that is extremely difficult to know, but I suppose having taken the first step in prostituting Nauru, the rest is just a quibble.

This is a staggering enterprise, on any view: about 1500 people have been hijacked at sea and transported against their will to a pile of bird-droppings in the Central Pacific. There they are strictly confined within 2 camps, in abominable conditions, in breach of Nauru's Constitution. For its complicity in this bit of hostage-taking, Nauru has been promised tens of millions of dollars. To perpetuate this system of state-sponsored piracy and kidnap, the government has committed Australian taxpayers to a staggering $1.2 billion over the next few years...

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 09:54 AM
Worked well? It cost us squillions to hide some 1500 asylum seekers out of sight. Nauru would love to see us back - they're dead broke and will do anything for a dollar


Refugees: Australia's moral failure (http://www.safecom.org.au/burnside2.htm)
A speech by Julian Burnside QC
June 11 2002
...These people are being held unlawfully, in a way that is unconstitutional in Nauru. The Australian government could just as easily have locked them up here without constitutional protection. Rather, it was thought it politically expedient to ship them off to Nauru at a cost to Australia that is obscene. How the government seeks to justify that is extremely difficult to know, but I suppose having taken the first step in prostituting Nauru, the rest is just a quibble.

This is a staggering enterprise, on any view: about 1500 people have been hijacked at sea and transported against their will to a pile of bird-droppings in the Central Pacific. There they are strictly confined within 2 camps, in abominable conditions, in breach of Nauru's Constitution. For its complicity in this bit of hostage-taking, Nauru has been promised tens of millions of dollars. To perpetuate this system of state-sponsored piracy and kidnap, the government has committed Australian taxpayers to a staggering $1.2 billion over the next few years...
I wouldn't quote the bleating of Julian Burnside, he hypocrite who lashed at Howard government for Pacific Solution, yet applauded Gillard for announcing essentially the same thing.

As for cost - it didn't cost much when the inflow reduced to 3 boats a year.
Is WAS East Timor going to be cheaper?
Can you propose solution that would cost less? (especially given that detention centre in Nauru is already built).
And it will help small island struggling to make the ends meet.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 09:57 AM
Nauru president says they are happy to sign Refugee Convention is it's required
(they obviously don't give a stuff about it one way or another).

Ian Murray
14-07-2010, 11:18 AM
I wouldn't quote the bleating of Julian Burnside, he hypocrite who lashed at Howard government for Pacific Solution, yet applauded Gillard for announcing essentially the same thing.
Detention centres 720km from Darwin (Dili) with daily flights and 3300km from Brisbane (Nauru) with weekly flights are a long way from the same thing

WAS East Timor going to be cheaper?
Nauru has no local industry - everything has to be imported. Of course East Timor would be cheaper

Can you propose solution that would cost less? (especially given that detention centre in Nauru is already built).
Mainland detention would be cheaper, and something I'd prefer to see on moral and humanitarian grounds. But given the xenophobic trend in Australia, any regional centre would be cheaper than Nauru

And it will help small island struggling to make the ends meet.
Nauru already receives substantial foreign aid from us.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 03:59 PM
Refugees: Australia's moral failure (http://www.safecom.org.au/burnside2.htm)
A speech by Julian Burnside QC
June 11 2002
...
This is a staggering enterprise, on any view: about 1500 people have been hijacked at sea and transported against their will to a pile of bird-droppings in the Central Pacific. There they are strictly confined within 2 camps, in abominable conditions, in breach of Nauru's Constitution.
Is it worse then Guantanamo?

Ian Murray
14-07-2010, 07:24 PM
Is it worse then Guantanamo?
Where would it rank on your preferred countries of residence?

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 10:24 PM
Where would it rank on your preferred countries of residence?
Answering question by unrelated question?

Ian Murray
14-07-2010, 10:43 PM
Answering question by unrelated question?
Yours was a silly question, undeserving of a serious answer. A detention centre for suspected terrorists and one for asylum seekers who have done nothing illegal are not comparable

Ian Murray
14-07-2010, 11:04 PM
...Mainland detention would be cheaper, and something I'd prefer to see on moral and humanitarian grounds. But given the xenophobic trend in Australia...
I dug a little deeper into what the opinion polls actually tell us. It seems that the Australian affinity for 'a fair go' is alive and well; the responses to surveys depend on how the questions are slanted. An extract from the Refugee Council 2010 submission to government:

In a 2002 survey conducted for the Labour Council of NSW (now Unions NSW), 709 respondents were asked to respond to a series of statements about the treatment of asylum seekers. The eight responses varied widely, with respondents expressing variously negative and positive views about asylum seekers or government actions, largely dependent on the way in which the statements were framed. A majority supported statements suggesting that people “should go through the proper channels or face mandatory detention” or that a softening of policy “would lead to a massive influx of illegal immigrants and would be unfair to those who are waiting their rightful turn in the queue”. In contrast, a majority of people supported statements agreeing to the fundamental right of asylum seekers to seek protection from persecution and agreeing that “the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers are genuine refugees”.

These and other polls suggest that a significant proportion of Australians have ambivalent views about asylum seekers and refugees and their responses are swayed depending on how the situations of those seeking protection are presented. A majority of people is likely to respond
negatively if there is a suggestion that due process is not being followed, that people are behaving in a manner which is unfair to people in more needy circumstances, that the law is being broken or ignored or that an orderly system of entry to Australia is under threat. Alternatively, opinion is likely to shift to majority support when the focus of discussion is on refugees’ flight from persecution and the need for protection.

More detail on polling from the submission is attached. The full submission can be found at http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/resources/consultations.html

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 08:58 AM
Where would it rank on your preferred countries of residence?
As you noted Guantanamo prison is can't even compared to Nauru detention centre.
However, six detainees prefer to stay at Gitmo rather then go home (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070904926.html)
Somehow I expect genuine refugees would prefer Nauru detention to the the countries they fled.

Ian Murray
15-07-2010, 09:45 AM
As you noted Guantanamo prison is can't even compared to Nauru detention centre.
However, six detainees prefer to stay at Gitmo rather then go home (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070904926.html)
Somehow I expect genuine refugees would prefer Nauru detention to the the countries they fled.
Of the 1547 detainees held on Nauru and Manus, 483 were repatriated voluntarily and the rest resettled in Australia (616) New Zealand (401) and elsewhere (47). The total costs are not revealed, but estimated at $1.2 billion

Plus the human cost:
In 2002, there were 8 incidents of self-harm (including one threat of suicide).
In 2003, there was one suicide attempt, 3 incidents of actual self harm and 45 people engaged in a serious and debilitating hunger strike. That year, the camp’s Mental Health Unit diagnosed the following conditions in the Nauru asylum seeker population (not mutually exclusive): 10 adjustment disorder; 2
acute stress reaction; 5 anxiety; 15 depression; 1 depression and somatisation; 1 depression and anxiety; 5 reactive depression; 2 severe depression; 4 post traumatic stress disorder; 2 insomnia; 1 obsessive
compulsive disorder; 1 somatisation disorder.
In February 2004, 33 residents were being prescribed anti-depressants, with 25 residents prescribed sleep medication. By the middle of 2004, one adult was being treated for a chronic mental illness; 21 adults were prescribed psychotropic medication; 16 adults were prescribed sleeping medication and 17 adults prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
By February 2005, there were 19 cases with identified mental health condition, with 12 of the 19 prescribed anti-depressant medication or anti-psychotic medication.
By late 2005 all remaining 27 detainees on Nauru had identified mental health concerns – four had suffered a psychotic episode and were at risk of self harm. Thirteen members of the group were being treated for insomnia and were taking anti-depressant medication (7), anti-psychotic medication (4), and anti-anxiety medication (10).
http://www.oxfam.org.au/resources/filestore/originals/OAus-PriceTooHighAsylumSeekers-0807.pdf

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 09:52 AM
If I posted stats from some right-wing blog instead of mainstream newspaper, government website or other source nobody objects to, there'd be a cry that my claims are not substantiated.
I don't know whether figures from oxfam correct or not, but I am not going to accept without other references figures from advocacy site.

Desmond
15-07-2010, 10:04 AM
If I posted stats from some right-wing blog instead of mainstream newspaper, government website or other source nobody objects to, there'd be a cry that my claims are not substantiated.
No, it's when you draw conclusions from the article that are not supported by the article that this happens.

Goughfather
15-07-2010, 10:14 AM
If I posted stats from some right-wing blog instead of mainstream newspaper, government website or other source nobody objects to, there'd be a cry that my claims are not substantiated.
I don't know whether figures from oxfam correct or not, but I am not going to accept without other references figures from advocacy site.

I'm impressed Igor. It seems that in the seven minutes that elapsed from the time Ian made his post to the time you replied, you must have read through 68 pages and rubbished 186 footnotes that (in your opinion, fallaciously) substantiate the claims that are being made.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 10:20 AM
I'm impressed Igor. It seems that in the seven minutes that elapsed from the time Ian made his post to the time you replied, you must have read through 68 pages and rubbished 186 footnotes that (in your opinion, fallaciously) substantiate the claims that are being made.
I'm also impressed. You either didn't read my post (despite quoting it), or didn't understand it, or deliberately decided to ignore it to peddle the rubbish that has nothing to do with my post.
Your obsession with going through footnotes is commendable (even though not shared).

Ian Murray
15-07-2010, 10:42 AM
If I posted stats from some right-wing blog instead of mainstream newspaper, government website or other source nobody objects to, there'd be a cry that my claims are not substantiated.
I don't know whether figures from oxfam correct or not, but I am not going to accept without other references figures from advocacy site.
I infer that you regard Oxfam as left-wing. Do you regard as left-wing similar humanitarian aid organisations like Red Cross, UNICEF, St Vincent de Paul?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 10:48 AM
I infer that you regard Oxfam as left-wing. Do you regard as left-wing similar humanitarian aid organisations like Red Cross, UNICEF, St Vincent de Paul?
Actually, I don't know whether oxfam is left-wing or not. But I know that they are, among other roles, are advocacy organisation and, as such, biased to exacerbate the problem. Same applies to any relief agency.
Some do it inadvertently, some quite deliberately.

Rule of thumb - if the figures provided by a biased source support their case - they require independent verification.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 11:17 AM
Interesting article by Ziggy Switkowski:
THE maths of a bigger country of up to 100 million people adds up. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wide-brown-land-could-be-as-pleasant-as-italy/story-e6frg6zo-1225891820638)

He argues, among other things, that we can easily sustain 100 million population.

Ian Murray
15-07-2010, 11:58 AM
Actually, I don't know whether oxfam is left-wing or not. But I know that they are, among other roles, are advocacy organisation and, as such, biased to exacerbate the problem. Same applies to any relief agency.
Some do it inadvertently, some quite deliberately.
Partly true - it would be hard for the people working with the relief agencies to remain impartial when dealing voluntarily with human suffering on a daily basis because they care.

However, when making submissions to government or publishing criticism of government policies, it is a given that those governments will use their much greater resources to subject the data and findings to rigorous scrutiny. Any flaws will be exposed, so their verifying mechanisms must be exhaustive - several orders of magnitude greater than those of e.g. mainstream newspapers which you regard as more reliable.

As an indication, the detainee numbers I quoted are footnoted as:
Source: DIMA Annual report 2005-06, Output 1.5 figure 44 and DIAC report 2006-07
while the mental health figures are footnoted as:
Figures provided in response to Questions on Notice, Senate Legal and Constitutional hearings into the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, 26 May 2006

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2010, 12:22 PM
I infer that you regard Oxfam as left-wing. Do you regard as left-wing similar humanitarian aid organisations like Red Cross, UNICEF, St Vincent de Paul?
Of course. “Causes begin as movements, degenerate into a business, and end up as a racket.” —Eric Hoffer

TheJoker
15-07-2010, 12:25 PM
Of course. “Causes begin as movements, degenerate into a business, and end up as a racket.” —Eric Hoffer

So you think a business based around a "cause" is bad thing, not very free market of you. I'd beg to differ and say where it is possible to set-up a business around a cause that provides a win-win outcome it is far better than a charity.

Ian Murray
15-07-2010, 12:27 PM
Of course. “Causes begin as movements, degenerate into a business, and end up as a racket.” —Eric Hoffer
When you're on the extreme right, everything is left :rolleyes:

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 01:11 PM
However, when making submissions to government or publishing criticism of government policies, it is a given that those governments will use their much greater resources to subject the data and findings to rigorous scrutiny. Any flaws will be exposed, so their verifying mechanisms must be exhaustive - several orders of magnitude greater than those of e.g. mainstream newspapers which you regard as more reliable.

Or the government might just succumb to a vocal minority, especially if they see it a s a vote grab.
And don't forget - there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Ian Murray
15-07-2010, 01:40 PM
Or the government might just succumb to a vocal minority, especially if they see it a s a vote grab.
And don't forget - there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
In this instance the criticism was being levelled at the Howard government, and the statistics were supplied by that government

MichaelBaron
18-07-2010, 10:46 AM
I do not even want to think what toughening up of the immigration policy will do to several industries, in particular the education industry. I can see myself any many others losing university jobs and even some university campuses closing down.

Down the track, we can also anticipate shortage of people willing to do unskilled labor jobs as overseas students and migrants are the only ones who are doing these jobs while Australians rather collect their doll payments and take them to the local pub...

Even further down the track, lack of the skilled labor influx will lead to gradual decline of several other trades and professions.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2010, 01:46 PM
So you think a business based around a "cause" is bad thing, not very free market of you. I'd beg to differ and say where it is possible to set-up a business around a cause that provides a win-win outcome it is far better than a charity.
Nothing anti-free market about charities; what is wrong is something claiming to be what it is not, like a business claiming to be a charity.

antichrist
18-07-2010, 07:43 PM
.......
Down the track, we can also anticipate shortage of people willing to do unskilled labor jobs as overseas students and migrants are the only ones who are doing these jobs while Australians rather collect their doll payments and take them to the local pub...

..........

Mike you forgot to label them druggies as well and also the racetrack.

Hobbes
18-07-2010, 10:50 PM
while Australians rather collect their doll payments and take them to the local pub...

Guys get paid to take dolls to the pub? :lol:

TheJoker
19-07-2010, 10:21 AM
Nothing anti-free market about charities; what is wrong is something claiming to be what it is not, like a business claiming to be a charity.

You missed the point as usual, the quote you posted said movements denegrate into businesses. That implies a business based around a cause is a bad thing. I challeneged that asumption. In my point of view movements evolve into businesses and that a good thing most of the time.

antichrist
19-07-2010, 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by Jono
Nothing anti-free market about charities; what is wrong is something claiming to be what it is not, like a business claiming to be a charity.

AC
Coz it puts genuine businesses out of business, because the charity manages to avoid many taxes if not all.

So such charities are anti-free market. Such as prison factories/labour

Mephistopheles
19-07-2010, 01:59 PM
So such charities are anti-free market. Such as prison factories/labour
Are such things really charities?

antichrist
19-07-2010, 02:09 PM
Are such things really charities?

the prison factories may not be legally, but they serve the same purpose for this argument. That is the market is not a level playing field. Some suppliers are subsidised by the state re lack of conditions they must provide for workers, as well as lack to taxes at back end.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-07-2010, 02:40 PM
You missed the point as usual, the quote you posted said movements denegrate into businesses. That implies a business based around a cause is a bad thing. I challeneged that asumption. In my point of view movements evolve into businesses and that a good thing most of the time.
As usual, a shallow statement.
BTW, do you understand the difference between for-profit business and business that pretends to be non-profit charity or advocacy?

TheJoker
19-07-2010, 03:44 PM
As usual, a shallow statement.

Says the master to the apprentice.



BTW, do you understand the difference between for-profit business and business that pretends to be non-profit charity or advocacy?

Do you undertand that a charity or advocacy is actually a business.

I think you are confussing poor governance and fraud with businesses that are set-up to service charitable causes.

For example, it is a good business model to pay non-profit CEO equivalent to their for-profit counterparts, that way you will attract a quality CEO (or any staffer for that matter). I have no problem with well-paid executives at non-profit organisations.

That said I have been told there are some serious governance problem around alot of non-profits were the Board of Directors excercises very little control executive remuneration, also there are serious question about performance indicators used (if any). There are also a few very limited cases of out and out fraud, in which the charity collects money without actually servicing the cause it was set up to service.

It's important not to confuse the two, just because a charity organisation has well paid staff does not make it less of charity, in fact I'd argue that the staff are more likely to be committed than volunteers.

antichrist
19-07-2010, 05:37 PM
I came to the conclusion years ago not to trust any charity and have been proven correct many times since. But I still trust environmental groups. But I wont get involved in having credit card deductions, the hide of them.

Every major disaster for past ten years donated funds have been abused or gone missing. Must be all those bleed hearts leftards that Igor and Howard are always complaining about.

ER
20-07-2010, 10:44 PM
I do not even want to think what toughening up of the immigration policy will do to several industries, in particular the education industry. I can see myself any many others losing university jobs and even some university campuses closing down...

I thought that your industry is more related to govt assisted private enterprise rather than the Immigration policy although I can see some relevance.
In my opinion Immigration policy is not a matter of toughening or softening.
A possible intake formula could for example be constructed by
The No. of immigrants incl. refugees during a certain period of time.
The percentage of those people who managed to be absorved into the working force.
That would give a characteristic indication of "how many". The qualitative aspect could be decided by their own individual skills etc.


while Australians rather collect their doll payments and take them to the local pub...
I presume "doll" was a typo and you actually meant "dole"
If this is the case I would suggest that generalisations of this kind are simply racist and as such deprive the discussion of any positive values.

Spiny Norman
21-07-2010, 06:55 AM
But I still trust environmental groups.
:lol: Yeah, they're real paragons of virtue; they wouldn't lie to you AC! :whistle:

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 03:47 PM
I remember all the noise about record number of people in detention during Howard era. Here is a graph from department of immigration: (http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-20100618.pdf)
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/redddot_thumb.jpg
We currently have more people in detention then the pick during Howard time.

antichrist
21-07-2010, 03:52 PM
:lol: Yeah, they're real paragons of virtue; they wouldn't lie to you AC! :whistle:

I have found no dishonesty on policy issues by the Greens so far, not that I have followed them closely. Their high point was Dr Brown attempting to deliver that petition to Idiot G W Bush re the Iraq war. And all the fascist so called Liberals (who are not liberals at all) did the job of the brownshirts and running dogs.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-07-2010, 09:54 AM
Boat rush blamed on election fears (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/boat-rush-blamed-on-electionl-fears/story-e6frg6nf-1225895307662)

Do refugee advocates still claim that the spike in boat arrival mostly determined by "push" factors?

Igor_Goldenberg
23-07-2010, 09:36 AM
EAST Timor has warned Australians not to believe claims by Julia Gillard that negotiations are under way to build an asylum seeker processing centre in Timor. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/east-timor-dismisses-pms-refugee-centre-claims/story-fn5ko0pw-1225895834184)


"If Australian people believe it, it's up to them," Deputy Prime Minister Mario Carrascalao said. "If it's true, they should tell us with whom they're negotiating.

"If they're talking to someone, it's not at the senior level of government."

Mr Carrascalao claimed Canberra already knew a processing centre would never be built in his country.

antichrist
23-07-2010, 10:40 AM
Considering that these refugees have come from war wrecked countries, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan etc (as Jews after Holocaust) I am not against them at all.

In all above-mentioned cases the West has been historically instrumental in dividing and ruling these countries - or other such tactics that cause ethnic and other tensions.

pax
25-07-2010, 10:09 AM
Boat rush blamed on election fears (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/boat-rush-blamed-on-electionl-fears/story-e6frg6nf-1225895307662)

Do refugee advocates still claim that the spike in boat arrival mostly determined by "push" factors?

The fact that almost all arrivals are from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, as opposed to Bangladesh, Pakistan or anywhere else means that "push" factors are clearly the most significant. It's possible "pull" factors determine whether they try to come here or somewhere else.

To be honest, I'm just astonished that the fate of a few thousand boat arrivals is the top election issue, not the millions unemployed or living in poverty or suffering from mental illnesses.

antichrist
25-07-2010, 10:12 AM
Turning people into gold (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Is-our-boom-time-over-pd20100326-3VRML?OpenDocument)
Alan Kohler
Business Spectator
28 Mar 10

[/INDENT]


HOw many of these so-called financial experts predicted the GFC. I know someone was a fan of his and bought his newsletter. Bought tons of shares and lost a fortune. I don't know if warned about it or not.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2010, 01:55 PM
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called for a radical change in the way refugees should be assessed (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hirsi-ali-urges-refugee-testing/story-fn59niix-1225896772924):


“So what I am trying to say is that we have to change the paradigm. You have to say, ‘You’re welcome, we need immigrants but there are many conditions. Here is the law, the culture, the customs. Here is what you agree to, and in exchange you get to live in a peaceful, prosperous society where you have all this opportunity. If you don’t agree we will just return you’.”

TheJoker
27-07-2010, 02:20 PM
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called for a radical change in the way refugees should be assessed (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hirsi-ali-urges-refugee-testing/story-fn59niix-1225896772924):


“So what I am trying to say is that we have to change the paradigm. You have to say, ‘You’re welcome, we need immigrants but there are many conditions. Here is the law, the culture, the customs. Here is what you agree to, and in exchange you get to live in a peaceful, prosperous society where you have all this opportunity. If you don’t agree we will just return you’.”

I saw the whole interview on Lateline, I can't say I agree with her about forcing people to comply with the predominant culture or customs (the law is fine). The other question she didn't address is who decides what are a countries culture and customs that must be abidded by, the government? I think people should be free to behave as they like as long as they don't harm others.

Her other argument was that Sharia law is in conflict with "universal" human rights and therefore should not be tolerated even in Muslim countries. Of course this begs the question as to whether such "universal" rights actually exists beyond the society's willingness to promote them.

Goughfather
27-07-2010, 02:42 PM
I saw the whole interview on Lateline, I can't say I agree with her about forcing people to comply with the predominant culture or customs (the law is fine). The other question she didn't address is who decides what are a countries culture and customs that must be abidded by, the government? I think people should be free to behave as they like as long as they don't harm others.

Yes, not very libertarian, is it?

It never ceases to amaze me how so-called conservative libertarians are only libertarian about the areas that affect their own rights and are quite happy to impose their will upon others in other respects.

Ian Murray
27-07-2010, 08:43 PM
Her other argument was that Sharia law is in conflict with "universal" human rights and therefore should not be tolerated even in Muslim countries. Of course this begs the question as to whether such "universal" rights actually exists beyond the society's willingness to promote them.
Yet on the other hand she wants to rewrite the Refugee Convention and Protocol to water down their protection provisions for refugees

Oepty
27-07-2010, 11:39 PM
Why is it a good idea to stop refugees from coming to Australia?
Why not welcome them with open arms?
Scott

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 12:17 AM
Why is it a good idea to stop refugees from coming to Australia?
Why not welcome them with open arms?
Scott
No argument from me, Scott

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 12:39 AM
Yes, not very libertarian, is it?

It never ceases to amaze me how so-called conservative libertarians are only libertarian about the areas that affect their own rights and are quite happy to impose their will upon others in other respects.
What crap. No one is forced to come to Australia. But if they do, they need to follow Australia's fairly libertarian views on religion and not try to impose Sharia law on us, or female genital mutilation or burqa-wearing on their daughters. So this view is preventing anti-libertarians coming to Australia.

It is perfectly libertarian for me to insist that if you come to my house, you follow my rules, e.g. removing shoes before entering.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 12:40 AM
Why is it a good idea to stop refugees from coming to Australia?
Why not welcome them with open arms?
Sure, if they are genuine refugees rather than proselytizers for Sharia.

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 01:58 AM
Sure, if they are genuine refugees rather than proselytizers for Sharia.
Non-genuine refugees are off-topic in this thread - meeting the Refugee Convention definition is assumed

Religious freedom is guaranteed under our Constitution - any religious observance is permissible, provided no civil laws are broken

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2010, 02:51 AM
Religious freedom is guaranteed under our Constitution - any religious observance is permissible, provided no civil laws are broken
Definitely. The problem is when they would push to deny it for Australians. Already, the DhimmiPoms are capitulating to Sharia Law in some case. Another problem is the likes of Sarcofelis Hilaly who basically incites rape of Western women who don't cover themselves head to toe, or certain Muslim parents who have their daughters' genitals mutilated.

Oepty
28-07-2010, 06:59 AM
No argument from me, Scott

I was asking questions not trying to make a point. Your post does not answer them.
Scott

Oepty
28-07-2010, 07:14 AM
Why should Australia except people who claim they are refugees if they have travelled through other countries that they could have stopped in safely? They could have made claims in those countries and Australia could accept refugees from those countries.
Scott

Desmond
28-07-2010, 08:55 AM
Why should Australia except people who claim they are refugees if they have travelled through other countries that they could have stopped in safely? They could have made claims in those countries and Australia could accept refugees from those countries.
ScottOftentimes those intermediary countries do not accept refugees, not being signatories to the international convention.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2010, 09:28 AM
Non-genuine refugees are off-topic in this thread - meeting the Refugee Convention definition is assumed

Assumption is mother of all screw-ups. I have strong doubts illegal arrivals are genuine refugees. Labor is trying to process and accept them quickly to avoid the embarrassment of having more people in detention then the pick number under Howard government (which they screamed about very loudly).
They even sack tribunal member who insist on strictly following the procedure in determining the legitimacy of the claims.

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 11:17 AM
Definitely. The problem is when they would push to deny it for Australians. Already, the DhimmiPoms are capitulating to Sharia Law in some case. Another problem is the likes of Sarcofelis Hilaly who basically incites rape of Western women who don't cover themselves head to toe, or certain Muslim parents who have their daughters' genitals mutilated.
I find such practices as reprehensible as anyone else, and the mutilation of children is certainly illegal here.

But what has that got to do with genuine refugees? Afghan refugees for example are fleeing from Taliban/Sharia persecution, from which their government is unable to protect them.

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 11:28 AM
I have strong doubts illegal arrivals are genuine refugees.
So you doubt that any asylum seekers are genuine refugees. I have strong doubts that anyone else would believe that. I certainly believe some of them are. All that needs to be done is cull out those who are not (which of course is easier said than done, but it's still just a matter of processing using established guidelines)

They even sack tribunal member who insist on strictly following the procedure in determining the legitimacy of the claims.
That sounds like Andrew Bolt talking. You'll need to back it up with verifiable facts

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 11:53 AM
Oftentimes those intermediary countries do not accept refugees, not being signatories to the international convention.
For example all countries between Afghanistan or Sri Lanka and Australia are not signatories and offer no legal protection for refugees. Detention centres in e.g. Malaysia and Indonesia are maintained by the International Organisation for Migration, which can only manage to provide each refugee with one meal a day and around $2 a day in cash to support themselves. UNHCR does what it can resettle elsewhere the most needy cases (women, children, torture/trauma victims etc) but the remainder have no future

Oepty
28-07-2010, 05:59 PM
Oftentimes those intermediary countries do not accept refugees, not being signatories to the international convention.

Okay fair enough. I was not aware of this never having looked into the issue much.
Scott

Oepty
28-07-2010, 06:11 PM
For example all countries between Afghanistan or Sri Lanka and Australia are not signatories and offer no legal protection for refugees. Detention centres in e.g. Malaysia and Indonesia are maintained by the International Organisation for Migration, which can only manage to provide each refugee with one meal a day and around $2 a day in cash to support themselves. UNHCR does what it can resettle elsewhere the most needy cases (women, children, torture/trauma victims etc) but the remainder have no future

More things I didn't know. Would Australia be better off helping to run the underfunded centres or at least some of them (Don't know how many there are) and making it clear that the way for refugees to get help from Australia is to head to one of these centres? It would remove the need of the refugees to get on boats to get here and should be safer than sinking half way accross.
Scott

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 07:06 PM
More things I didn't know. Would Australia be better off helping to run the underfunded centres or at least some of them (Don't know how many there are) and making it clear that the way for refugees to get help from Australia is to head to one of these centres? It would remove the need of the refugees to get on boats to get here and should be safer than sinking half way accross.
Australia is an IOM member state and pays an annual assessed contribution towards its global running costs (CHF704,321 in 2009). Australia also contracted IOM to run the Nauru and Manus refugee processing centres.

Edit: That amount is actually our bit towards the admin budget (~USD 39m). The operational budget is $1b+; don't know how much we chip in

Ian Murray
28-07-2010, 08:34 PM
More things I didn't know. Would Australia be better off helping to run the underfunded centres or at least some of them (Don't know how many there are) and making it clear that the way for refugees to get help from Australia is to head to one of these centres? It would remove the need of the refugees to get on boats to get here and should be safer than sinking half way accross.
Australia does fund the Indonesian centres holding boat people intercepted en route to Australia, but those centres are far from attractive destinations:
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/andrew-bartlett-blog/new-report-documents-conditions-for.htm

Malaysian centres are worse:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/report-slams-malaysias-refugee-record-20100617-ygrp.html
http://current.com/1p6di4c

arosar
02-09-2010, 09:14 AM
I just don't understand what's going on there with these Afghani criminals who are protesting. I just heard on internet radio that they escaped. Well are they refugees or not? If they are not refugees, then why are they still in the country? Why are they allowed to protest?

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 09:20 AM
I just don't understand what's going on there with these Afghani criminals who are protesting. I just heard on internet radio that they escaped. Well are they refugees or not? If they are not refugees, then why are they still in the country? Why are they allowed to protest?
AR

I would extend this question. Why people are generally allowed to protest? Isn't it a thought crime?

MichaelBaron
02-09-2010, 09:57 AM
Australia does fund the Indonesian centres holding boat people intercepted en route to Australia, but those centres are far from attractive destinations:
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/andrew-bartlett-blog/new-report-documents-conditions-for.htm

Malaysian centres are worse:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/report-slams-malaysias-refugee-record-20100617-ygrp.html
http://current.com/1p6di4c

And thx God, they are not attractive destinations. Otherwise, even more people would come :)

MichaelBaron
02-09-2010, 10:14 AM
A place on a boat costs $10,000 per person (at least). I strongly doubt that impoverished Afgani peasants would be able to afford it! And now a story coming from my Mum: My mum works as an English teacher at NMIT TAFE and they got a lot of refugees taking English and occupational courses over there. Whenever new students come to the language center, they are being tested for their level of language competency as well as interviewed about their plans for the future to put together a study plan for them. My mum had to interview several Iraqi ''peasants'' who (according to their documents) hardly completed high school (village high school that is!) The peasants pretend to speak poor English ...but eventually it becomes obvious many of them are quite fluent. Furthermore, they know how to use computers, have good knowledge of politics, economics, and want to go to University to study degrees like engineering, banking etc. Why? because in private conversations they sometimes admit that they are uni graduates, have been overseas before (just under a different name) and attended a language school before coming to Australia to improve their english. Do they sound like typical refugees? My question is, who should pay for taking care of these people? I certainly do not want to foot the bill, nor do some other tax-payers. At the same time, many of my students (very capable young people) are being milked by Australian government, universities, immigration agents etc. while they are desperately trying to gain PR (Permanent Residence) by legitimate means! Some of the students come from the same countries as the refugees - its just that they are decent enough to be honest!

Finally, I would like to point out that there are many countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland etc.) that keep talking about human rights. But their contributions rarely goes beyond ''bla bla bla''. Australia is expected to waste taxpayers on the refugee visa holders while these countries do nothing! Enough! I want my taxes to be spent on me, my family and my community! I do not want to save the world - I want a sustainable future for Australia!

Rincewind
02-09-2010, 10:27 AM
Yep. I'm alright, Jack.

arosar
02-09-2010, 11:02 AM
A place on a boat costs $10,000 per person (at least). I strongly doubt that impoverished Afgani peasants would be able to afford it! And now a story coming from my Mum: My mum works as an English teacher at NMIT TAFE and they got a lot of refugees taking English and occupational courses over there. Whenever new students come to the language center, they are being tested for their level of language competency as well as interviewed about their plans for the future to put together a study plan for them. My mum had to interview several Iraqi ''peasants'' who (according to their documents) hardly completed high school (village high school that is!) The peasants pretend to speak poor English ...but eventually it becomes obvious many of them are quite fluent. Furthermore, they know how to use computers, have good knowledge of politics, economics, and want to go to University to study degrees like engineering, banking etc. Why? because in private conversations they sometimes admit that they are uni graduates, have been overseas before (just under a different name) and attended a language school before coming to Australia to improve their english. Do they sound like typical refugees? My question is, who should pay for taking care of these people? I certainly do not want to foot the bill, nor do some other tax-payers. At the same time, many of my students (very capable young people) are being milked by Australian government, universities, immigration agents etc. while they are desperately trying to gain PR (Permanent Residence) by legitimate means! Some of the students come from the same countries as the refugees - its just that they are decent enough to be honest!

Finally, I would like to point out that there are many countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland etc.) that keep talking about human rights. But their contributions rarely goes beyond ''bla bla bla''. Australia is expected to waste taxpayers on the refugee visa holders while these countries do nothing! Enough! I want my taxes to be spent on me, my family and my community! I do not want to save the world - I want a sustainable future for Australia!

+1

This story about blow-ins pretending not to speak English is absolutely common. Shit, I could tell you some shenanigans. Basically, the immigration system is very easy to circumvent.

As for rich so-called refs, this is very true and goes back to my earlier comment that a lot of these criminals are moneyed. They stay in 5-star accommodation in Jakarta or KL while they wait for the fkn boatride.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 11:15 AM
A place on a boat costs $10,000 per person (at least). I strongly doubt that impoverished Afgani peasants would be able to afford it! And now a story coming from my Mum: My mum works as an English teacher at NMIT TAFE and they got a lot of refugees taking English and occupational courses over there. Whenever new students come to the language center, they are being tested for their level of language competency as well as interviewed about their plans for the future to put together a study plan for them. My mum had to interview several Iraqi ''peasants'' who (according to their documents) hardly completed high school (village high school that is!) The peasants pretend to speak poor English ...but eventually it becomes obvious many of them are quite fluent. Furthermore, they know how to use computers, have good knowledge of politics, economics, and want to go to University to study degrees like engineering, banking etc. Why? because in private conversations they sometimes admit that they are uni graduates, have been overseas before (just under a different name) and attended a language school before coming to Australia to improve their english. Do they sound like typical refugees? My question is, who should pay for taking care of these people? I certainly do not want to foot the bill, nor do some other tax-payers. At the same time, many of my students (very capable young people) are being milked by Australian government, universities, immigration agents etc. while they are desperately trying to gain PR (Permanent Residence) by legitimate means! Some of the students come from the same countries as the refugees - its just that they are decent enough to be honest!


That's exactly the problem - queue jumping, not the immigration itself.
Be aware, leftists on this forum will bleat about you using anecdotal evidences.

Ian Murray
23-11-2010, 10:05 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

antichrist
23-11-2010, 10:19 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

Do you mean that the hundreds of millions of dollars that Johnny Howard spent of our money trying to keep them at bay was wasted, and we have to go back and give them a fair suck of the sav.

Johnny won an election on it and Abbott is trying to win another - instead they should be crucified for wasting about half billion dollars.

arosar
24-11-2010, 08:41 PM
So lemme get this straight? These blow-ins, who've never done a thing for this country, are equal before the law with us lot?

FMD!

AR

Ian Murray
24-11-2010, 09:47 PM
So lemme get this straight? These blow-ins, who've never done a thing for this country, are equal before the law with us lot?
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.