Public Forum: What's Wrong with Abbott's Refugee Policy?

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

Is your position that we should execute all boat arrivals and dance on their graves?

When did you stop beating your wife?

thebrownstreak69 said :

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

No.

Nothing left but straw men?

johnboy said :

Former Liberal MP Judi Moylan on how the boat people bedwetters are just racists:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/10/22/echoes-white-australia

Is your position that we should treat all boat arrivals as legitimate asylum seekers without verifying their claims and immediately settle them in the community?

thebrownstreak69 said :

howeph said :

Some would argue that imprisonment is a penalty.

Others would argue they are free to leave whenever they like.

Are you arguing that? If so, then where can they go? More than 80% of them ARE refugees.

thebrownstreak69 said :

As we’ve discussed earlier, the current situation is well short of optimal.

Yes it is.

Australia, however is a nation ruled by law. We have obligations under the law.

I can not tell you how disheartening it is to hear my fellow Australians arguing that we should abandon these principles that our forefathers gave so much to establish.

And it is impossible for you, me or I suspect any of us commenting on The Riot ACT, to comprehend what it must feel like to be the victim of this injustice. For a sense of how this might feel I refer again to the video I’ve posted to this forum previously

Starting at the 50 second mark you hear the detainee asking:

Detainee: “Why am I here? Why?”

Officer: “Medical, Medical” [the Detainee’s face is covered in blood from where he has, out of desperation, deliberately cut himself or bashed his head against the cell wall]

Detainee: “No medical! Why am I here?”

…

Detainee: “I came with Afghani people. I am here – why?”

Detainee: “Is this the law?”

Detainee: “I won’t be kept here. I swear to God.”

…

Officer: “They need to check your injuries.”

Detainee: “But it’s my heart that is breaking.”

The video is from Curtin when it was operated under the Howard government. The same and worse has happened under the Rudd and Gillard governments and it is happening right now under the Abbott government.

It is morally wrong. It is unlawful and it is happening in our name.

Postalgeek said :

The language being used is carefully crafted. Scott Morrison doesn’t call refugees ‘illegal’. He, and others, will refer instead to the action of getting to Australia without visa or authorisation as illegal, which is technically true. However, if someone who enters in such a manner is a refugee, such action isn’t punishable in accordance with article 31 of the UN Convention.

This is exactly right. The method of entry is illegal, but we don’t press penalties on genuine refugees.

My issue with this is simply that the language is used to rile up the uneducated. If we were smarter, we would understand that an illegal act, in this context, is really just a byproduct of our legal system, but not really a problem. Unfortunately, some people will want to use this as an excuse to argue ‘well why not other illegal acts’.

Brains and compassion are required here, along with careful processes to ensure we still vet asylum seeking arrivals appropriately.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

Robertson said :

howeph said :

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What are you quoting there?

Are you pretending those words are used in the convention, again?

There really isn’t much hope for you, Howeph, you are determined to bend reality to suit your opinion.

They enter Australia illegally. Fact.
Scott Morrison is giving up on the doublespeak used by others to satisfy their political angle on this issue.

Hopefully the next step will be to enact legislation that prevents people who, contrary to the UN Convention, do not arrive here directly from the country they are fleeing from, preventing them from abusing the asylum system and taking up resettlement places that should be going to the more deserving.

Morrison is changing the official language to imply criminality where none exists in order to continue the scapegoating of asylum seekers to appeal to braindead bigots who think that the people in boats are all ‘queue-jumpers’ and ‘economic migrants’ (completely contrary to the fact that boat arrivals have the highest percentage of people who are found to be genuine refugees, compared to other modes of arrival).

But you just keep telling yourself that they’re all criminals and terrorists and whatnot. Great job d1ckhead.

The method of entry is illegal. We don’t apply a penalty, as per the Convention.

Using emotive language isn’t helping, though.

The language being used is carefully crafted. Scott Morrison doesn’t call refugees ‘illegal’. He, and others, will refer instead to the action of getting to Australia without visa or authorisation as illegal, which is technically true. However, if someone who enters in such a manner is a refugee, such action isn’t punishable in accordance with article 31 of the UN Convention.

Some lawyers will argue that illegality in criminal law is something that is punishable conduct, and seeking asylum isn’t punishable ergo if it isn’t punishable it isn’t illegal.

Politifact did an interesting examination of this language, and concluded that claiming that asylum seekers who entered Australia without visas (which essentially means boats because you need a visa to get on a plane) had entered illegally was a half-truth. The language is ambiguous and there are arguments on both sides, depending on how you phrase your language.

All this, of course, pivots on whether the person claiming asylum is a genuine refugee. If they are proven to be otherwise, they will have entered Australia illegal, as I understand it.

howeph said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

The method of entry is illegal.

Arriving in Australia by boat is not illegal. People have been doing it for millennia.

Arriving in Australia without a valid visa is illegal.

An Asylum seeker, arriving in Australia without a valid visa is legal, “provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

thebrownstreak69 said :

We don’t apply a penalty, as per the Convention.

Some would argue that imprisonment is a penalty.

Others would argue they are free to leave whenever they like.

As we’ve discussed earlier, the current situation is well short of optimal.

thebrownstreak69 said :

The method of entry is illegal.

Arriving in Australia by boat is not illegal. People have been doing it for millennia.

Arriving in Australia without a valid visa is illegal.

An Asylum seeker, arriving in Australia without a valid visa is legal, “provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

thebrownstreak69 said :

We don’t apply a penalty, as per the Convention.

Some would argue that imprisonment is a penalty.

Robertson said :

howeph said :

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What are you quoting there?

Text from this thread.

Robertson said :

Are you pretending those words are used in the convention, again?

Again? Show me where I have ever pretended to quote from the convention. Are you making stuff up?

Robertson said :

There really isn’t much hope for you, Howeph, you are determined to bend reality to suit your opinion.

You keep making these general claims that I am “bending reality” or “making deliberately obtuse misinterpretations” but when I challenge you to show specifically where I have done any of these things what do we get from you…

Silence.

So I’ll ask again: Please describe the misinterpretation(s) I have made of the Convention. Please be specific.

Robertson said :

They enter Australia illegally. Fact.

True.

But the fact that you are ignoring (and that Scott Morrison is relying on others to be confused about) is that under the convention they have a legal right to enter Australia illegally.

Robertson said :

Scott Morrison is giving up on the doublespeak used by others to satisfy their political angle on this issue.

Ha! How can you right this stuff with a straight face?

Definition of doublespeak: “evasive, ambiguous, or high-flown language intended to deceive or confuse.”
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doublespeak

Here is an example of doublespeak:

Scott Morrison: “‘People who have entered Australia illegally by boat have illegally entered by boat,” Scott Morrison: “I’ve never said that it is illegal to claim asylum. That’s not what the term refers to.”

Do those statements make things clearer or not? I put it to you that those statements could reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour by asylum seekers arriving by boat. Such a conclusion would be false. Therefore it is Scott Morrison who is engaging in doublespeak

And worse he wants the Public Service to do it too.

There is a internationally used and well understood name for people who arrive in a country looking for protection; it is: “Asylum Seekers”

If Scott Morrison (or the Labor Party for that matter) wanted to “call a spade a spade” then that is what he would call them: Asylum Seekers.

Robertson said :

Hopefully the next step will be to enact legislation that prevents people who, contrary to the UN Convention, do not arrive here directly from the country they are fleeing from,…

Where does it say, in the Convention, that asylum seekers have to come directly from their home country to seek asylum? Please be specific. I’m obviously not as smart as you, so please spell it out for me.

Robertson said :

… preventing them from abusing the asylum system …

How have asylum seekers abused the asylum system? Please be specific. (I think it’s the other way around – Australia’s asylum system has abused them – how many examples of that would you like?)

Robertson said :

… and taking up resettlement places that should be going to the more deserving.

It is the government’s policy that means that asylum seekers arriving by boat (and air?) displace those from other resettlement programs. It’s not the asylum seekers fault – it’s the Government’s, they write the rules.

Jim Jones said :

Robertson said :

howeph said :

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What are you quoting there?

Are you pretending those words are used in the convention, again?

There really isn’t much hope for you, Howeph, you are determined to bend reality to suit your opinion.

They enter Australia illegally. Fact.
Scott Morrison is giving up on the doublespeak used by others to satisfy their political angle on this issue.

Hopefully the next step will be to enact legislation that prevents people who, contrary to the UN Convention, do not arrive here directly from the country they are fleeing from, preventing them from abusing the asylum system and taking up resettlement places that should be going to the more deserving.

Morrison is changing the official language to imply criminality where none exists in order to continue the scapegoating of asylum seekers to appeal to braindead bigots who think that the people in boats are all ‘queue-jumpers’ and ‘economic migrants’ (completely contrary to the fact that boat arrivals have the highest percentage of people who are found to be genuine refugees, compared to other modes of arrival).

But you just keep telling yourself that they’re all criminals and terrorists and whatnot. Great job d1ckhead.

The method of entry is illegal. We don’t apply a penalty, as per the Convention.

Using emotive language isn’t helping, though.

Robertson said :

howeph said :

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What are you quoting there?

Are you pretending those words are used in the convention, again?

There really isn’t much hope for you, Howeph, you are determined to bend reality to suit your opinion.

They enter Australia illegally. Fact.
Scott Morrison is giving up on the doublespeak used by others to satisfy their political angle on this issue.

Hopefully the next step will be to enact legislation that prevents people who, contrary to the UN Convention, do not arrive here directly from the country they are fleeing from, preventing them from abusing the asylum system and taking up resettlement places that should be going to the more deserving.

Morrison is changing the official language to imply criminality where none exists in order to continue the scapegoating of asylum seekers to appeal to braindead bigots who think that the people in boats are all ‘queue-jumpers’ and ‘economic migrants’ (completely contrary to the fact that boat arrivals have the highest percentage of people who are found to be genuine refugees, compared to other modes of arrival).

But you just keep telling yourself that they’re all criminals and terrorists and whatnot. Great job d1ckhead.

howeph said :

“IMMIGRATION Minister Scott Morrison says he is simply calling “a spade a spade” by directing public servants to refer to asylum seekers as “illegal”.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/scott-morrison-defends-illegal-directive/story-fni0xqi4-1226743764107

Correction: the source link above is incorrect. It should have been:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-defends-calling-asylum-seekers-illegal-20131021-2vw0r.html

howeph said :

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What are you quoting there?

Are you pretending those words are used in the convention, again?

There really isn’t much hope for you, Howeph, you are determined to bend reality to suit your opinion.

They enter Australia illegally. Fact.
Scott Morrison is giving up on the doublespeak used by others to satisfy their political angle on this issue.

Hopefully the next step will be to enact legislation that prevents people who, contrary to the UN Convention, do not arrive here directly from the country they are fleeing from, preventing them from abusing the asylum system and taking up resettlement places that should be going to the more deserving.

“IMMIGRATION Minister Scott Morrison says he is simply calling “a spade a spade” by directing public servants to refer to asylum seekers as “illegal”.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/scott-morrison-defends-illegal-directive/story-fni0xqi4-1226743764107

As we have just been discussing in this thread; the Convention grants Asylum seekers the right to come to Australia without a visa. We have noted that the language used however can be confusing:

E.g. “Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.”

What Scott Morrison is doing is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of calling a “spade a spade”. He’s using the misleading language, to hide the facts, so that he can continue the vilification of Asylum Seekers.

The Liberal government is trying to pull the wool over the publics eyes using the Logical Fallacies of Ambiguity and wants the Public Service to become complicit in this deception.

Disgusting.

A question for the federal public servants (if you’re even allowed to answer – transparent government my arse):

Does he have the power to dictate the language used?

*Colombo

wildturkeycanoe said :

I have the answer people! It just came to me mid thought.
All we have to do to solve the refugee problem, is stopping them from traveling all the way here at their own expense and risk. All we have to do is set up the processing centers at the country of origin. If they are legal asylum seekers, fly them over. If they don’t have paperwork or are found to be guilty of crimes against humanity, push them out the gate! If every country in the world adopted this approach, combining it with some of the lawn on their embassy grounds, the safety issues would be done away with. It also provides work opportunities in the “oppressed” countries, with the need to build razor wire fences and dwellings [with cable TV, internet and Nintendos]. This is a foreign aid solution that actually helps the foreigners.
Simple, children. Now on to world hunger…..

It’s good that you’re giving it thought, but there are a few problems with your solution. We don’t have embassies in trouble spots like Sudan, Somalia, or Syria. The location of our embassy in Afghanistan is kept secret for security reasons, and will not issue visas. Australia is not going to just open up a refugee processing facility and expose personnel to major risks in a war zone.

Even if we do have an operational embassy in a war-torn country, with enough staff to cope with the influx, you’re expecting families to not only remain in the country, but travel through the country, maybe hundreds or thousands of kilometres, with collapsed infrastructure, passing through front lines and risking encounters with militias, rebels, government troops, the very people they are fleeing from. Not everyone lives near an embassy, and the embassy isn’t going to be in neutral territory; one side or the other will be controlling it. Do you think Tamils would’ve headed to our embassy in Columbo in the closing stages of the civil war? Refugees do what refugees do, getting out as quick as you can, heading for the nearest border.

If only the problem was simple.

wildturkeycanoe said :

milkman said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

I have the answer people! It just came to me mid thought.
All we have to do to solve the refugee problem, is stopping them from traveling all the way here at their own expense and risk. All we have to do is set up the processing centers at the country of origin. If they are legal asylum seekers, fly them over. If they don’t have paperwork or are found to be guilty of crimes against humanity, push them out the gate! If every country in the world adopted this approach, combining it with some of the lawn on their embassy grounds, the safety issues would be done away with. It also provides work opportunities in the “oppressed” countries, with the need to build razor wire fences and dwellings [with cable TV, internet and Nintendos]. This is a foreign aid solution that actually helps the foreigners.
Simple, children. Now on to world hunger…..

Didn’t someone already suggest this about a page ago?

No, they wanted offshore processing for the illegal immigrants [in countries such as Indonesia, etc.]. I’m suggesting we don’t even let them get that far and set up shop IN the county of oppression, on our own soil at the Embassy. The refugees then have the protection of our nation whilst we figure out if they are allowed to continue their journey or have no legitimate claim. Or, we could set up our processing somewhere convenient like the Philippines or India, create jobs like we have done with call centers and assist these migrants to settle in those countries and offer them jobs in Australian businesses.

Interesting idea. How would you plan to deal with the hundreds of thousands of people that turn up? How would you prioritise them?

RAC said :

Final speakers list:

• Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (The Greens)
• Professor Desmond Manderson (Future Fellow in ANU College of Law and the Research School of Humanities and Arts, ANU)
• Kaelee Squires (Manager, Lush Cosmetics, which recently ran a national campaign in support of asylum seekers)
• Karen Maric (Refugee Action Committee activist)

We hope to see you there

Will Sarah be bringing real tears, or the usual fake ones?

milkman said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

I have the answer people! It just came to me mid thought.
All we have to do to solve the refugee problem, is stopping them from traveling all the way here at their own expense and risk. All we have to do is set up the processing centers at the country of origin. If they are legal asylum seekers, fly them over. If they don’t have paperwork or are found to be guilty of crimes against humanity, push them out the gate! If every country in the world adopted this approach, combining it with some of the lawn on their embassy grounds, the safety issues would be done away with. It also provides work opportunities in the “oppressed” countries, with the need to build razor wire fences and dwellings [with cable TV, internet and Nintendos]. This is a foreign aid solution that actually helps the foreigners.
Simple, children. Now on to world hunger…..

Didn’t someone already suggest this about a page ago?

No, they wanted offshore processing for the illegal immigrants [in countries such as Indonesia, etc.]. I’m suggesting we don’t even let them get that far and set up shop IN the county of oppression, on our own soil at the Embassy. The refugees then have the protection of our nation whilst we figure out if they are allowed to continue their journey or have no legitimate claim. Or, we could set up our processing somewhere convenient like the Philippines or India, create jobs like we have done with call centers and assist these migrants to settle in those countries and offer them jobs in Australian businesses.

RAC said :

Final speakers list:

• Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (The Greens)
• Professor Desmond Manderson (Future Fellow in ANU College of Law and the Research School of Humanities and Arts, ANU)
• Kaelee Squires (Manager, Lush Cosmetics, which recently ran a national campaign in support of asylum seekers)
• Karen Maric (Refugee Action Committee activist)

We hope to see you there

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young signing Zoo magazines?
Someone better call the chaser guys!!!

Final speakers list:

• Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (The Greens)
• Professor Desmond Manderson (Future Fellow in ANU College of Law and the Research School of Humanities and Arts, ANU)
• Kaelee Squires (Manager, Lush Cosmetics, which recently ran a national campaign in support of asylum seekers)
• Karen Maric (Refugee Action Committee activist)

We hope to see you there

wildturkeycanoe said :

I have the answer people! It just came to me mid thought.
All we have to do to solve the refugee problem, is stopping them from traveling all the way here at their own expense and risk. All we have to do is set up the processing centers at the country of origin. If they are legal asylum seekers, fly them over. If they don’t have paperwork or are found to be guilty of crimes against humanity, push them out the gate! If every country in the world adopted this approach, combining it with some of the lawn on their embassy grounds, the safety issues would be done away with. It also provides work opportunities in the “oppressed” countries, with the need to build razor wire fences and dwellings [with cable TV, internet and Nintendos]. This is a foreign aid solution that actually helps the foreigners.
Simple, children. Now on to world hunger…..

Didn’t someone already suggest this about a page ago?

I have the answer people! It just came to me mid thought.
All we have to do to solve the refugee problem, is stopping them from traveling all the way here at their own expense and risk. All we have to do is set up the processing centers at the country of origin. If they are legal asylum seekers, fly them over. If they don’t have paperwork or are found to be guilty of crimes against humanity, push them out the gate! If every country in the world adopted this approach, combining it with some of the lawn on their embassy grounds, the safety issues would be done away with. It also provides work opportunities in the “oppressed” countries, with the need to build razor wire fences and dwellings [with cable TV, internet and Nintendos]. This is a foreign aid solution that actually helps the foreigners.
Simple, children. Now on to world hunger…..

Robertson said :

howeph said :

If you accept that refugees in Indonesia have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” then you must also accept that Australia must live up to its Article 31 obligations when they enter our territory.

Well, it should be pretty clear that we don’t accept that.

It’s pretty clear that YOU don’t accept that.

It’s pretty clear that everyone in the Labor and Liberal Parties are prepared to be the “three wise monkeys” and say that they don’t accept that in order to pander for YOUR vote.

However its also pretty clear that the UNHCR and the courts of Australia DO accept that. That’s why around 80-90% of the asylum seekers, arriving by boat, are not only found to be refugees but are also eventually – after months or years of imprisonment and psychological torment – resettled here in Australia. But you don’t seem to care about any of that…

chewy14 said :

It’s definitely what I see as one of the major flaws in the current convention.

Obviously a diplomatic solution via an updated refugee convention would be preferable… but as I’ve already said, I think it would be a very long and difficult process. At some stage, if it can’t be re written to reflect current world realities, I think we would have to pull out of the convention.

I’m curious, if you could have your wish, what are the changes that you would like to see in a re-written convention?

What would provide the required protections for Asylum seekers and yet allow Australia to implement the Labor/Liberal deterrence polices?

Robertson said :

Although if the Convention is going to relentlessly suffer from the sort of deliberately obtuse misinterpretation…

Please describe the misinterpretation(s) I have made of the Convention. Please be specific.

johnboy said :

Except that Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. And we are.

I don’t think that alters our obligations under the convention. I certainly don’t recall article 31 mentioning anything about it.

howeph said :

chewy14 said :

And sorry Howeph, I just reread what you wrote and I confused what you were trying to say. You’re last comment was correct.

No worries Chewy14.

So, I’m not sure where this leaves us.

Does all of the above just confirm your understanding of the Convention, and therefore your belief that Australia needs to withdraw from the Convention in order to prosecute the Labor/Liberal policies of deterrence?

It’s definitely what I see as one of the major flaws in the current convention.

Obviously a diplomatic solution via an updated refugee convention would be preferable but as I’ve already said, I think it would be a very long and difficult process. At some stage, if it can’t be re written to reflect current world realities, I think we would have to pull out of the convention.

johnboy said :

Except that Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. And we are.

Although if the Convention is going to relentlessly suffer from the sort of deliberately obtuse misinterpretation it is getting at the hands of the lefties, then the best course of action is to join Indonesia as a non-signatory so that Australians can apply Australia’s laws in order to govern how and when and which foreigners gain admittance to our country.

johnboy said :

Except that Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. And we are.

What part of Article 1 makes an issue of that?

http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/refugee_en.pdf
“It is widely accepted that the prohibition of refoulement is part of customary international law. This means that even States that are not party to the Refugee Convention must respect the principle of
non-refoulement”.

johnboy said :

Except that Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. And we are.

Unless you can clearly demonstrate that they are being persecuted in Indonesia (which may be possible), then Indonesia not being a signatory is irrelevant.

howeph said :

If you accept that refugees in Indonesia have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” then you must also accept that Australia must live up to its Article 31 obligations when they enter our territory.

Well, it should be pretty clear that we don’t accept that. They have fled the country where they are supposedly persecuted. They are now refugees in Indonesia, where they are not persecuted. The convention gives them no right to move onto Australia unless Australia chooses to issue them with proper visas.

chewy14 said :

And sorry Howeph, I just reread what you wrote and I confused what you were trying to say. You’re last comment was correct.

No worries Chewy14.

So, I’m not sure where this leaves us.

Does all of the above just confirm your understanding of the Convention, and therefore your belief that Australia needs to withdraw from the Convention in order to prosecute the Labor/Liberal policies of deterrence?

And sorry Howeph, I just reread what you wrote and I confused what you were trying to say. You’re last comment was correct.

Howeph,
That was my point. It’s their persecution in their home country that makes them a refugee, not any perceived persecution in Indonesia. The fact that they may be treated badly in Indonesia is immaterial to their status as a refugee.

chewy14 said :

howeph said :

“[Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened [by] a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion enter or are present in [Australia’s] territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

(Substituted text from Article 1 in italics)

Howeph, the problem with this interpretation is that none of the asylum seekers are seeking asylum from Indonesia.

I’m trying hard to do as little interpreting as possible.

I’m just trying to link all the bits together – using the wording of the Convention and marking any changes that I have made as clearly as possible – to show what the Convention actually says so that we can all make our own better informed judgement/interpretation of what Australia’s obligations are. If you think that I have made any errors in doing this, please point them out.

chewy14 said :

Their justification is persecution in their home country, not Indonesia.

Their claim for being a refugee is under Article 1 of the Convention, and is with respect to their home country. If they are only being persecuted in another country (e.g. Indonesia) then they can’t be a refugee because they can be returned to their home country.

Australia’s responsibilities upon their entry into Australian territory is outlined in Article 31. Article 31 is NOT with respect to their home country; it is that they must be “directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1″.

Hence:

If you accept that refugees in Indonesia have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” then you must also accept that Australia must live up to its Article 31 obligations when they enter our territory.

chewy14 said :

Why do you think that might be?

I don’t understand your question.

Howeph:

Thanks for your response.

I think Australia has a definite moral duty to resettle genuine refugees, the real problem is the boats. As we’ve discussed, setting up processing centres offshore would be a great way to take the people smugglers out of the equation. We could also set up processing centres in multiple locations according to need.

With some decent long term infrastructure planning we could then place refugee families in places where the work needed to be done, to augment Australian resources. I wonder what happened to that paper from the Libs about building 130 new dams in the top end…?

howeph said :

milkman said :

… and they are really only refugees if they have come directly from the place where they felt threatened or persecuted…

To be a refugee they don’t have to come directly from the place where they are persecuted. Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:

“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The “… coming directly from …” bit come from Article 31 of the Convention:

“[Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1 …”

So if you substitute Article 1’s definition of what constitutes having life or freedom threatened into the above and put the two together you get:

“[Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened [by] a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion enter or are present in [Australia’s] territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

(Substituted text from Article 1 in italics)

If you accept that refugees in Indonesia have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” then you must also accept that Australia must live up to its Article 31 obligations when they enter our territory.

Howeph, the problem with this interpretation is that none of the asylum seekers are seeking asylum from Indonesia. Their justification is persecution in their home country, not Indonesia. Why do you think that might be?

thebrownstreak69 said :

Howeph:

OK, so I read your response and had a bit of a think.

In terms of the first point, the best summary is probably your final description: asylum seekers have the right to illegally enter Australia. I suspect it was written that way to allow sovereign nations the ability to penalise those who enter illegally but turn out not to be refugees (and there are criteria in other parts of the convention). Either way, the practical interpretation is is that if people enter Australia, identify themselves to authorities, and are found to be genuine refugees then no penalty will be applied for entering the country illegally. Which makes sense.

Yep, I agree.

thebrownstreak69 said :

The confusion comes in with the next point: coming directly from a place of persecution and/or threat to life. Some quick googling suggests Malaysia and Indonesia don’t formally accept refugees, although many such people seem to integrate somewhat into society there, holding jobs and attending schools, but are not accorded the rights of full citizenship. The problem arises in determining whether this constitutes persecution.

Yes, I agree. This aspect is a judgement call.

thebrownstreak69 said :

The sad fact is that we can’t simply throw open our borders to all and sundry,…

To be fair, no one is seriously proposing that we do open our borders to all and sundry. This is a false, strawman argument, put up by those who support deterrence as the only policy solution.

thebrownstreak69 said :

… and we definitely need to treat each case on its merits. I don’t think deporting all people who present to Australia by boat is a good policy, but any long term solution to people smuggling needs to involve cooperation between Australia and Indonesia.

I couldn’t agree more.

thebrownstreak69 said :

This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population gives an idea of how many refugees are actually identified by country. It’s not as many as I though. Maybe we need a solution whereby people wanting to claim asylum register within the camps themselves overseas, we process them there, and then fly them over safely. If we weren’t spending billions on detention centres and patrolling our northern borders so heavily we could probably make some good inroads.

I don’t know if you realise it, but you have pretty much described the Greens policy on refugees.

A summary of the Greens policy is:

“The only way to help refugees is to make sure they don’t feel the need to board a dangerous boat in the first place — and that means setting up safe, official ways for them to seek asylum in countries like Australia.

“We can do that today by:

* funding safe UN assessment centres to quickly process claims in Indonesia
* urgently resettling more refugees once their claims are approved [by plane directly from Indonesia]
* then building a regional solution like Malcolm Fraser’s government did”

[Source: http://greens.org.au/refugees%5D

Note: I’m not a Greens member; and I have some questions that aren’t answered in their policy documents that they provide online; but basically their’s, or something like it, is the only solution that has a chance of working. Note also that the Greens policy is also consistent with much of the Expert Panel’s recommendations. Again, it is not a policy of “let them all in”.

milkman said :

… and they are really only refugees if they have come directly from the place where they felt threatened or persecuted…

To be a refugee they don’t have to come directly from the place where they are persecuted. Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:

“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The “… coming directly from …” bit come from Article 31 of the Convention:

“[Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1 …”

So if you substitute Article 1’s definition of what constitutes having life or freedom threatened into the above and put the two together you get:

“[Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened [by] a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion enter or are present in [Australia’s] territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

(Substituted text from Article 1 in italics)

If you accept that refugees in Indonesia have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” then you must also accept that Australia must live up to its Article 31 obligations when they enter our territory.

howeph said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Interesting interpretation.

I would suggest that what it actually says is that Australia won’t apply a penalty for entering the country illegally, not that arriving and claiming asylum is legal.

So am I right to say that we agree the convention says “Australia won’t apply a penalty for entering the country illegally [so long as they ‘present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence’]”?

If so then that is at least some common ground.

Why don’t you think that also means “that arriving and claiming asylum is legal”?

The convention must be read within the context of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” which states in Article 14: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

Article 14, of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, gives asylum seekers the right to seek asylum in Australia; and Article 31, of the Refugee Convention, prevents Australia from punishing them for it so long as they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

To put it in the most simple terms: Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.

I know this sounds like a contradiction in terms, but that’s lawyers for you.

thebrownstreak69 said :

It also refers to coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. It seems to me you are interpreting that countries who are not signatories either ‘don’t count’ for this rule, or cannot provide for the security of life or freedom for the person in question.

A country doesn’t have to be a signatory in order to provide security of life or freedom for refugees. If Indonesia did then a) refugees would be far less likely to risk their lives to escape; and b) their case for seeking asylum in Australia would be hard to justify.

But that is just pie in the sky dreaming. The fact is that Indonesia doesn’t provide this security for refugees. How do you look after yourself and your family, if it is illegal for you to work and you have no access to any social benefits? When you are under constant threat of imprisonment? When there is no hope that your circumstances are going to change?

thebrownstreak69 said :

Can Indonesia and/or Malaysia really not accept refugees just because they are not signatories to this agreement? Does not being a signatory invalidate them as a potential country for resettlement?

They are a sovereign nation. They can make laws to resettle refugees as they see fit – either as signatories (in which case they are obliged to respect all the convention obligations) or not.

The fact is that currently Indonesia does not and they have no plans, that I am aware of, to change in the future.

If you want Indonesia to change, then I think that it would also be a bit rich for Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, to demand that Indonesia, an emerging nation with still many economic problems, respect the Human Rights of Refugees when we are doing everything we can to deny them – don’t you think?

Howeph:

OK, so I read your response and had a bit of a think.

In terms of the first point, the best summary is probably your final description: asylum seekers have the right to illegally enter Australia. I suspect it was written that way to allow sovereign nations the ability to penalise those who enter illegally but turn out not to be refugees (and there are criteria in other parts of the convention). Either way, the practical interpretation is is that if people enter Australia, identify themselves to authorities, and are found to be genuine refugees then no penalty will be applied for entering the country illegally. Which makes sense.

The confusion comes in with the next point: coming directly from a place of persecution and/or threat to life. Some quick googling suggests Malaysia and Indonesia don’t formally accept refugees, although many such people seem to integrate somewhat into society there, holding jobs and attending schools, but are not accorded the rights of full citizenship. The problem arises in determining whether this constitutes persecution.

The sad fact is that we can’t simply throw open our borders to all and sundry, and we definitely need to treat each case on its merits. I don’t think deporting all people who present to Australia by boat is a good policy, but any long term solution to people smuggling needs to involve cooperation between Australia and Indonesia.

This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population gives an idea of how many refugees are actually identified by country. It’s not as many as I though. Maybe we need a solution whereby people wanting to claim asylum register within the camps themselves overseas, we process them there, and then fly them over safely. If we weren’t spending billions on detention centres and patrolling our northern borders so heavily we could probably make some good inroads.

This is what happens when lawyers write the rules.
It’s so much easier when you have something simple like “No Homers allowed”.

So it seems, then, that refugees turning up in Australian waters is indeed illegal (although we agree not to penalise those found to be genuine refugees), and they are really only refugees if they have come directly from the place where they felt threatened or persecuted, and aren’t guilty of any major crimes in the place they came from.

I’ve learnt something today, thankyou.

Howeph is amazingly confused, he even quotes:

“refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1”

and he adds his confused analysis:

[i.e. Australia can’t lock people up in detention for years as punishment].

So, in summary, these people haven’t come here directly from a country where Article 1 applies to them, and they are not even detained as a punishment, despite not having a valid claim to refugee status in Australia and having broken our laws.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Interesting interpretation.

I would suggest that what it actually says is that Australia won’t apply a penalty for entering the country illegally, not that arriving and claiming asylum is legal.

So am I right to say that we agree the convention says “Australia won’t apply a penalty for entering the country illegally [so long as they ‘present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence’]”?

If so then that is at least some common ground.

Why don’t you think that also means “that arriving and claiming asylum is legal”?

The convention must be read within the context of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” which states in Article 14: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

Article 14, of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, gives asylum seekers the right to seek asylum in Australia; and Article 31, of the Refugee Convention, prevents Australia from punishing them for it so long as they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

To put it in the most simple terms: Asylum seekers have the right to enter Australia illegally.

I know this sounds like a contradiction in terms, but that’s lawyers for you.

thebrownstreak69 said :

It also refers to coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. It seems to me you are interpreting that countries who are not signatories either ‘don’t count’ for this rule, or cannot provide for the security of life or freedom for the person in question.

A country doesn’t have to be a signatory in order to provide security of life or freedom for refugees. If Indonesia did then a) refugees would be far less likely to risk their lives to escape; and b) their case for seeking asylum in Australia would be hard to justify.

But that is just pie in the sky dreaming. The fact is that Indonesia doesn’t provide this security for refugees. How do you look after yourself and your family, if it is illegal for you to work and you have no access to any social benefits? When you are under constant threat of imprisonment? When there is no hope that your circumstances are going to change?

thebrownstreak69 said :

Can Indonesia and/or Malaysia really not accept refugees just because they are not signatories to this agreement? Does not being a signatory invalidate them as a potential country for resettlement?

They are a sovereign nation. They can make laws to resettle refugees as they see fit – either as signatories (in which case they are obliged to respect all the convention obligations) or not.

The fact is that currently Indonesia does not and they have no plans, that I am aware of, to change in the future.

If you want Indonesia to change, then I think that it would also be a bit rich for Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, to demand that Indonesia, an emerging nation with still many economic problems, respect the Human Rights of Refugees when we are doing everything we can to deny them – don’t you think?

thebrownstreak69 said :

howeph said :

Robertson said :

Codders111 said :

[

Nonsense. Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention, which says people have a right to enter countries to seek asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they have valid travel documents. Check out article 31(1).

It doesn’t say that at all.

Maybe re-write your thesis and actually quote from the document you have vaguely waved your hand at.

The refugee convention, which was written in relation to the post-WW2 problem of displaced populations, apart from being out-of-date and dire needing of a re-appraisal to make it applicable to current problems, quite specifically recognises that nations have laws that govern the crossing of their borders and that those laws are sometimes broken by people who are fleeing persecution. It makes no attempt to invalidate national laws.

Another interesting thing about the refugee convention is that it requires a genuine refugee to declare themselves to the authorities of the first country whose border they cross.
So people who fly to Malaysia, travel through Indonesia, and then enter Australia illegally are clearly not eligible to claim to be refugees, and our asylum system needs a revamp to make any such application automatically invalid.

But Robertson, it DOES say that:

Article 31

Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refugee

1. [Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in [Australia’s] territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2. [Australia] shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country [i.e. Australia can’t lock people up in detention for years as punishment]. [Australia] shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

(Emphasis and changes to make it clear who’s who – i.e. reduce the legalese – are mine).

The convention clearly states that the asylum seekers have the right to come here without the necessary paper work. I.e. They have the right to be here “illegally” so long as they ‘present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence’.

Malaysia and Indonesia are not signatories to the convention. Australia is.

Whilst Malaysia and Indonesia do have UNHCR offices, where asylum seekers can apply for refugee status, they can not seek re-settlement in those countries; rather they must then wait for resettlement in another country.

Whilst waiting they have no or very little access to work, education or health care. In order to survive they must break a number of Indonesian and Malaysian laws – therefore they are very likely to be imprisoned in those countries too. They are likely to be waiting for decades for resettlement. To escape this impossible situation they employ people smugglers to get them to Australia.

The illegal deterrence policy of the Labor and Liberal parties does not address these fundamental realities. They are planning to continually fail on refugee policy.

Interesting interpretation.

I would suggest that what it actually says is that Australia won’t apply a penalty for entering the country illegally, not that arriving and claiming asylum is legal. It also refers to coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. It seems to me you are interpreting that countries who are not signatories either ‘don’t count’ for this rule, or cannot provide for the security of life or freedom for the person in question.

Can Indonesia and/or Malaysia really not accept refugees just because they are not signatories to this agreement? Does not being a signatory invalidate them as a potential country for resettlement?

Thanks for putting Howeph’s nonsense to rest.
Nobody has “a right” to break Australia’s laws.
The convention quite obviously recognises that when it says these people are here unlawfully.

And to answer your further question,
http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/refugee_en.pdf
“It is widely accepted that the prohibition of refoulement is part of customary international law. This means that even States that are not party to the Refugee Convention must respect the principle of
non-refoulement”.

howeph said :

Robertson said :

Codders111 said :

[

Nonsense. Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention, which says people have a right to enter countries to seek asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they have valid travel documents. Check out article 31(1).

It doesn’t say that at all.

Maybe re-write your thesis and actually quote from the document you have vaguely waved your hand at.

The refugee convention, which was written in relation to the post-WW2 problem of displaced populations, apart from being out-of-date and dire needing of a re-appraisal to make it applicable to current problems, quite specifically recognises that nations have laws that govern the crossing of their borders and that those laws are sometimes broken by people who are fleeing persecution. It makes no attempt to invalidate national laws.

Another interesting thing about the refugee convention is that it requires a genuine refugee to declare themselves to the authorities of the first country whose border they cross.
So people who fly to Malaysia, travel through Indonesia, and then enter Australia illegally are clearly not eligible to claim to be refugees, and our asylum system needs a revamp to make any such application automatically invalid.

But Robertson, it DOES say that:

Article 31

Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refugee

1. [Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in [Australia’s] territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2. [Australia] shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country [i.e. Australia can’t lock people up in detention for years as punishment]. [Australia] shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

(Emphasis and changes to make it clear who’s who – i.e. reduce the legalese – are mine).

The convention clearly states that the asylum seekers have the right to come here without the necessary paper work. I.e. They have the right to be here “illegally” so long as they ‘present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence’.

Malaysia and Indonesia are not signatories to the convention. Australia is.

Whilst Malaysia and Indonesia do have UNHCR offices, where asylum seekers can apply for refugee status, they can not seek re-settlement in those countries; rather they must then wait for resettlement in another country.

Whilst waiting they have no or very little access to work, education or health care. In order to survive they must break a number of Indonesian and Malaysian laws – therefore they are very likely to be imprisoned in those countries too. They are likely to be waiting for decades for resettlement. To escape this impossible situation they employ people smugglers to get them to Australia.

The illegal deterrence policy of the Labor and Liberal parties does not address these fundamental realities. They are planning to continually fail on refugee policy.

Interesting interpretation.

I would suggest that what it actually says is that Australia won’t apply a penalty for entering the country illegally, not that arriving and claiming asylum is legal. It also refers to coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. It seems to me you are interpreting that countries who are not signatories either ‘don’t count’ for this rule, or cannot provide for the security of life or freedom for the person in question.

Can Indonesia and/or Malaysia really not accept refugees just because they are not signatories to this agreement? Does not being a signatory invalidate them as a potential country for resettlement?

Kropotkin said :

The refugee issue is largely one of racism, it’s such a non-issue, that the only reason it is used, is to stir up xenophobia.

Also has anyone here actually read The Greens refugee policies? How is increasing the uptake to 30,000 and then working on a regional solution with the transit countries, to deal with refugees themselves, and work on relocation in other first world countries, “opening the flood gates”?

I know RiotACT is largely a far-right echo chamber, but I really do wonder where the hell you get the information that many of you spout? I assume The Daily Terrorgraph, The Australian and The Bolt Report?

It’s a bit weird, isn’t it? What with the large left-wing population of this city and even the editors here are left-leaning.

Robertson said :

Codders111 said :

[

Nonsense. Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention, which says people have a right to enter countries to seek asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they have valid travel documents. Check out article 31(1).

It doesn’t say that at all.

Maybe re-write your thesis and actually quote from the document you have vaguely waved your hand at.

The refugee convention, which was written in relation to the post-WW2 problem of displaced populations, apart from being out-of-date and dire needing of a re-appraisal to make it applicable to current problems, quite specifically recognises that nations have laws that govern the crossing of their borders and that those laws are sometimes broken by people who are fleeing persecution. It makes no attempt to invalidate national laws.

Another interesting thing about the refugee convention is that it requires a genuine refugee to declare themselves to the authorities of the first country whose border they cross.
So people who fly to Malaysia, travel through Indonesia, and then enter Australia illegally are clearly not eligible to claim to be refugees, and our asylum system needs a revamp to make any such application automatically invalid.

But Robertson, it DOES say that:

Article 31

Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refugee

1. [Australia] shall not impose penalties, on account of [the asylum seeker’s] illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in [Australia’s] territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2. [Australia] shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country [i.e. Australia can’t lock people up in detention for years as punishment]. [Australia] shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

(Emphasis and changes to make it clear who’s who – i.e. reduce the legalese – are mine).

The convention clearly states that the asylum seekers have the right to come here without the necessary paper work. I.e. They have the right to be here “illegally” so long as they ‘present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence’.

Malaysia and Indonesia are not signatories to the convention. Australia is.

Whilst Malaysia and Indonesia do have UNHCR offices, where asylum seekers can apply for refugee status, they can not seek re-settlement in those countries; rather they must then wait for resettlement in another country.

Whilst waiting they have no or very little access to work, education or health care. In order to survive they must break a number of Indonesian and Malaysian laws – therefore they are very likely to be imprisoned in those countries too. They are likely to be waiting for decades for resettlement. To escape this impossible situation they employ people smugglers to get them to Australia.

The illegal deterrence policy of the Labor and Liberal parties does not address these fundamental realities. They are planning to continually fail on refugee policy.

astrojax said :

i was going to respond, but your last comment turned me against it. (though where did the ‘racist’ line come in, but from you?)

Yup, that line came from me in the knowledge that someone here would no doubt try to pin that tag on me at some stage. It’s more of a disclaimer than anything related to your original comment. Sorry.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Any chance you could reference the part referring to refugees declaring themselves to the authorities of the first country the enter?

Perhaps this is the part being referred to?

http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/images/convention%20and%20protocol.pdf

Article 31 paragraph 1 (page 31).

Well bugger me Abbott has a refugee policy. For one I was under the impression he didn’t believe there were any refugee’s, going by the way over the past 6 years he was referring to them as illegals. Secondly I thought the policy to stopping the illegals (his words not mine) was to turn back the boats.

Robertson said :

Codders111 said :

[

Nonsense. Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention, which says people have a right to enter countries to seek asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they have valid travel documents. Check out article 31(1).

It doesn’t say that at all.

Maybe re-write your thesis and actually quote from the document you have vaguely waved your hand at.

The refugee convention, which was written in relation to the post-WW2 problem of displaced populations, apart from being out-of-date and dire needing of a re-appraisal to make it applicable to current problems, quite specifically recognises that nations have laws that govern the crossing of their borders and that those laws are sometimes broken by people who are fleeing persecution. It makes no attempt to invalidate national laws.

Another interesting thing about the refugee convention is that it requires a genuine refugee to declare themselves to the authorities of the first country whose border they cross.
So people who fly to Malaysia, travel through Indonesia, and then enter Australia illegally are clearly not eligible to claim to be refugees, and our asylum system needs a revamp to make any such application automatically invalid.

Any chance you could reference the part referring to refugees declaring themselves to the authorities of the first country the enter?

For once this debate looks like it might be based on fact and logic rather than emotion and name calling, so it would be good to get all the information out onto the table.

Jim Jones said :

Roundhead89 said :

Kropotkin said :

The refugee issue is largely one of racism

Why do people bandy around silly words like “racism”, “sexism” or any other trendy “ism”?

In this case we have to consider our very survival and the maintenance of a respectable society.

It’s not racism, it’s quality control.

The purity of the white race, right brother?

I don’t believe the Immigration Act discrimates by skin colour, and I believe your interlocutor was speaking in favour of the proper application of said Act.

Your latest contribution is thus more of the usual illogical dross from the unthinking Left.

Codders111 said :

[

Nonsense. Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention, which says people have a right to enter countries to seek asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they have valid travel documents. Check out article 31(1).

It doesn’t say that at all.

Maybe re-write your thesis and actually quote from the document you have vaguely waved your hand at.

The refugee convention, which was written in relation to the post-WW2 problem of displaced populations, apart from being out-of-date and dire needing of a re-appraisal to make it applicable to current problems, quite specifically recognises that nations have laws that govern the crossing of their borders and that those laws are sometimes broken by people who are fleeing persecution. It makes no attempt to invalidate national laws.

Another interesting thing about the refugee convention is that it requires a genuine refugee to declare themselves to the authorities of the first country whose border they cross.
So people who fly to Malaysia, travel through Indonesia, and then enter Australia illegally are clearly not eligible to claim to be refugees, and our asylum system needs a revamp to make any such application automatically invalid.

wildturkeycanoe said :

astrojax said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

PoQ said :

Why are we afraid of a bunch of wogs?
And if they can get the money together to pay people smugglers and bribe foreign officials, then I posit that they are the sort of entrepreneurs we need in this country.

How they get their money together is unknown. Proceeds of crime? Selling all their possessions? A deal with the smugglers where they have to pay it back by partaking in illegal activities when they get to Australia?
If they have to be so unscrupulous as to have to resort to bribing officials, what kind of ethical values are they beginning their Australian life with – by proving that a criminal act is met with reward and mercy? Law-breakers should be the “last” on the list for entry into this country. Had anyone else from any other country bribed an official to get here been found out, they’d be instantly sent back to where they came from, regardless of the moral sob-story they put on.
And if these people don’t speak English, are they willing to learn it and how long will it take for them to begin contributing their “entrepreneur” skills to our community?

law breakers? please, elucidate for us which laws these asylum seekers arriving by boat have contravened…

and the entrepreneurs may take a generation or more to fully contribute to our society, and some of the older arrivals may struggle to learn fluent english (neurologically, it is well documented that it is easier to learn a new language at a younger age, the corollary of which is that is more and more difficult as one ages) but take a walk / drive around your local area, noting the signs, business names and people who make up your immediate community and report back on how this would be radically different (and, i suspect, much the poorer) had we not had waves of immigration into the country in the past sixty years (let alone those waves that preceded these).

suggest you do some thinking before demonstrating your stupidity by typing…

Where do I start?
– Well, entering without the required paperwork [visa, valid identity papers to prove who you are] would be considered illegal in any circumstance for Australia, except apparently if arriving by a sinking boat. No matter how much money I had in the bank, I couldn’t enter Australia from overseas by any legal method without the correct paperwork.
– If it takes a generation or more for these people to assimilate and contribute to our country, isn’t that just another burden on our already struggling welfare system? A generation is what – 20 years or so? At the figures already quoted here of about $2400 per person, per month, each “immigrant” may cost up to $576,000 to bear good fruit! Well, if I was to have had that kind of injection of funds right now, or at any stage of my past 20 years, I’m sure I’d be contributing a lot more than I currently am. Why aren’t we offering these kind of opportunities to others in our overseas partners’ countries?
– I’ve looked at my local area and all but a couple of the shops are owned by overseas multinational conglomerates. The poor local greengrocer, ethnic food store and other miscellaneous stores are in a poor state, struggling and changing hands often. So how do you think new ethnically owned businesses will survive when all the local Aussie owned shops are closing? Probably because the growing number of multicultural people moving here will not shop anywhere else except for where their friends’ businesses are, to help send money back home to support their relatives.
My thinking may be somewhat skewed by media, but rest assured I am no racist. I am first generation Australian, married to someone born overseas, have friends who migrated here LEGALLY and have struggled with all the red tape in order to achieve this milestone of citizenship. It infuriates me that everyone supports all these refugees with open wallets and paths of gold into our land when those who do the same thing through legal channels have just as much, if not more of a challenge, to get anywhere near the same amount of recognition or financial assistance.
Like I said, reward those who try to sneak through the gaps whilst making it hard for genuine people trying to do it the right way.
Sorry for being stupid, but I’m an Aussie and that’s the way I am. At least I speak English.

i was going to respond, but your last comment turned me against it. (though where did the ‘racist’ line come in, but from you?)

Roundhead89 said :

Kropotkin said :

The refugee issue is largely one of racism

Why do people bandy around silly words like “racism”, “sexism” or any other trendy “ism”?

In this case we have to consider our very survival and the maintenance of a respectable society.

It’s not racism, it’s quality control.

The purity of the white race, right brother?

Kropotkin said :

The refugee issue is largely one of racism

Why do people bandy around silly words like “racism”, “sexism” or any other trendy “ism”?

In this case we have to consider our very survival and the maintenance of a respectable society.

It’s not racism, it’s quality control.

Move along people nothing to see here. Nothing wrong with the picture your TV just needs updating to digital you will get a much clearer picture .

milkman said :

Kropotkin said :

I know RiotACT is largely a far-right echo chamber,

Funniest. Comment. Ever.

I agree…stupendous work there. I thought I’d be able to write a long and ironically witty response, but I’m lost for words, and that doesn’t happen often.

Whoops, somehow posted in the wrong thread…sorry for any confusion 🙂

I can’t decide if this is an awkwardly fawning attempt to ingratiate themseles with the legal fraternity, or a slick piece of advertising. Given that the ‘donors’ name is in the largest font, I’d have to go with the latter.

Kropotkin said :

The refugee issue is largely one of racism, it’s such a non-issue, that the only reason it is used, is to stir up xenophobia.

Also has anyone here actually read The Greens refugee policies? How is increasing the uptake to 30,000 and then working on a regional solution with the transit countries, to deal with refugees themselves, and work on relocation in other first world countries, “opening the flood gates”?

I know RiotACT is largely a far-right echo chamber, but I really do wonder where the hell you get the information that many of you spout? I assume The Daily Terrorgraph, The Australian and The Bolt Report?

Rubbish.

– If it is a ‘non issue’ , then why are the Greens still banging the drum about it? They seem determined to make as much mileage as they can out of the misery, and this ‘debate; is a perfect example – no real solution to the problem sought, but use the issue to attract a few more naive Arts undergrads to the cause.

– The conservative policy is and was to stop the boats. The Green Left policy is and was to encourage more boats by making that risky boat trip even more attractive – with the inevitable result of more deaths and more misery. That was the reality of your policy ‘solution’ – the rest is typical unrealistic Greens flimflam

But don’t let that stop you getting together and congratulating yourselves on your higher moral stance.

And here we have it – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24516797
“A Malaysian court has ruled that non-Muslims cannot use the word Allah to refer to God, even in their own faiths, overturning a 2009 ruling by a lower court.”
In a free country like Australia, we keep pandering to minorities from overseas countries. Our laws aren’t discriminatory to any race, religion or culture. Yet, the same religions we allow to increase in our free land are the ones who in their own countries are making it a crime to even utter the name of their deity if not part of their faith! How many generations will it take before Muslims outnumber every other group in Oz and they will have enough of a majority to take control of the government?
Before you go declaring me a bigot crying “Help, the Muslims are taking over”, take note of history.
It only took 500 years to claim Malaysia, a country that now is 61% Muslim and has a population of 29 million, though Islam hadn’t been introduced until the 1500s. How quickly could it spread here? I for one would like to say what I like about Allah, or Mohamed, or any deity anyone would care to name, without fear of having my house firebombed. Has anyone heard of the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran or any other Christian denomination having any violent actions against someone for uttering the word “God” or “Jehovah” if they weren’t of “the faith”? [Yes, yes, forget the crusades, I mean in this century and this country]
I am all for freedom of worship, no matter the religion, but when they condemn this freedom it makes my pacifist nature peel back to reveal a deep hatred of those who think their ways should be forced upon others.
Yes, this does add to the debate about refugees, only thing is I can’t find any information on how many of the refugees are Muslims. Anyone out there with figures?

Kropotkin said :

I know RiotACT is largely a far-right echo chamber,

Funniest. Comment. Ever.

Kropotkin said :

The refugee issue is largely one of racism, it’s such a non-issue, that the only reason it is used, is to stir up xenophobia.

Also has anyone here actually read The Greens refugee policies? How is increasing the uptake to 30,000 and then working on a regional solution with the transit countries, to deal with refugees themselves, and work on relocation in other first world countries, “opening the flood gates”?

I know RiotACT is largely a far-right echo chamber, but I really do wonder where the hell you get the information that many of you spout? I assume The Daily Terrorgraph, The Australian and The Bolt Report?

Yes I’ve read the Greens refugee policy.

The reasons why I think it will never work are:

They don’t actually set a limit because boat refugees would still be processed onshore.

Whatever arbitrary amount they set to ship here from Indonesia is only as good as the amount of people willing to come here. As soon as it’s breached there is no deterrent for asylum seekers to once again hop on a dangerous boat journey. The Greens would then have to deal with more potential deaths at sea or upping their number even further. How is it not tantamount to “opening the flood gates”?

Due to the above it will also be expensive. It is possible that on some years it may be cheaper but if numbers rise as they most likely would due to pull factors of the policy, the costs would rise exponentially. Any policy with no limit opens us up to ever increasing costs.

It won’t stop the criminal people smugglers.

It preferentially treats those with the means to travel through multiple countries to get to Indonesia instead of prioritising those who are most in danger of persecution and death. How can that possibly be fair to those languishing in overseas camps?

Its a bit idealistic to think that suddenly regional diplomacy will somehow all become easy once the Greens policy is installed. A regional/global agreement on this issue would be an extremely difficult thing to negotiate. There’s really no evidence that it would be forthcoming in the near future.

But yeah, ………racism right?

The refugee issue is largely one of racism, it’s such a non-issue, that the only reason it is used, is to stir up xenophobia.

Also has anyone here actually read The Greens refugee policies? How is increasing the uptake to 30,000 and then working on a regional solution with the transit countries, to deal with refugees themselves, and work on relocation in other first world countries, “opening the flood gates”?

I know RiotACT is largely a far-right echo chamber, but I really do wonder where the hell you get the information that many of you spout? I assume The Daily Terrorgraph, The Australian and The Bolt Report?

Dilandach said :

BimboGeek said :

Dilandach can you show me that refugees are more likely than anyone else to commit a violent or other crime or did you want to start a new program imprisoning all new Australians at birth and only releasing them if they are found to be nonviolent?

If there are good statistics to support your argument I’m ready to be convinced. If 3 in several thousand is no different to the base rate then I’ll maintain compassion should be the first priority.

Well why don’t you ask to have an unchecked refugee male stay at your house then until he’s on his feet. If you have children, then show us how trust worthy you are then.

You’re attacking a straw man here. The issue is how refugees should be treated, not whether we’re going to let them live in our houses.

In any case, your comment smacks of racism. I wouldn’t let anyone live in my house, refugee or not.

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Perhaps you could do some serious research instead of spouting lefty rubbish.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

White human trash are a far higher burden on Australia economically and criminally than all refugees here combined.

And while we’re on the topic of “obvious statements about majority demographics”, white humans also produce the vast majority of Australia’s economic wealth.

Did you actually have a point to make?

DrKoresh said :

1)Correlating someone’s skin colour with criminality is the very definition of racism…. And 2) it’s not illegal to come here to seek asylum…

1) What are you on about?
2) What are you on about?
The laws of the Commonwealth of Australia say you need to apply for and be granted valid travel documents in order to enter this country. They also say that if you fail to do so you have broken the law. That’s the law.
Sounds like Koresh has NFI what he’s talking about.

Nonsense. Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention, which says people have a right to enter countries to seek asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they have valid travel documents. Check out article 31(1).

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

White human trash are a far higher burden on Australia economically and criminally than all refugees here combined.

I take you would agree that Black human trash are a burden to as is yellow human trash and slightly pink human trash and possibly albino human trash.

White human trash are a far higher burden on Australia economically and criminally than all refugees here combined.

Nobody is saying let all the boat refugees settle in Australia. However providing them with more freedom and community access is far more beneficial than trying to lock them up on a far flung island country.

Like i suggested earlier the TPV’s are a good idea. but rather than wasting money with offshore processing, use the money to get the real criminals here, which are the smugglers. Rather than telling Indonesia they were going to buy fishermans boats and to turn back the boats and make it indonesias problem, why not work with them to develop a people smuggling taskforce within Indonesia to track them down. I mean the Indonesians did note that Iranians were a problem and revoked their visa on arrival rights.

You don’t need to lock up refugees forever either. At least treat them like people as I said and if they violate their TPV send them home with no chance of staying. But the paranoia about these people being terrorists or are some threat to our society is ridiculous. Have any of you ever traveled to a third world country? I have and the people get desperate, boat people are far from cashed up refugees. They may be lucky to have some cattle or property to sell first just to pay the smugglers, but then realistically they have nothing.

The greens solution is not practical, the labor/liberal ideas are appalling, selfish and racist in many ways. Why can’t we have a moderate solution here, that treats people as people. After all if one of the refugees grows up to be a sportsperson, we’ll all be cheering about it then and about how nice we are!

Roundhead89 said :

PoQ said :

Why are we afraid of a bunch of wogs? .

Does September 11 and the Bali Bombing ring any bells?

NEVAR 4GET

astrojax said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

PoQ said :

Why are we afraid of a bunch of wogs?
And if they can get the money together to pay people smugglers and bribe foreign officials, then I posit that they are the sort of entrepreneurs we need in this country.

How they get their money together is unknown. Proceeds of crime? Selling all their possessions? A deal with the smugglers where they have to pay it back by partaking in illegal activities when they get to Australia?
If they have to be so unscrupulous as to have to resort to bribing officials, what kind of ethical values are they beginning their Australian life with – by proving that a criminal act is met with reward and mercy? Law-breakers should be the “last” on the list for entry into this country. Had anyone else from any other country bribed an official to get here been found out, they’d be instantly sent back to where they came from, regardless of the moral sob-story they put on.
And if these people don’t speak English, are they willing to learn it and how long will it take for them to begin contributing their “entrepreneur” skills to our community?

law breakers? please, elucidate for us which laws these asylum seekers arriving by boat have contravened…

and the entrepreneurs may take a generation or more to fully contribute to our society, and some of the older arrivals may struggle to learn fluent english (neurologically, it is well documented that it is easier to learn a new language at a younger age, the corollary of which is that is more and more difficult as one ages) but take a walk / drive around your local area, noting the signs, business names and people who make up your immediate community and report back on how this would be radically different (and, i suspect, much the poorer) had we not had waves of immigration into the country in the past sixty years (let alone those waves that preceded these).

suggest you do some thinking before demonstrating your stupidity by typing…

Where do I start?
– Well, entering without the required paperwork [visa, valid identity papers to prove who you are] would be considered illegal in any circumstance for Australia, except apparently if arriving by a sinking boat. No matter how much money I had in the bank, I couldn’t enter Australia from overseas by any legal method without the correct paperwork.
– If it takes a generation or more for these people to assimilate and contribute to our country, isn’t that just another burden on our already struggling welfare system? A generation is what – 20 years or so? At the figures already quoted here of about $2400 per person, per month, each “immigrant” may cost up to $576,000 to bear good fruit! Well, if I was to have had that kind of injection of funds right now, or at any stage of my past 20 years, I’m sure I’d be contributing a lot more than I currently am. Why aren’t we offering these kind of opportunities to others in our overseas partners’ countries?
– I’ve looked at my local area and all but a couple of the shops are owned by overseas multinational conglomerates. The poor local greengrocer, ethnic food store and other miscellaneous stores are in a poor state, struggling and changing hands often. So how do you think new ethnically owned businesses will survive when all the local Aussie owned shops are closing? Probably because the growing number of multicultural people moving here will not shop anywhere else except for where their friends’ businesses are, to help send money back home to support their relatives.
My thinking may be somewhat skewed by media, but rest assured I am no racist. I am first generation Australian, married to someone born overseas, have friends who migrated here LEGALLY and have struggled with all the red tape in order to achieve this milestone of citizenship. It infuriates me that everyone supports all these refugees with open wallets and paths of gold into our land when those who do the same thing through legal channels have just as much, if not more of a challenge, to get anywhere near the same amount of recognition or financial assistance.
Like I said, reward those who try to sneak through the gaps whilst making it hard for genuine people trying to do it the right way.
Sorry for being stupid, but I’m an Aussie and that’s the way I am. At least I speak English.

Robertson said :

Sounds like Koresh has NFI what he’s talking about.

Come down to my compound and say that.

Codders111 said :

Well of course you’re brainwashed if you’ve been getting your news from those sources. Try something more objective based on OFFICIAL STATISTICS rather than random anecdotes: “asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas are 45 times less likely to be charged with a crime than members of the general population.” http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/few-asylum-seekers-charged-with-crime-20130228-2f98h.html

To be fair, it’s just as silly to expect to be able extrapolate that figure to apply to all asylum seekers if we had a policy of community processing for all arrivals. We simply don’t know what the figures would be.

HiddenDragon said :

I doubt whether the difficult question which was not answered here:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3814671.htm

will be answered, or even asked, at the 29 October forum.

That interview sums up all the reasons why I think that the Greens policy would never work if it was implemented. Milne pretty much dodged having to deal with the severe shortcomings of their policy that the interviewer raised.

towerofsoup said :

Robertson…wow. just. wow. There are huge numbers of british nationals who overstay their visa and remain in Australia. Obviously white people fail to obtain correct visas.They just happen to come by plane instead of boat, and somehow this makes it all ok becasue we all know that boat people are threatening to overwhelm us.

Overstaying one’s visa =/= entering Australia illegally and signing up for reams of taxpayer handouts.

And we have an election result that proves it.

DrKoresh said :

1)Correlating someone’s skin colour with criminality is the very definition of racism…. And 2) it’s not illegal to come here to seek asylum…

1) What are you on about?
2) What are you on about?
The laws of the Commonwealth of Australia say you need to apply for and be granted valid travel documents in order to enter this country. They also say that if you fail to do so you have broken the law. That’s the law.
Sounds like Koresh has NFI what he’s talking about.

Codders111 said :

Robertson said :

It’s not the racists’ fault that the vast majority of people illegally entering Australia are non-white, is it?

Actually most people in Australia illegally are Americans or Brits overstaying their tourist visas. Nobody kicks up a fuss about them.

Who was talking about visa-overstayers? Nobody.

It’s worth noting that nobody has caused 4,500 deaths at sea by encouraging people to over-stay their visas, while those who have encouraged people to enter Australia illegally have caused 4,500 deaths at sea.

You’d think the limp lefties who can’t cope with the idea of actual immigration laws and who are thereby responsible for 4,5000 deaths at sea would be hanging their heads in shame round about now, wouldn’t you?

Abbott’s refugee policy is far better then Labors. First thing is stop it the illegal immigration and deaths at sea and huge profits to people smugglers. This will ensure no more people in detention and no more people clogging up the courts and no issues with legal assistance just like what happened during the Howard government. At the end of the Howard years only 6 people where left in detention. Then increase the genuine refugee intake. Seems like a sensible plan to me. Carry on boys your doing a great job so far.

Robertson said :

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up .

Yeah, but they aren’t.

The white immigrants who come here mostly seem to be making the effort to get a valid visa first.

It’s not the racists’ fault that the vast majority of people illegally entering Australia are non-white, is it?

1)Correlating someone’s skin colour with criminality is the very definition of racism…. And 2) it’s not illegal to come here to seek asylum…

Robertson…wow. just. wow. There are huge numbers of british nationals who overstay their visa and remain in Australia. Obviously white people fail to obtain correct visas.They just happen to come by plane instead of boat, and somehow this makes it all ok becasue we all know that boat people are threatening to overwhelm us.

I doubt whether the difficult question which was not answered here:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3814671.htm

will be answered, or even asked, at the 29 October forum.

BimboGeek said :

Dilandach can you show me that refugees are more likely than anyone else to commit a violent or other crime or did you want to start a new program imprisoning all new Australians at birth and only releasing them if they are found to be nonviolent?

If there are good statistics to support your argument I’m ready to be convinced. If 3 in several thousand is no different to the base rate then I’ll maintain compassion should be the first priority.

Well why don’t you ask to have an unchecked refugee male stay at your house then until he’s on his feet. If you have children, then show us how trust worthy you are then.

You may not like it but there are jerks in the world, explain how you are going to differentiate between people who are fleeing persecution and those who are fleeing prosecution? Going to look them in the eye? Just ask them and hope they give an honest answer?

Robertson said :

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up .

Yeah, but they aren’t.

The white immigrants who come here mostly seem to be making the effort to get a valid visa first.

It’s not the racists’ fault that the vast majority of people illegally entering Australia are non-white, is it?

Actually most people in Australia illegally are Americans or Brits overstaying their tourist visas. Nobody kicks up a fuss about them.

Robertson said :

The white immigrants who come here mostly seem to be making the effort to get a valid visa first.

Oops – I just remembered: *except New Zealanders*. Pretty keen for the government to crack down on them, too, considering the level of criminality they bring with them.

BimboGeek said :

What would you want if you were fleeing some sort of persecution. Say you were part of an ethnic minority that had already been displaced and subjected to some amount of genocide in the past and now your country is at war, your family are starving and because of your ethnicity you are everyone’s lowest priority.
…
What would you risk?

Now do you get it?

I’ve done exactly as you suggest and imagined I was a poor, starving, displaced, persecuted refugee.
If I were a genuine refugee, I would be pretty desperate for a country like Australia to resettle me.
Australia being the 2nd most generous country in the world when it comes to resettling refugees, I would get my hopes up hoping I was in for a chance.

I would be *extremely* disheartened if Australia started resettling nothing but cashed-up economic migrants chasing handouts instead of people like me.

There.

Why don’t *you* try imagining you are a genuine refugee now?

Dilandach said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Based on this, would you say you are in favour of accepting all asylum seekers at their word and resettling them in Australia?

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Based on this, would you say you are in favour of accepting all asylum seekers at their word and resettling them in Australia?

Of course, they’re *all* unequivocally above reproach.

“Oh no, you can’t lock them away until you work out who they are.” You have people burning down buildings, being physically and sexually violent with each other yet you have supporters wanting those exact same people out on the streets among the community in the first place. A complete refusal to accept the reality and responsibility.

There is no way to know the difference without investigation that you’re not letting in the equivalent of Adrian Bailey out onto the streets or off the top of my head the guy who raped a student at Macquarie University who was found to be a released refugee or the guy who sexually assaulted a blind woman, also found to be a community released refugee.

http://www.parramattasun.com.au/story/1332113/asylum-seekers-moved-from-macquarie-university-to-parramatta/
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/man-charged-with-assaulting-blind-woman/story-e6frfku9-1226689220329

Race has nothing to do with it, who they are and what they’ve done certainly does have everything to do with it.

Well of course you’re brainwashed if you’ve been getting your news from those sources. Try something more objective based on OFFICIAL STATISTICS rather than random anecdotes: “asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas are 45 times less likely to be charged with a crime than members of the general population.” http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/few-asylum-seekers-charged-with-crime-20130228-2f98h.html

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up .

Yeah, but they aren’t.

The white immigrants who come here mostly seem to be making the effort to get a valid visa first.

It’s not the racists’ fault that the vast majority of people illegally entering Australia are non-white, is it?

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

It’s not that simple John…
It’s disingenuous to suggest people who don’t agree with your political leanings is a racist.

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Who exactly are “all of these racists”?

According to your average Greens voter, it is anyone that doesn’t support their migration policies.

And as for the whites versus those with higher melanin levels and the racism debate, the Irish and kiwis are as much maligned in certain circles, just not reported on, as the Sri Lankans and Afghanis. But they arrive by plane, so the media doesn’t care about them.

wildturkeycanoe said :

PoQ said :

Why are we afraid of a bunch of wogs?
And if they can get the money together to pay people smugglers and bribe foreign officials, then I posit that they are the sort of entrepreneurs we need in this country.

How they get their money together is unknown. Proceeds of crime? Selling all their possessions? A deal with the smugglers where they have to pay it back by partaking in illegal activities when they get to Australia?
If they have to be so unscrupulous as to have to resort to bribing officials, what kind of ethical values are they beginning their Australian life with – by proving that a criminal act is met with reward and mercy? Law-breakers should be the “last” on the list for entry into this country. Had anyone else from any other country bribed an official to get here been found out, they’d be instantly sent back to where they came from, regardless of the moral sob-story they put on.
And if these people don’t speak English, are they willing to learn it and how long will it take for them to begin contributing their “entrepreneur” skills to our community?

law breakers? please, elucidate for us which laws these asylum seekers arriving by boat have contravened…

and the entrepreneurs may take a generation or more to fully contribute to our society, and some of the older arrivals may struggle to learn fluent english (neurologically, it is well documented that it is easier to learn a new language at a younger age, the corollary of which is that is more and more difficult as one ages) but take a walk / drive around your local area, noting the signs, business names and people who make up your immediate community and report back on how this would be radically different (and, i suspect, much the poorer) had we not had waves of immigration into the country in the past sixty years (let alone those waves that preceded these).

suggest you do some thinking before demonstrating your stupidity by typing…

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Who exactly are “all of these racists”?

Dilandach can you show me that refugees are more likely than anyone else to commit a violent or other crime or did you want to start a new program imprisoning all new Australians at birth and only releasing them if they are found to be nonviolent?

If there are good statistics to support your argument I’m ready to be convinced. If 3 in several thousand is no different to the base rate then I’ll maintain compassion should be the first priority.

wildturkeycanoe said :

How they get their money together is unknown. Proceeds of crime? Selling all their possessions? A deal with the smugglers where they have to pay it back by partaking in illegal activities when they get to Australia?
If they have to be so unscrupulous as to have to resort to bribing officials, what kind of ethical values are they beginning their Australian life with – by proving that a criminal act is met with reward and mercy? Law-breakers should be the “last” on the list for entry into this country. Had anyone else from any other country bribed an official to get here been found out, they’d be instantly sent back to where they came from, regardless of the moral sob-story they put on.
And if these people don’t speak English, are they willing to learn it and how long will it take for them to begin contributing their “entrepreneur” skills to our community?

Yes and it’s safe to say some of the international students at ANU who drive quite expensive cars, can somehow afford the tens of thousands in upfront tuition fees, rent and living expenses each year all got their cash to splash totally honestly I’m sure.

And when it’s all done and their degree is in their hand, no doubt their half arsed effort will benefit Australia long into the future, as distinct from being a short term way to prop up higher educations piggy banks.

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Based on this, would you say you are in favour of accepting all asylum seekers at their word and resettling them in Australia?

thebrownstreak69 said :

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Based on this, would you say you are in favour of accepting all asylum seekers at their word and resettling them in Australia?

Of course, they’re *all* unequivocally above reproach.

“Oh no, you can’t lock them away until you work out who they are.” You have people burning down buildings, being physically and sexually violent with each other yet you have supporters wanting those exact same people out on the streets among the community in the first place. A complete refusal to accept the reality and responsibility.

There is no way to know the difference without investigation that you’re not letting in the equivalent of Adrian Bailey out onto the streets or off the top of my head the guy who raped a student at Macquarie University who was found to be a released refugee or the guy who sexually assaulted a blind woman, also found to be a community released refugee.

http://www.parramattasun.com.au/story/1332113/asylum-seekers-moved-from-macquarie-university-to-parramatta/
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/man-charged-with-assaulting-blind-woman/story-e6frfku9-1226689220329

Race has nothing to do with it, who they are and what they’ve done certainly does have everything to do with it.

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

Based on this, would you say you are in favour of accepting all asylum seekers at their word and resettling them in Australia?

johnboy said :

It’s really simple.

If these were white people all of these racists would shut up about the sanctity of the deathless prose of the immigration act (they sure don’t care about the refugee convention we’ve ratified).

Racists make all sorts of excuses to pretend the issues isn’t their racism.

They’ve got money, someone somewhere did something bad, there’s a bit of paper with some words on it that they haven’t conformed to.

The excuses vary but the racism is constant.

I’ve no doubt that there is racism behind some people in their opposition to it. Personally I don’t care where they’re from. I care about the methods they use to get their own way. I’d have no issue for every 1 unauthorised arrival that 2 were given refugee status from a UN refugee camp. Its worked out well for some groups including sudanese.

Bad behaviour should not be rewarded with a visa nor should it be given for taking the goldilocks approach to countries.

Spinning all opposition to those who pay people smugglers is as a low brow argumentative point as the hardcore racists themselves and about as logically sound too.

But that just raises more questions! Why are people racist or homophobic!?!? Is it treatable? How do they even manage to be racist when surrounded by brown, black and yellow people? Do they have no friends or do they bunch up in little racist clumps?

Whenever we talk about refugees trying to sneak in or often out of where they were by boat the language is always so agressive about their motivations.

They just want a handout!
They have broken laws to get here!
They don’t speak English!
They couldn’t wait their turn for resettlement or weren’t happy where they were resettled!

Dial it back to first person singular. What would you want if you were fleeing some sort of persecution. Say you were part of an ethnic minority that had already been displaced and subjected to some amount of genocide in the past and now your country is at war, your family are starving and because of your ethnicity you are everyone’s lowest priority.
How far do you run? How long do you wait? What if you are resettled but the local police harrass you, the locals won’t let you work in their businesses and your family is still struggling to get education and health care? Do you stay or keep looking? What if you are in contact with family members who have been resettled, learned a new language, got jobs and got their kids in school? Would you leave your home in that direction or just wander into the nearest camp and wait?
What would you risk?

Now do you get it?

PoQ said :

Why are we afraid of a bunch of wogs? .

Does September 11 and the Bali Bombing ring any bells?

Whether or not they speak English should be the least of our worries.

PoQ said :

Why are we afraid of a bunch of wogs?
And if they can get the money together to pay people smugglers and bribe foreign officials, then I posit that they are the sort of entrepreneurs we need in this country.

How they get their money together is unknown. Proceeds of crime? Selling all their possessions? A deal with the smugglers where they have to pay it back by partaking in illegal activities when they get to Australia?
If they have to be so unscrupulous as to have to resort to bribing officials, what kind of ethical values are they beginning their Australian life with – by proving that a criminal act is met with reward and mercy? Law-breakers should be the “last” on the list for entry into this country. Had anyone else from any other country bribed an official to get here been found out, they’d be instantly sent back to where they came from, regardless of the moral sob-story they put on.
And if these people don’t speak English, are they willing to learn it and how long will it take for them to begin contributing their “entrepreneur” skills to our community?

towerofsoup said :

To be honest, I actually agree with parts of Labor’s plan – not settling people who come by boat in Australia, but only as a deterrent to getting on an unsafe and dangerous boat and risking death to come over here. In concert with some sort of discouragement method, I also think that we need to increase our intake of refugees. So many people are languishing in camps which are not equipped to house such numbers.

We have an aging population, why not shore (hehe, puns) up the tax payers and bring in refugees, allow them to work, pay tax and have access to the benefits and protections we all enjoy, and in return they are supporting an aging population. Scrap the TPV and allow refugees and asylum seekers some security by allowing them to become Australians.

Both parties seem to have forgotten that what they are dealing with is people – desperate, unfortunate people. As has the Australian public. Perhaps I’m just being overly simplistic, but I see a people who are so blinkered by xenophobia that they have lost all compassion.

So we should just tear up our immigration laws and allow anybody to come anytime they like and sign up for their $2,400/month that the government hands to them? (I noticed you fantasise they come here to work, lol).

How long before this country ends up just like Lebanon, Zimbabwe or Pakistan? 20 years? Is that what you want?

I’m wondering what’s going to be discussed. It’s not a debate, as I expect that no one proffering an opposing view will be allowed a looksee, let alone be on stage. So is it going to be a bunch of dreamers listening to the chiming of their own voices?

Why are we afraid of a bunch of wogs? If someone who has just stepped off the boat, who speaks no English, is a threat to your job, may I suggest that you have bigger problems of your own that you need to deal with.

And how does being disease-ridden criminals differentiate them from the passengers on The First Fleet?

And if they can get the money together to pay people smugglers and bribe foreign officials, then I posit that they are the sort of entrepreneurs we need in this country.

Sounds like a local, un-televised episode of Q&A – preaching to the choir, much?

Robertson said :

You have to question people who are rushing to declare a month-old government’s policy a failure based on what appears to be made-up information. All the more so when you consider they are cheer-leaders for the political parties that have spent the last 6 years pursuing a policy that resulted in the drowning of 4,500 thousand people.

You also have to question people who are rushing to declare a month-old government’s policy a success.

Stop the boats? Well, not so many are reaching Australia, but plenty are still trying to leave Indonesia and foundering on the way. So if the policy was intended to save lives at sea, initial evidence is that it is failing.

Before you decide if something is successful, you have to define success. A three-word slogan doesn’t give us much to go on.

IP

To be honest, I actually agree with parts of Labor’s plan – not settling people who come by boat in Australia, but only as a deterrent to getting on an unsafe and dangerous boat and risking death to come over here. In concert with some sort of discouragement method, I also think that we need to increase our intake of refugees. So many people are languishing in camps which are not equipped to house such numbers.

We have an aging population, why not shore (hehe, puns) up the tax payers and bring in refugees, allow them to work, pay tax and have access to the benefits and protections we all enjoy, and in return they are supporting an aging population. Scrap the TPV and allow refugees and asylum seekers some security by allowing them to become Australians.

Both parties seem to have forgotten that what they are dealing with is people – desperate, unfortunate people. As has the Australian public. Perhaps I’m just being overly simplistic, but I see a people who are so blinkered by xenophobia that they have lost all compassion.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

What is wrong with an asylum seeker having to re-apply for visa every three years? Just because they are fleeing some sort of oppression or danger now, doesn’t mean that danger will exist forever more! They need to re-assess their homeland once in a while and go back when it is safe. Just because they land on our shores, doesn’t automatically qualify them to become part of our nation.
Your argument is simplistic, generic and sensationalist.
As much as I don’t agree on the blackout policy, it is the military’s right to keep secret military actions to themselves. I mean, if they advertised what and where they were operating, the people smugglers only have to tune into the news to find a way to get through.

The blackout might work back in a world without mobile phones. In 2013, it is just ludicrous.

There is no blackout.

You have to question people who are rushing to declare a month-old government’s policy a failure based on what appears to be made-up information. All the more so when you consider they are cheer-leaders for the political parties that have spent the last 6 years pursuing a policy that resulted in the drowning of 4,500 thousand people.

wildturkeycanoe said :

What is wrong with an asylum seeker having to re-apply for visa every three years? Just because they are fleeing some sort of oppression or danger now, doesn’t mean that danger will exist forever more! They need to re-assess their homeland once in a while and go back when it is safe. Just because they land on our shores, doesn’t automatically qualify them to become part of our nation.
Your argument is simplistic, generic and sensationalist.
As much as I don’t agree on the blackout policy, it is the military’s right to keep secret military actions to themselves. I mean, if they advertised what and where they were operating, the people smugglers only have to tune into the news to find a way to get through.

The blackout might work back in a world without mobile phones. In 2013, it is just ludicrous.

wildturkeycanoe said :

What is wrong with an asylum seeker having to re-apply for visa every three years? Just because they are fleeing some sort of oppression or danger now, doesn’t mean that danger will exist forever more! They need to re-assess their homeland once in a while and go back when it is safe. Just because they land on our shores, doesn’t automatically qualify them to become part of our nation.
Your argument is simplistic, generic and sensationalist.
As much as I don’t agree on the blackout policy, it is the military’s right to keep secret military actions to themselves. I mean, if they advertised what and where they were operating, the people smugglers only have to tune into the news to find a way to get through.

so much here at which to take umbrage.

certainty is a core human need – uncertainty creates stress, which is well documented to create many issues, particularly health issues, which is expensive to address; much cheaper to mitigate the risk in the first place with some certainty. and how long is long enough? a month, a year, a decade? how long do we expect people to set about establishing a new life in our community before we decide against sending them ‘home’ when we deem it safe enough to return (as opposed to stable enough to allow a settled life to be resestablished…)?

and since when did the arrival of refugees, or persons claiming status as such, become a bona fide ‘military’ issue?? jesus h. christ with a stick… and do you really suspect the actual status of refugee claimants in australia is being realistically conveyed to people smugglers’ clients? or that they wouldn’t be able to discover some way to access information relevant to these movements of australian government officials if they wanted to? the smugglers are operating from indonesia to the north west of australia, heading here. it doesn’t take elite hacking into sensitive government material to work out where australian officials are ‘operating’…

is that the core element of how we should frame a humane response to the arrival of people, they are people, seeking asylum??

let’s have some genuine input into these conversations about the nett benefit such adaptive, driven people bring to our community in the long term. and while we’re at it, let’s have some humanity input into these conversations, instead of all this alarmist, ‘we’ll be rooned’ choraling from the dominant voices in this one sided debate…

watto23 said :

Just process them onshore, issue TPV’s then let genuine refugees stay and anyone who violates their TPV, send them home straight away.

I don’t think there is a good answer to the problem, but what you’ve described here is probably the least worst solution.

Whats wrong with labor and liberal party policies…..

I think the TPV is part of a solution, but this paranoia that somehow boat people are also terrorists thus we have to keep them out is ridiculous. If anything, boat people are under more scrutiny than plane arrivals.

Its like the coalition voters saying the Pacific solution worked, when world refugee numbers also dropped during that time. Then Labor jumped on board because they realised it was a vote winner.

There is no moderate solution in Australian politics right now, the greens is also a bit too impractical IMO. Off shore processing is a waste of money too. Just process them onshore, issue TPV’s then let genuine refugees stay and anyone who violates their TPV, send them home straight away.

Or we can instead spend billions paying other countries to sort out refugees, rather than spending that money actually helping Nauru or PNG.

This is such a troubled area.

My heart agrees with the Greens’ policy of “just let them all come”. But my head says, we can’t do that.

It worked after WW2 because people couldn’t fly to Indonesia and then get on a shitty old boat for an extremely dangerous voyage. In those days, people had to go through the process and were then put on a safe vessel with passports and valid travel papers.

In those days too, the people smugglers were Oskar Schindlers who risked their own lives and safety in their own countries to get people to safety in other countries for no financial reward.

Today, people smugglers are highly organised villains who lie to their unfortunate cargo about the type of boat they’ll be in, the conditions they can expect when they arrive, and either take their identity documents off them or encourage them to destroy them. They then send them off on a fishing boat designed for about one-tenth of the people on board, with a crew of similarly duped Indonesian teenagers, and the phone numbers for AMSA, Customs, and 000.

The asylum seekers deserve help and compassion. And the two recent sinkings in the Meditterranean show that this is not just Australia’s problem. But we have to find a way to deter people from coming on boats.

It’s too dangerous for them. And from someone who has worked across a few different areas of government, not only can Australia not afford to tie up all our Customs and Naval personnel in search and rescues, we also need to do a better job of housing the homeless, treating the mentally ill, and training the unemployed workforce we already have here without adding 100,000 more vulnerable, traumatised, often illiterate people each year.

I have always been a Leftie. But working in these areas has hardened me up. I’ve been on Manus Island with little kids grabbing my hand and saying “why us?”. I couldn’t answer their question. Because it wouldn’t be right to say, “why not you and why not those poor kids who were born in refugee camps in Kenya and are now turning 25 without any hope?”

What is wrong with an asylum seeker having to re-apply for visa every three years? Just because they are fleeing some sort of oppression or danger now, doesn’t mean that danger will exist forever more! They need to re-assess their homeland once in a while and go back when it is safe. Just because they land on our shores, doesn’t automatically qualify them to become part of our nation.
Your argument is simplistic, generic and sensationalist.
As much as I don’t agree on the blackout policy, it is the military’s right to keep secret military actions to themselves. I mean, if they advertised what and where they were operating, the people smugglers only have to tune into the news to find a way to get through.

We need more time to see what effects the policy change is having.

I think there are still significant improvements that could be made, and we should be focussing on working out how to change the system to help those that need it (who are currently being treated as criminals).

DJ Mac said :

There is a blackout on the numbers coming in.

Is that true?

I was under the impression the figures were just being released each week instead of for each event. Has that changed again?

If not, then it isn’t a blackout of the figures and I would question the honesty of anyone claiming it to be so.

I have children in primary school and if they don’t attend, I get notified as soon as practical. I also have a child in college. I get a report once a week about any classes he misses. I doubt anyone would accuse the college of having a blackout relating to missed classes.

mossrocket said :

It works?
I guess that’s all that needs to be wrong with it for the Greens to take offence…

And it was largely based on the former Labor Government policies that the Greens were effectively in coalition with.

“What can we do to change it?” Simple. Make it a lot tougher.

And your grievance is what exactly?

How do we know it is working? There is a blackout on the numbers coming in. Also there is evidence that the numbers coming were dropping off even before the election. So how do we know if the (supposed) drop off in numbers is related to the changes to the policy rather than the “push factors”? The policy has not been in place for very long at all so how can we actually say if the policy has made any real long term difference?

Without complete information we can’t actually make a judgement on the policy.

Personally I am concerned about the implications in terms of Australia’s obligations under international law in relation to the treatment of refugees, but I was concerned about Labor’s policies in relation to that too.

It works?
I guess that’s all that needs to be wrong with it for the Greens to take offence…