Photos of Asylum Seeker Policy Protest in Woden

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS

The definition of racism from the oxford dictionary

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

By suggesting that there are more white than brown POS then one could interpret that that browns are superior to whites because there are less of them who are POS. Of course there is the per capita aspect to consider which hasn’t been mentioned nor has CGN provided us with any statistics to support his claim. In the scheme of things, however, it’s a fairly innocuous comment and i suspect CGN is merely trolling.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Wtf? How am I a racist?

Well you’ve failed again to back up your racially based proposition for a start.

Seemingly it’s OK for you to ask every other commentator to back up their opinions with sources but you don’t have to?

No no no, the more important thing here is why you think I am a racist.

What part of racially based proposition with no evidence don’t you get?

If you can’t back it up with evidence, the aforementioned statement is racist. You’ve said your sources are HACS and Australian correctional services.

I’m sure you just wouldn’t have made those sources up right? Not the ‘source’ king.

Please post why you think I am a racist?

I just did or do you struggle to read too?

Well, unless that is, you think that people who make racist statements aren’t racist which would be a whole different argument.

And it’s time to stop your diversions. For the third time, answer the question, Source?

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Wtf? How am I a racist?

Well you’ve failed again to back up your racially based proposition for a start.

Seemingly it’s OK for you to ask every other commentator to back up their opinions with sources but you don’t have to?

No no no, the more important thing here is why you think I am a racist.

What part of racially based proposition with no evidence don’t you get?

If you can’t back it up with evidence, the aforementioned statement is racist. You’ve said your sources are HACS and Australian correctional services.

I’m sure you just wouldn’t have made those sources up right? Not the ‘source’ king.

Please post why you think I am a racist?

CraigT said :

howeph said :

There is no common definition of who is, and who is not, a POS and therefore no authoritative source can reasonably be expected; and you know it.

How about “Incarceration rates, by Ethnicity”?

I reckon that would be a pretty good way to work out where the most PsOS are.

Any guesses as to whether the ABS still keeps those stats?

Nope. 1998 they decided the cause of multiculturalism was not being served by informing the public as to the respective contributions different cultures were making to the pool of PsOS in this country.

Of course, this is very racist of me, but I can’t help pointing ou that immigrants from Thailand (as at 1998) were only 50% as likely to commit crimes that led to gaol as our home-grown population.
And of course, it is very, very racist of me to conclude that I should support increased immigration from Thailand as a result fo their demonstrated low rate of being PsOS.

And it would obviously be very, very, very racist of me to suggest that the increased immigration from Thaliand should come at the expense of immigration from New Zealand, considering the ABS stats on how well( er, badly) New Zealanders behave after moving here….

ABS has always struggled to define and record the concept of ethnicity. They don’t collect it in the Census, so even if they got information from prisons, they wouldn’t be able to calculate meaningful statistics. You can’t use country of birth, because so many people of minority ethnicity are born here, and so many people born in NZ for example are ethnically Maori or Pacific Islander. And if you look at WA or NT prison statistics, for example, you’ll find a huge over-representation of people of Indonesian background. Can you guess why? I’ll give you a clue – it’s actually right back on topic.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Wtf? How am I a racist?

Well you’ve failed again to back up your racially based proposition for a start.

Seemingly it’s OK for you to ask every other commentator to back up their opinions with sources but you don’t have to?

No no no, the more important thing here is why you think I am a racist.

What part of racially based proposition with no evidence don’t you get?

If you can’t back it up with evidence, the aforementioned statement is racist. You’ve said your sources are HACS and Australian correctional services.

I’m sure you just wouldn’t have made those sources up right? Not the ‘source’ king.

Stevian said :

chewy14 said :

Stevian said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

Just look around you

Just did.

A few whitish people, a few brownish people and one very orange female (tanning incident).

No POS to be seen.

Then look in the mirror

Nope still no POS there either although I did see one in the toilet bowl a while ago.

Got anything serious or are your logic and debating skills as retarded as your attempted insults?

CraigT said :

howeph said :

There is no common definition of who is, and who is not, a POS and therefore no authoritative source can reasonably be expected; and you know it.

How about “Incarceration rates, by Ethnicity”?

I reckon that would be a pretty good way to work out where the most PsOS are.

Any guesses as to whether the ABS still keeps those stats?

Nope. 1998 they decided the cause of multiculturalism was not being served by informing the public as to the respective contributions different cultures were making to the pool of PsOS in this country.

Of course, this is very racist of me, but I can’t help pointing ou that immigrants from Thailand (as at 1998) were only 50% as likely to commit crimes that led to gaol as our home-grown population.
And of course, it is very, very racist of me to conclude that I should support increased immigration from Thailand as a result fo their demonstrated low rate of being PsOS.

And it would obviously be very, very, very racist of me to suggest that the increased immigration from Thaliand should come at the expense of immigration from New Zealand, considering the ABS stats on how well( er, badly) New Zealanders behave after moving here….

Sources?

Also, you are doing it wrong. Plural is POS’

howeph said :

There is no common definition of who is, and who is not, a POS and therefore no authoritative source can reasonably be expected; and you know it.

How about “Incarceration rates, by Ethnicity”?

I reckon that would be a pretty good way to work out where the most PsOS are.

Any guesses as to whether the ABS still keeps those stats?

Nope. 1998 they decided the cause of multiculturalism was not being served by informing the public as to the respective contributions different cultures were making to the pool of PsOS in this country.

Of course, this is very racist of me, but I can’t help pointing ou that immigrants from Thailand (as at 1998) were only 50% as likely to commit crimes that led to gaol as our home-grown population.
And of course, it is very, very racist of me to conclude that I should support increased immigration from Thailand as a result fo their demonstrated low rate of being PsOS.

And it would obviously be very, very, very racist of me to suggest that the increased immigration from Thaliand should come at the expense of immigration from New Zealand, considering the ABS stats on how well( er, badly) New Zealanders behave after moving here….

DrKoresh said :

johnboy said :

I thought a POS was anyone who wasn’t CGN?

lol, bravo sir 😀

Somewhat accurate.

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Wtf? How am I a racist?

Well you’ve failed again to back up your racially based proposition for a start.

Seemingly it’s OK for you to ask every other commentator to back up their opinions with sources but you don’t have to?

No no no, the more important thing here is why you think I am a racist.

johnboy said :

I thought a POS was anyone who wasn’t CGN?

lol, bravo sir 😀

chewy14 said :

Stevian said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

Just look around you

Just did.

A few whitish people, a few brownish people and one very orange female (tanning incident).

No POS to be seen.

Then look in the mirror

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Wtf? How am I a racist?

Well you’ve failed again to back up your racially based proposition for a start.

Seemingly it’s OK for you to ask every other commentator to back up their opinions with sources but you don’t have to?

It’s simple mathematics. There are significantly more ‘white’ people in Australia than ‘brown’ people.

If say 5% of the population is a POS , then 5% of the ‘white’ population is a greater number than 5% of the ‘brown’ population.

That’s the way I read it anyway.

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Don’t be silly Chewy14.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd made an obviously flippant remark to reflect and counter point Wildturkeycanoe’s equally sloppy generalisations/stereo types.

There is no common definition of who is, and who is not, a POS and therefore no authoritative source can reasonably be expected; and you know it.

goody658 said :

Hoping someone can clear up a question i have as i don’t really know and it comes up in arguments a bit., But if a refugee can afford to fly to Indonesia or Malaysia and then pay to cross by boat, can’t they just fly here and then seek asylum. What kind of visa are they using to enter Indonesia for Malaysia or is it like Thailand and you enter on a 15 day tourist visa.

Australia is actually one of the hardest countries in the world to gain access to. With exception to New Zealanders who are given a Visa on arrival, citizens of every other country in the world require a Visa to be issued prior to travel. Without the Visa they can not even step foot on the plane, let alone make it to our borders to make the asylum claim. We are also pretty strict on issuing Visa’s, and typically ask some probing questions prior to even issuing one. No doubt we’re stricter on people from Asian countries than we are on people from say England and the US despite the latter having a history of visa over-stayers.

Indonesia is happy to people to travel there without a visa and a visa is issued on arrival (for a US$25 fee). This means actually gaining entry to Indonesia without the intention of staying is relatively easy. Once there finding someone to take you to Australia via boat is also relatively easy. Realistically Indonesia doesn’t really care that the person is not there for genuine tourist reasons as that person will most likely have departed Indonesia within 30 days, the time limit on their entry conditions.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Wtf? How am I a racist?

Well you’ve failed again to back up your racially based proposition for a start.

Seemingly it’s OK for you to ask every other commentator to back up their opinions with sources but you don’t have to?

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

Wtf? How am I a racist?

Stevian said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

Just look around you

Just did.

A few whitish people, a few brownish people and one very orange female (tanning incident).

No POS to be seen.

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

Just look around you

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

goody658 said :

Hoping someone can clear up a question i have as i don’t really know and it comes up in arguments a bit., But if a refugee can afford to fly to Indonesia or Malaysia and then pay to cross by boat, can’t they just fly here and then seek asylum. What kind of visa are they using to enter Indonesia for Malaysia or is it like Thailand and you enter on a 15 day tourist visa.

Similar to Thailand. You need a passport and a 30 day tourist visa can be purchased for $25.00. Forged passports are easy to obtain in most middle eastern countries and they are not scutinised in Indonesia as thoroughly as the would be in Australia so there is no way they are going to get a visa to Australia in their country of origin which would allow them to fly here directly.
If you turn up on a boat with a dodgy passport there is not much hope of you getting refugee status in Australia and genuine “refugees fleeing oppression” are unlikely to have passports so this is why all ID papers go overboard on the boat trip. We appear to victims of fraud on a massive scale.

You do not appear to understand the meaning of fraud.

“In general, fraud is obtaining of a material advantage by unfair or wrongful means; it involves moral obliquity.”
Source: Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary.
Next comment please?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

Links to this information please. Or you could just admit you’re a racist.

dungfungus said :

goody658 said :

Hoping someone can clear up a question i have as i don’t really know and it comes up in arguments a bit., But if a refugee can afford to fly to Indonesia or Malaysia and then pay to cross by boat, can’t they just fly here and then seek asylum. What kind of visa are they using to enter Indonesia for Malaysia or is it like Thailand and you enter on a 15 day tourist visa.

Similar to Thailand. You need a passport and a 30 day tourist visa can be purchased for $25.00. Forged passports are easy to obtain in most middle eastern countries and they are not scutinised in Indonesia as thoroughly as the would be in Australia so there is no way they are going to get a visa to Australia in their country of origin which would allow them to fly here directly.
If you turn up on a boat with a dodgy passport there is not much hope of you getting refugee status in Australia and genuine “refugees fleeing oppression” are unlikely to have passports so this is why all ID papers go overboard on the boat trip. We appear to victims of fraud on a massive scale.

You do not appear to understand the meaning of fraud.

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

HACS

Australian correctional services

howeph said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Tell me who of the “let them in”, or “human rights” parties will come in to bat for this twisted degenerate who doesn’t deserve to live in our country, full stop.

If he’s found guilty… none. He should be treated the same under the law as anyone else. What did you think the answer would be?

wildturkeycanoe said :

…I’m not going to make wild assumptions about the rest of the “boat people” based on one person, but …

… You go ahead and do it anyway. You just can’t help yourself, can you.

wildturkeycanoe said :

… especially from the middle eastern countries where respect for women is pretty much non-existent.

You do realise that Bangladesh, the country that the man is from, whilst a majority Muslim country, is not in the Middle East don’t you?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Let’s just see how this scapegoat flees our pitiful judicial system…

Do you know what scapegoat means?

“In modern usage a scapegoat is an individual … singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame.” [Wikipedia]

Bangladesh is part of the Indian subcontinent as far as Australia is concerned.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/asian-century/bangladesh.html

goody658 said :

Hoping someone can clear up a question i have as i don’t really know and it comes up in arguments a bit., But if a refugee can afford to fly to Indonesia or Malaysia and then pay to cross by boat, can’t they just fly here and then seek asylum. What kind of visa are they using to enter Indonesia for Malaysia or is it like Thailand and you enter on a 15 day tourist visa.

Similar to Thailand. You need a passport and a 30 day tourist visa can be purchased for $25.00. Forged passports are easy to obtain in most middle eastern countries and they are not scutinised in Indonesia as thoroughly as the would be in Australia so there is no way they are going to get a visa to Australia in their country of origin which would allow them to fly here directly.
If you turn up on a boat with a dodgy passport there is not much hope of you getting refugee status in Australia and genuine “refugees fleeing oppression” are unlikely to have passports so this is why all ID papers go overboard on the boat trip. We appear to victims of fraud on a massive scale.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I’m not going to make wild assumptions about the rest of the “boat people” based on one person, but this cannot help the situation one little bit. It’s no wonder the possible majority of Australian citizens are fighting to keep immigrants out, especially from the middle eastern countries where respect for women is pretty much non-existent.

Nope, no wild assumptions to see here. Move along.

And Bangladesh is considered ‘middle eastern’. I did not know that.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Tell me who of the “let them in”, or “human rights” parties will come in to bat for this twisted degenerate who doesn’t deserve to live in our country, full stop.

If he’s found guilty… none. He should be treated the same under the law as anyone else. What did you think the answer would be?

wildturkeycanoe said :

…I’m not going to make wild assumptions about the rest of the “boat people” based on one person, but …

… You go ahead and do it anyway. You just can’t help yourself, can you.

wildturkeycanoe said :

… especially from the middle eastern countries where respect for women is pretty much non-existent.

You do realise that Bangladesh, the country that the man is from, whilst a majority Muslim country, is not in the Middle East don’t you?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Let’s just see how this scapegoat flees our pitiful judicial system…

Do you know what scapegoat means?

“In modern usage a scapegoat is an individual … singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame.” [Wikipedia]

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

Source?

There is far more white trash POS in Australia than there is brown trash POS.

wildturkeycanoe said :

It only takes one, http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/article/18269004/refugee-groped-blind-woman-on-train/
This is a horrible example of who we are letting into the country, someone who has fled oppression, but after arriving in Australia on a temporary visa somehow finds it appropriate to grope a blind woman…
I’m not going to make wild assumptions about the rest of the “boat people” based on one person, but this cannot help the situation one little bit. It’s no wonder the possible majority of Australian citizens are fighting to keep immigrants out, especially from the middle eastern countries where respect for women is pretty much non-existent.
Let’s just see how this scapegoat flees our pitiful judicial system, controlled by overpaid lawyers, or is conveniently extradited back to country of origin without penalty.
Tell me who of the “let them in”, or “human rights” parties will come in to bat for this twisted degenerate who doesn’t deserve to live in our country, full stop.

Have people let into this country on tourist visas, spousal visas, working visas, been granted citizenship after living here for a decade etc never committed henous crimes before? Have none of those criminals been from Western backgrounds?

Why do you feel the need to denigrate large swathes of asylum seekers and refugees from middle eastern countries just because one of them happened to commit an awful crime?

Is it your opinion that because one of them did such a thing it would be accurate to characterise everyone from those backgrounds as people who have no respect for women?

How much experience do you have either IN the middle-east or with people FROM the middle east from which to make your assessment that these people treat women horribly? Or do you simply base your claims on the occasional headlines you see and broad reaching anecdotes you hear?

wildturkeycanoe said :

It only takes one, http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/article/18269004/refugee-groped-blind-woman-on-train/
This is a horrible example of who we are letting into the country, someone who has fled oppression, but after arriving in Australia on a temporary visa somehow finds it appropriate to grope a blind woman…
I’m not going to make wild assumptions about the rest of the “boat people” based on one person, but this cannot help the situation one little bit. It’s no wonder the possible majority of Australian citizens are fighting to keep immigrants out, especially from the middle eastern countries where respect for women is pretty much non-existent.
Let’s just see how this scapegoat flees our pitiful judicial system, controlled by overpaid lawyers, or is conveniently extradited back to country of origin without penalty.
Tell me who of the “let them in”, or “human rights” parties will come in to bat for this twisted degenerate who doesn’t deserve to live in our country, full stop.

Based on your sample size most native born Australians don’t deserve to live in our country either. What’s your solution to that problem?

It only takes one, http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/article/18269004/refugee-groped-blind-woman-on-train/
This is a horrible example of who we are letting into the country, someone who has fled oppression, but after arriving in Australia on a temporary visa somehow finds it appropriate to grope a blind woman…
I’m not going to make wild assumptions about the rest of the “boat people” based on one person, but this cannot help the situation one little bit. It’s no wonder the possible majority of Australian citizens are fighting to keep immigrants out, especially from the middle eastern countries where respect for women is pretty much non-existent.
Let’s just see how this scapegoat flees our pitiful judicial system, controlled by overpaid lawyers, or is conveniently extradited back to country of origin without penalty.
Tell me who of the “let them in”, or “human rights” parties will come in to bat for this twisted degenerate who doesn’t deserve to live in our country, full stop.

Hoping someone can clear up a question i have as i don’t really know and it comes up in arguments a bit., But if a refugee can afford to fly to Indonesia or Malaysia and then pay to cross by boat, can’t they just fly here and then seek asylum. What kind of visa are they using to enter Indonesia for Malaysia or is it like Thailand and you enter on a 15 day tourist visa.

howeph said :

chewy14 said :

Howeph,
I personally don’t think that those refugees with the means to get to Indonesia are the ‘most in need’ of our help. Others may disagree but that’s my opinion. I simply don’t think its fair.

All genuine asylum seekers are deserving of help. Why don’t you think that the ones in Indonesia are as deserving as others? Are you arguing in favour of economic refugees over other types of refugee?

Just because you have the means to escape by plane does not mean your life was in any less danger in your home country. In fact repressive regimes often single out and target the wealthier dissidents and their families because they tend to have more power and influence within their communities.

chewy14 said :

Labor have recently raised the limit to 20000.

Correct me if I am wrong but the majority of those extra places were not filled by people being resettled directly from Indonesia or Malaysia. Direct intake from those locations remains woefully low forcing people to go via people smugglers.

chewy14 said :

There may be scope to raise it further depending on how much funding the community wants to dedicate to this issue.

How does the community feel about spending billions locking up innocent men women and children for years and years and years? Think what that money could be better spent on productive initiatives.

chewy14 said :

The problem I’ve found with the Labor party’s deterrence policy is that I think they were trying to have a bet each way. A deterrence policy has to be all or nothing, which is why I think the policies of the last few years have failed.

What do you mean by “all or nothing”? What are your answers to the questions I raised in comment
#43?

chewy14 said :

The PNG policy is the closest they’ve come to actually providing real deterrence. I think that it will work in the medium to longer term in stopping boat arrivals, whilst allowing us to help those most in need.

The PNG policy is a policy to get the Labor party elected.

It is completely impractical to implement in PNG. It is a solution that just has to hang together until the election, but eventually, after untold suffering has been inflicted by us, Australia will be forced to accept those refugees into Australia too. Just like the Tampa refugees under Howard.

I’ve provided my opinions and answers with respect to your questions. Please try answering mine from comment #43.

My personal opinion is that we should remove ourselves as signatories to the convention. It is outdated and was written when international travel was extremely difficult. It was designed to handle cross border refugee movements, not people flying half way across the world and then hopping on a boat because they were rich enough to afford it. We should definitely at a minimum be lobbying for changes to be made to reflect the modern world and modern refugee movements.

If we refused to accept any boat arrivals ever, then we could massively increase our refugee intake from overseas camps across the world helping more people at a lower cost. Better end result.

You seem to be of the opinion that all refugees are equal yet your policy preferentially assists those who can get to Indonesia. You seem to be missing the fact that the vast majority of refugees that arrive from Indonesia are not seeking asylum from Indonesia. They may have to live in harsh conditions there but I would argue that those left behind in their home countries and across border refugee camps are at a far higher risk.
I would want Australia to treat all resettlement claims with equity, helping those who are at greatest risk of persecution first rather than those who can self select on our doorstep.

The PNG policy has a chance of working unless they give into emotional pressure as you’ve alluded to. Short term pain will be felt by those who try to bypass the system but over time less people will come and so less people will need to be locked up. My point is that deterrence only works if you have the guts to follow through. If you provide empty threats then of course it will fail and the people smugglers are counting on us not having the long term resolve to fix the problem permanently.

I hope the above makes my opinion clearer, I would rather a few hundred/possibly thousand suffer in the short term so we can help many, many multiples of that number in the long term.

Graffiti looked terrible, please have some respect for the environment around you. It is ugly and only helps people to form the opposite views of whatever is written. It doesn’t help. Plus, I have just finished cleaning it off the wall of my building!

muscledude_oz said :

I spoke to a girl at the gym who is a bit of a leftie and was at the demonstration and I mentioned the Alan Jones show on 2GB. She tried to suggest that his show is biased. Is this view widespread and does anybody here believe Jones is biased? I haven’t listened to his show for ages (I can’t stand those pathetic “jokes” he tells) but politically he doesn’t seem to favour one party over the other usually.

Everything is biased and everyone has an agenda, that’s an inescapable fact of life. Alan Jones bias is towards Alan Jones and whoever is paying him

muscledude_oz said :

Is this view widespread and does anybody here believe Jones is biased?

Yes.

muscledude_oz said :

I spoke to a girl at the gym who is a bit of a leftie and was at the demonstration and I mentioned the Alan Jones show on 2GB. She tried to suggest that his show is biased. Is this view widespread and does anybody here believe Jones is biased? I haven’t listened to his show for ages (I can’t stand those pathetic “jokes” he tells) but politically he doesn’t seem to favour one party over the other usually.

It appears only lefties listen to Alan Jones.

muscledude_oz said :

I spoke to a girl at the gym who is a bit of a leftie and was at the demonstration and I mentioned the Alan Jones show on 2GB. She tried to suggest that his show is biased. Is this view widespread and does anybody here believe Jones is biased? I haven’t listened to his show for ages (I can’t stand those pathetic “jokes” he tells) but politically he doesn’t seem to favour one party over the other usually.

BWAAAA AHA AH A HA AHHAHAH AHA HAHAAH

I spoke to a girl at the gym who is a bit of a leftie and was at the demonstration and I mentioned the Alan Jones show on 2GB. She tried to suggest that his show is biased. Is this view widespread and does anybody here believe Jones is biased? I haven’t listened to his show for ages (I can’t stand those pathetic “jokes” he tells) but politically he doesn’t seem to favour one party over the other usually.

chewy14 said :

Howeph,
I personally don’t think that those refugees with the means to get to Indonesia are the ‘most in need’ of our help. Others may disagree but that’s my opinion. I simply don’t think its fair.

All genuine asylum seekers are deserving of help. Why don’t you think that the ones in Indonesia are as deserving as others? Are you arguing in favour of economic refugees over other types of refugee?

Just because you have the means to escape by plane does not mean your life was in any less danger in your home country. In fact repressive regimes often single out and target the wealthier dissidents and their families because they tend to have more power and influence within their communities.

chewy14 said :

Labor have recently raised the limit to 20000.

Correct me if I am wrong but the majority of those extra places were not filled by people being resettled directly from Indonesia or Malaysia. Direct intake from those locations remains woefully low forcing people to go via people smugglers.

chewy14 said :

There may be scope to raise it further depending on how much funding the community wants to dedicate to this issue.

How does the community feel about spending billions locking up innocent men women and children for years and years and years? Think what that money could be better spent on productive initiatives.

chewy14 said :

The problem I’ve found with the Labor party’s deterrence policy is that I think they were trying to have a bet each way. A deterrence policy has to be all or nothing, which is why I think the policies of the last few years have failed.

What do you mean by “all or nothing”? What are your answers to the questions I raised in comment
#43?

chewy14 said :

The PNG policy is the closest they’ve come to actually providing real deterrence. I think that it will work in the medium to longer term in stopping boat arrivals, whilst allowing us to help those most in need.

The PNG policy is a policy to get the Labor party elected.

It is completely impractical to implement in PNG. It is a solution that just has to hang together until the election, but eventually, after untold suffering has been inflicted by us, Australia will be forced to accept those refugees into Australia too. Just like the Tampa refugees under Howard.

I’ve provided my opinions and answers with respect to your questions. Please try answering mine from comment #43.

chewy14 said :

Mr Evil said :

54-11 said :

I agree with many of their sentiments (except the “no borders” part), but they have destroyed their message with the totally unnecessary graffiti.

The photo of Simon Sheikh standing in front of the graffiti reminds me of Tony Abbott, Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Mirabella standing in front of the “Ditch the Witch” placards. Guys, you will be judged by the company you keep and these photos will remain as evidence of your poor judgement.

Oi, you leave our ‘fair dinkum local’ Green candidate alone!

He probably drove all the way from Sydney to attend that protest.

Simon Sheikh was at the Brumbies semi final the other week. He had a Brumbies jacket on and everything. True local.

Well, just as “local” as most of the players in the Brumbies team.

Mr Evil said :

54-11 said :

I agree with many of their sentiments (except the “no borders” part), but they have destroyed their message with the totally unnecessary graffiti.

The photo of Simon Sheikh standing in front of the graffiti reminds me of Tony Abbott, Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Mirabella standing in front of the “Ditch the Witch” placards. Guys, you will be judged by the company you keep and these photos will remain as evidence of your poor judgement.

Oi, you leave our ‘fair dinkum local’ Green candidate alone!

He probably drove all the way from Sydney to attend that protest.

Simon Sheikh was at the Brumbies semi final the other week. He had a Brumbies jacket on and everything. True local.

Howeph,
I personally don’t think that those refugees with the means to get to Indonesia are the ‘most in need’ of our help. Others may disagree but that’s my opinion. I simply don’t think its fair.

Labor have recently raised the limit to 20000. There may be scope to raise it further depending on how much funding the community wants to dedicate to this issue.

The problem I’ve found with the Labor party’s deterrence policy is that I think they were trying to have a bet each way. A deterrence policy has to be all or nothing, which is why I think the policies of the last few years have failed. The PNG policy is the closest they’ve come to actually providing real deterrence. I think that it will work in the medium to longer term in stopping boat arrivals, whilst allowing us to help those most in need.

Mr Evil said :

54-11 said :

I agree with many of their sentiments (except the “no borders” part), but they have destroyed their message with the totally unnecessary graffiti.

The photo of Simon Sheikh standing in front of the graffiti reminds me of Tony Abbott, Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Mirabella standing in front of the “Ditch the Witch” placards. Guys, you will be judged by the company you keep and these photos will remain as evidence of your poor judgement.

Oi, you leave our ‘fair dinkum local’ Green candidate alone!

He probably drove all the way from Sydney to attend that protest.

In his Prius.

54-11 said :

I agree with many of their sentiments (except the “no borders” part), but they have destroyed their message with the totally unnecessary graffiti.

The photo of Simon Sheikh standing in front of the graffiti reminds me of Tony Abbott, Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Mirabella standing in front of the “Ditch the Witch” placards. Guys, you will be judged by the company you keep and these photos will remain as evidence of your poor judgement.

Oi, you leave our ‘fair dinkum local’ Green candidate alone!

He probably drove all the way from Sydney to attend that protest.

Hi Chewy14, Thanks for your thoughtful points and questions.

chewy14 said :

But it would preferentially benefit those who could get to Indonesia or other countries in the first place.

Yes it would.* What’s wrong with dealing with the local issues in preference to remote ones? Australia alone can’t help everyone, so if we have to priorities why not those that are knocking on our door?

* Note: I don’t propose decreasing the number of humanitarian resettlements from other locations, only to target the increase to our region.

chewy14 said :

There’s also the little problem of setting a limit.

If you do set a limit, what happens when you reach it? People will be back on the boats quick smart because they know reaching Australia guarantees resettlement.

If you don’t set a limit, you open us up to an ever increasing wave of asylum seekers. How do you think Indonesia would feel having all these people travelling through their territory and what would be the ongoing cost to the Australian communities that have to house them?

You do have to set a limit, but it should be a generous limit. If people waiting for resettlement can see that people are being resettled then the majority will wait rather than risk their lives and money with people smugglers.

chewy14 said :

The Greens solution sounds compassionate but it would never work in practice. (like most Greens policies)

How well has the years of deterrence policy been working for us? Something to be proud of?

An orderly processing of asylum seekers worked in the past after the Vietnam war; why won’t it work again now? And as an added bonus it also happens to be the right thing to do… and cheaper too.

chewy14 said :

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/31/greens-focus-on-incentives-in-asylum-seeker-policy/

Once again this article pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Thanks for the link. I respect Bernard Keane as a journalist but I have long disagreed with the simplistic way he has characterised the progressive position on asylum seeker policy. It is only recently that I have seen his articles start to examine the progressive position any detail. I haven’t read the latest Greens policy yet so I can’t comment about his assessment of them.

howeph said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Here’s a proposal for all of the “let the boats come” society.
If it is SO legal /right/humanitarian for these refugees to arrive here by whatever means necessary to escape their plight, why don’t we have a safe, Australian owned company or such, running a seaworthy vessel on a regular basis between Perth and Jakarta? Charge half what the smugglers do and also apply a service worthy of the UN conventions? If it was legal, why isn’t anybody doing it?

It is “legal /right/humanitarian for these refugees to arrive here by whatever means necessary to escape their plight”. But… transporting unauthorised people across international boarders is called people smuggling; and that is illegal. [see comment #57]

I.e. Seeking asylum in Australia is legal. Providing a transportation service to enable asylum seekers to seek asylum is illegal. Catch-22.

So your hypothetical service would, under Australian and Indonesian law, be classified as people smuggling which is a criminal offence.

Note: just because something is illegal, it does not follow that it is also morally wrong. E.g. a destitute person stealing a loaf of bread to feed themselves and their family, whilst braking the law, is not doing anything wrong, quite the opposite. Similarly helping asylum seekers to reach asylum, even when to do so means breaking the law, can and has been a very brave and noble act. People smuggling has always been illegal in Australia but it has been our choice to further criminalise this activity and push Indonesia to do likewise. It need not have been this way and asylum seeker boat trips would be a lot safer if it was not.

Of course those of us who have this wacky idea that human rights are important have our own – somewhat similar – solution:

1) Australia funds and/or staffs sufficient UNHCR processing centres in Indonessia and Malaysia where asylum seekers can have their claim assessed in a reasonable time and their progress to re-settlement monitored;

2) Australia increases its humanitarian intake quota and that increase is given to those processed at those regional centres (i.e. Indonesia and Malaysia); and

3) Any boat arrivals DON’T count towards our humanitarian intake quota.

Steps 1 & 2 establishes the mythical “queue”.

Step 3 ensures that people in the “queue”, following the orderly processes, aren’t disadvantaged by those using people smugglers.

If the above was implemented and you were an asylum seeker in Indonesia or Malaysia and you saw that every month a significant, guaranteed number of refugees were being resettled – either to Australia because of our targeted increased intake or to other countries like New Zealand, USA or Canada – would you risk your lot with the people smugglers?

The people smugglers trade is destroyed by taking away the demand for their services.

Oh, and our solution would all be much cheaper too.

Currently processing takes too long in Indonesia and Malaysia, those who are assessed have no idea how long they must wait, the average time is decades. So they have no choice but to use people smugglers, which makes the wait even longer for those trying to follow the crappy process. I.e. our current policies are broken and drive people to use people smugglers, creating the demand for their services.

I should also point out that the above solution is not new. It is basically the solution that was proven to work at the end of the Vietnam war. It also formed a significant part of the expert panel’s recommendations. Unfortunately whilst the deterrent aspects of the panel’s recommendations were implemented with impressive vigour and fanfare, the steps above haven been given largely lip service only.

Our position is not “let the boats come”. Nor is it “let them all come”. Our position is to provide an orderly migration system that is designed to work, not like the one we have now which is designed to fail and generates untold suffering in the process.

Nor are we naive to some of the challenges associated with the above solution. Indonesia and Malaysia might be worried that such a solution would increase the number of asylum seekers coming to their countries – and indeed it would to a certain degree. But if we, and hopefully other like minded countries, were providing them with guaranteed resettlement numbers then those fears can be allayed. It’s not like the current situation is working for them either.

But it would preferentially benefit those who could get to Indonesia or other countries in the first place. There’s also the little problem of setting a limit.

If you do set a limit, what happens when you reach it? People will be back on the boats quick smart because they know reaching Australia guarantees resettlement.

If you don’t set a limit, you open us up to an ever increasing wave of asylum seekers. How do you think Indonesia would feel having all these people travelling through their territory and what would be the ongoing cost to the Australian communities that have to house them?

The Greens solution sounds compassionate but it would never work in practice. (like most Greens policies)

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/31/greens-focus-on-incentives-in-asylum-seeker-policy/

Once again this article pretty much sums up my thoughts.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Here’s a proposal for all of the “let the boats come” society.
If it is SO legal /right/humanitarian for these refugees to arrive here by whatever means necessary to escape their plight, why don’t we have a safe, Australian owned company or such, running a seaworthy vessel on a regular basis between Perth and Jakarta? Charge half what the smugglers do and also apply a service worthy of the UN conventions? If it was legal, why isn’t anybody doing it?

It would be illegal for the boat operators but not necessarily the passengers. I provided a link in my last post, try and read it.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Here’s a proposal for all of the “let the boats come” society.
If it is SO legal /right/humanitarian for these refugees to arrive here by whatever means necessary to escape their plight, why don’t we have a safe, Australian owned company or such, running a seaworthy vessel on a regular basis between Perth and Jakarta? Charge half what the smugglers do and also apply a service worthy of the UN conventions? If it was legal, why isn’t anybody doing it?

It is “legal /right/humanitarian for these refugees to arrive here by whatever means necessary to escape their plight”. But… transporting unauthorised people across international boarders is called people smuggling; and that is illegal. [see comment #57]

I.e. Seeking asylum in Australia is legal. Providing a transportation service to enable asylum seekers to seek asylum is illegal. Catch-22.

So your hypothetical service would, under Australian and Indonesian law, be classified as people smuggling which is a criminal offence.

Note: just because something is illegal, it does not follow that it is also morally wrong. E.g. a destitute person stealing a loaf of bread to feed themselves and their family, whilst braking the law, is not doing anything wrong, quite the opposite. Similarly helping asylum seekers to reach asylum, even when to do so means breaking the law, can and has been a very brave and noble act. People smuggling has always been illegal in Australia but it has been our choice to further criminalise this activity and push Indonesia to do likewise. It need not have been this way and asylum seeker boat trips would be a lot safer if it was not.

Of course those of us who have this wacky idea that human rights are important have our own – somewhat similar – solution:

1) Australia funds and/or staffs sufficient UNHCR processing centres in Indonessia and Malaysia where asylum seekers can have their claim assessed in a reasonable time and their progress to re-settlement monitored;

2) Australia increases its humanitarian intake quota and that increase is given to those processed at those regional centres (i.e. Indonesia and Malaysia); and

3) Any boat arrivals DON’T count towards our humanitarian intake quota.

Steps 1 & 2 establishes the mythical “queue”.

Step 3 ensures that people in the “queue”, following the orderly processes, aren’t disadvantaged by those using people smugglers.

If the above was implemented and you were an asylum seeker in Indonesia or Malaysia and you saw that every month a significant, guaranteed number of refugees were being resettled – either to Australia because of our targeted increased intake or to other countries like New Zealand, USA or Canada – would you risk your lot with the people smugglers?

The people smugglers trade is destroyed by taking away the demand for their services.

Oh, and our solution would all be much cheaper too.

Currently processing takes too long in Indonesia and Malaysia, those who are assessed have no idea how long they must wait, the average time is decades. So they have no choice but to use people smugglers, which makes the wait even longer for those trying to follow the crappy process. I.e. our current policies are broken and drive people to use people smugglers, creating the demand for their services.

I should also point out that the above solution is not new. It is basically the solution that was proven to work at the end of the Vietnam war. It also formed a significant part of the expert panel’s recommendations. Unfortunately whilst the deterrent aspects of the panel’s recommendations were implemented with impressive vigour and fanfare, the steps above haven been given largely lip service only.

Our position is not “let the boats come”. Nor is it “let them all come”. Our position is to provide an orderly migration system that is designed to work, not like the one we have now which is designed to fail and generates untold suffering in the process.

Nor are we naive to some of the challenges associated with the above solution. Indonesia and Malaysia might be worried that such a solution would increase the number of asylum seekers coming to their countries – and indeed it would to a certain degree. But if we, and hopefully other like minded countries, were providing them with guaranteed resettlement numbers then those fears can be allayed. It’s not like the current situation is working for them either.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Here’s a proposal for all of the “let the boats come” society.
If it is SO legal /right/humanitarian for these refugees to arrive here by whatever means necessary to escape their plight, why don’t we have a safe, Australian owned company or such, running a seaworthy vessel on a regular basis between Perth and Jakarta? Charge half what the smugglers do and also apply a service worthy of the UN conventions? If it was legal, why isn’t anybody doing it?

Looking forward to the answer. I posess a boat licence and a desire to retire in the Cayman Islands….

Here’s a proposal for all of the “let the boats come” society.
If it is SO legal /right/humanitarian for these refugees to arrive here by whatever means necessary to escape their plight, why don’t we have a safe, Australian owned company or such, running a seaworthy vessel on a regular basis between Perth and Jakarta? Charge half what the smugglers do and also apply a service worthy of the UN conventions? If it was legal, why isn’t anybody doing it?

CraigT said :

harvyk1 said :

[

No doubt we have made provisions in our laws for the UNRC to have an effect in the spirit of the convention.

So whilst we could argue about technicalities, the fact remains that if someone arrives here as a refugee, they can not be treated as if they have broken the law. As such the term illegal I don’t think would apply anymore.

If you want to find the relevant paragraphs to either prove or disprove this position, go for it.

Your position is incoherent.

They have broken the law, the migration act.

The UN convention you seem to be relying is not a law, and it itself specifically refers to border-crossing without valid papers as being an act of illegality.

Like any law, if you can justify your act using a doctrine or an international treaty, then you can hope to not be punished for your act.

The bottom line is that nothing in the UN convention supercedes the migration act, it only attempts to coordinater how it is applied in relation to the situation of post-WW2 refugees in 1950 Europe.

Now, in 2013,m we have scammers with plenty of money who conspire with organised crime to manipulate Australia’s defective Asylum laws using an anachronistic 69-year-old UN convention as their excuse.

Before too long, that convention will be torn up by all who previously signed it.

I agree that the convention is extremely out-dated but people have to be careful about what is actually said in the migration act and the convention. Its not as simple as legal or illegal.

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/03/scott-morrison/asylum-seekers-arriving-boat-are-illegally-enterin/

harvyk1 said :

[

No doubt we have made provisions in our laws for the UNRC to have an effect in the spirit of the convention.

So whilst we could argue about technicalities, the fact remains that if someone arrives here as a refugee, they can not be treated as if they have broken the law. As such the term illegal I don’t think would apply anymore.

If you want to find the relevant paragraphs to either prove or disprove this position, go for it.

Your position is incoherent.

They have broken the law, the migration act.

The UN convention you seem to be relying is not a law, and it itself specifically refers to border-crossing without valid papers as being an act of illegality.

Like any law, if you can justify your act using a doctrine or an international treaty, then you can hope to not be punished for your act.

The bottom line is that nothing in the UN convention supercedes the migration act, it only attempts to coordinater how it is applied in relation to the situation of post-WW2 refugees in 1950 Europe.

Now, in 2013,m we have scammers with plenty of money who conspire with organised crime to manipulate Australia’s defective Asylum laws using an anachronistic 69-year-old UN convention as their excuse.

Before too long, that convention will be torn up by all who previously signed it.

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

Well, if your looking for something illegal, what about people smuggling?
We all agree it is a crime don’t we? We have smugglers (criminals) and people (willing participants in a crime). That used to be called a conspiracy but I suppose some UN convention expunged that situation.
I would like to hear comment (not abuse) from some of the commentators out there who are obviously legal thinkers.

Like everything else related to this issue it is more complicated than that.

To assist people exercise their legal right, to seek asylum, should not be a crime. Do you consider the people who helped those fleeing the Nazis during the WWII criminals? Many of them accepted payment for their services too.

However successive governments, both in Australia and in Indonesia, in a failed attempt to reduce the number of asylum seekers, cracked down on and introduced new laws to criminalise this activity. As a result the people smuggling operations are now conducted by hardened criminals.

Like making drugs illegal attracts the worst type of criminals to the drug trade, so to has the criminalising of the people smuggling of asylum seekers. Whereas say ten years ago a group of assylum seekers would charter a fishing boat to bring them to Australia now they are forced to deal with criminals who’s primary concern is maximising their profits, not the safety their boats or the asylum seekers’ lives.

Thank you for being civil.
To agree with your analogy of contemporary asylum seekers being in the same situation as Jews fleeing the Nazis, one has to believe that asylum seekers paying criminals to get to Australia are not economic migrants. Bob Carr (unelected Labor Senator and Minister for Foreign Affairs) has said most of them are economic migrants and I agree with him. Having said that, I expect to receive the same amount of ridicule that he has received which is almost zero.
Most of the countries that people claiming to be asylum seekers are fleeing from are democracies. There is no war in Iran, Pakistan or Sri Lanka and soon Afghanistan will be able to defend itself from lawlessness within its own borders. If the asylum seekers are genuinely fleeing threats to their lives then why do they destroy their ID papers? Would it not be more sensible to be able to prove their identity to expedite their claims for asylum? Why is it that only the crews on the boats are charged with an offence when the passengers are deliberately destroying their papers?
I think that that the extrodinary capacity for compassion that Australians have is being abused and this will soon lead to capitulation by sheer numbers.

dungfungus said :

Well, if your looking for something illegal, what about people smuggling?
We all agree it is a crime don’t we? We have smugglers (criminals) and people (willing participants in a crime). That used to be called a conspiracy but I suppose some UN convention expunged that situation.
I would like to hear comment (not abuse) from some of the commentators out there who are obviously legal thinkers.

Like everything else related to this issue it is more complicated than that.

To assist people exercise their legal right, to seek asylum, should not be a crime. Do you consider the people who helped those fleeing the Nazis during the WWII criminals? Many of them accepted payment for their services too.

However successive governments, both in Australia and in Indonesia, in a failed attempt to reduce the number of asylum seekers, cracked down on and introduced new laws to criminalise this activity. As a result the people smuggling operations are now conducted by hardened criminals.

Like making drugs illegal attracts the worst type of criminals to the drug trade, so to has the criminalising of the people smuggling of asylum seekers. Whereas say ten years ago a group of assylum seekers would charter a fishing boat to bring them to Australia now they are forced to deal with criminals who’s primary concern is maximising their profits, not the safety their boats or the asylum seekers’ lives.

harvyk1 said :

Mysteryman said :

Hmmm… I’m clearly not a lawyer, so I might have missed something obvious here. But I don’t think that’s accurate.

From the UN convention:

Article 31

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
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 their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

The key phrase there is “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. This could be interpreted as: if the boats are embarking from Indonesia then the people on them need to be seeking asylum from Indonesia to avoid detainment, being sent back to the embarkation point, or being sent elsewhere where they aren’t in danger.

Also note that the convention recognises that arriving without authorisation is actually illegal (“…show good cause for their ILLEGAL entry or presence”). This is in line with the Migration Act 1958 which recognises such arrivals as “unlawful non-citizens”. The convention we’ve signed doesn’t make such arrivals legal, it says that provided they meet the requirements, we won’t punish them for arriving illegally.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer so if anyone has more experience with this I’m happy to be corrected. It just seems that saying “it’s not illegal to seek asylum” is an over-simplification of a fairly complex issue.

Here is the question, taking this outside of the immigration arena, if you did something which people believe is illegal, and under normal circumstances it is, but you do it in a way that actually makes it legal, is it still illegal?

No doubt we have made provisions in our laws for the UNRC to have an effect in the spirit of the convention.

So whilst we could argue about technicalities, the fact remains that if someone arrives here as a refugee, they can not be treated as if they have broken the law. As such the term illegal I don’t think would apply anymore.

If you want to find the relevant paragraphs to either prove or disprove this position, go for it.

Well, if your looking for something illegal, what about people smuggling?
We all agree it is a crime don’t we? We have smugglers (criminals) and people (willing participants in a crime). That used to be called a conspiracy but I suppose some UN convention expunged that situation.
I would like to hear comment (not abuse) from some of the commentators out there who are obviously legal thinkers.

Mysteryman said :

Quoting stuffed up! Sorry about that.

No worries, I’ll try to fix it

Mysteryman said :

howeph said :

People who wish to demonise asylum seekers are able to get away with this rhetorical use because under immigration law you can be both simultaneously exercising your legal rights and have a technical “illegal” immigration status. Technically, from a immigration perspective only, they are “illegal” as they don’t arrive with the correct paperwork. But from the overriding international law perspective they are not illegal.

Perhaps you could refer to the actual documents and what they say? You seem to be skipping over that completely in favour of “it’s not illegal because it’s not”. I was hoping for a more informed response.

As I said I’m not a lawyer either. But the wording of Article 31 is pretty clear that the signatory countries can’t use the fact that the asylum seekers’ arrival is unauthorised or that their entry is illegal (e.g. arriving without a visa) as an excuse to impose penalties.

Mysteryman said :

howeph said :

I don’t know on what grounds you elevated “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” to be the”key phrase” over other parts of article 31 such as “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties”.

I “elevated” that phrase to highlight that fact that it’s a condition that must be met for the article to be applicable. You can’t just ignore it because it doesn’t suit you.

Who’s ignoring it? As I pointed out in Indonesia they are subject to arbitrary arrest or deportation and they have no rights to work, education or health care (in contradiction of articles 9, 14, 23, 25 and 26 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

It was exactly because of this, that Malaysia doesn’t provide the necessary protection to asylum seekers that the Malaysian Solution was struck down by the High Court.

Mysteryman said :

I’m not “demonising” anyone here. I just think that people who are making blanket claims should probably read the documents.

You might not be directly making that claim here but many of our “leaders” and many on this site are.

Mysteryman said :

I don’t think it’s as simple as “they’re all illegal” or “they’re not illegal”. If it was, we’d have seen the current legislation challenged and defeated by now.

It was. See Malaysia Solution: http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154

Mysteryman said :

Hmmm… I’m clearly not a lawyer, so I might have missed something obvious here. But I don’t think that’s accurate.

From the UN convention:

Article 31

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
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 their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

The key phrase there is “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. This could be interpreted as: if the boats are embarking from Indonesia then the people on them need to be seeking asylum from Indonesia to avoid detainment, being sent back to the embarkation point, or being sent elsewhere where they aren’t in danger.

Also note that the convention recognises that arriving without authorisation is actually illegal (“…show good cause for their ILLEGAL entry or presence”). This is in line with the Migration Act 1958 which recognises such arrivals as “unlawful non-citizens”. The convention we’ve signed doesn’t make such arrivals legal, it says that provided they meet the requirements, we won’t punish them for arriving illegally.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer so if anyone has more experience with this I’m happy to be corrected. It just seems that saying “it’s not illegal to seek asylum” is an over-simplification of a fairly complex issue.

Here is the question, taking this outside of the immigration arena, if you did something which people believe is illegal, and under normal circumstances it is, but you do it in a way that actually makes it legal, is it still illegal?

No doubt we have made provisions in our laws for the UNRC to have an effect in the spirit of the convention.

So whilst we could argue about technicalities, the fact remains that if someone arrives here as a refugee, they can not be treated as if they have broken the law. As such the term illegal I don’t think would apply anymore.

If you want to find the relevant paragraphs to either prove or disprove this position, go for it.

Quoting stuffed up! Sorry about that.

Mysteryman said :

harvyk1 said :

I know this is a repost, but I think it needs to be seen on this thread…

Rather than more conjecture, I thought I would cite something.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

1. Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.

Hmmm… I’m clearly not a lawyer, so I might have missed something obvious here. But I don’t think that’s accurate.

From the UN convention:

Article 31

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
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 their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

The key phrase there is “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. This could be interpreted as: if the boats are embarking from Indonesia then the people on them need to be seeking asylum from Indonesia to avoid detainment, being sent back to the embarkation point, or being sent elsewhere where they aren’t in danger.

Also note that the convention recognises that arriving without authorisation is actually illegal (“…show good cause for their ILLEGAL entry or presence”). This is in line with the Migration Act 1958 which recognises such arrivals as “unlawful non-citizens”. The convention we’ve signed doesn’t make such arrivals legal, it says that provided they meet the requirements, we won’t punish them for arriving illegally.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer so if anyone has more experience with this I’m happy to be corrected. It just seems that saying “it’s not illegal to seek asylum” is an over-simplification of a fairly complex issue.

I’m not a layer either.

The convention establishes the circumstances under which a person has a legal right to seek asylum. Between 80% and 90% of asylum seekers arriving by boat have their claims upheld and so are found to be refugees (i.e. the majority of boat people are legitimately exercising their legal right). Harvyk1’s statement that “Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.” is perfectly true. To do the opposite, to publicly characterise asylum seekers as being “illegals” is misleading.

People who wish to demonise asylum seekers are able to get away with this rhetorical use because under immigration law you can be both simultaneously exercising your legal rights and have a technical “illegal” immigration status. Technically, from a immigration perspective only, they are “illegal” as they don’t arrive with the correct paperwork. But from the overriding international law perspective they are not illegal.

Perhaps you could refer to the actual documents and what they say? You seem to be skipping over that completely in favour of “it’s not illegal because it’s not”. I was hoping for a more informed response.

howeph said :

I don’t know on what grounds you elevated “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” to be the”key phrase” over other parts of article 31 such as “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties”.

I “elevated” that phrase to highlight that fact that it’s a condition that must be met for the article to be applicable. You can’t just ignore it because it doesn’t suit you.

I’m not “demonising” anyone here. I just think that people who are making blanket claims should probably read the documents. I don’t think it’s as simple as “they’re all illegal” or “they’re not illegal”. If it was, we’d have seen the current legislation challenged and defeated by now.

p1 said :

harvyk1 said :

So would you with no experience attempt an open water crossing if you have an option to entrust that to someone who claims they know what they are doing?

Even though I’ve been driving boats since I was about 5, I would not attempt an open water crossing like that without a lot more experience. GPS will only take you so far.

You say that (and I’m sure it is true for many), but if you were standing on a dock in wherever, and saw the crappy boat, how long would you continue to believe the people who say they know what they are doing? I suggest that the people running these shows make it quite clear to their customers that there are offering the only option allowed. I could be wrong.

All the convicts that were transported to Australia from England went through worse than the life jacket wearing, fare paying asylum sneakers from Indonesia and the latter group are only exposed to danger for a short time. The convicts were on the high seas for up to 3 months.
The convicts didn’t have mobile phones to call the rescue taxi either.
Read “The Tyranny of Distance” (Geoffrey Blainey).

Mysteryman said :

harvyk1 said :

I know this is a repost, but I think it needs to be seen on this thread…

Rather than more conjecture, I thought I would cite something.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

1. Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.

Hmmm… I’m clearly not a lawyer, so I might have missed something obvious here. But I don’t think that’s accurate.

From the UN convention:

Article 31

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
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 their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

The key phrase there is “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. This could be interpreted as: if the boats are embarking from Indonesia then the people on them need to be seeking asylum from Indonesia to avoid detainment, being sent back to the embarkation point, or being sent elsewhere where they aren’t in danger.

Also note that the convention recognises that arriving without authorisation is actually illegal (“…show good cause for their ILLEGAL entry or presence”). This is in line with the Migration Act 1958 which recognises such arrivals as “unlawful non-citizens”. The convention we’ve signed doesn’t make such arrivals legal, it says that provided they meet the requirements, we won’t punish them for arriving illegally.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer so if anyone has more experience with this I’m happy to be corrected. It just seems that saying “it’s not illegal to seek asylum” is an over-simplification of a fairly complex issue.

I’m not a layer either.

The convention establishes the circumstances under which a person has a legal right to seek asylum. Between 80% and 90% of asylum seekers arriving by boat have their claims upheld and so are found to be refugees (i.e. the majority of boat people are legitimately exercising their legal right). Harvyk1’s statement that “Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.” is perfectly true. To do the opposite, to publicly characterise asylum seekers as being “illegals” is misleading.

People who wish to demonise asylum seekers are able to get away with this rhetorical use because under immigration law you can be both simultaneously exercising your legal rights and have a technical “illegal” immigration status. Technically, from a immigration perspective only, they are “illegal” as they don’t arrive with the correct paperwork. But from the overriding international law perspective they are not illegal.

I don’t know on what grounds you elevated “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” to be the”key phrase” over other parts of article 31 such as “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties”. Perhaps you are under the impression that asylum seekers in Malaysia and Indonesia are not subject to arbitrary arrest or deportation (doesn’t that threaten their freedom?). Perhaps you are not aware that they have no rights to work, education or health care either. And if they were to “wait in the queue” they can expect to be waiting, many with their children, for decades in those conditions to be resettled.

harvyk1 said :

So would you with no experience attempt an open water crossing if you have an option to entrust that to someone who claims they know what they are doing?

Even though I’ve been driving boats since I was about 5, I would not attempt an open water crossing like that without a lot more experience. GPS will only take you so far.

You say that (and I’m sure it is true for many), but if you were standing on a dock in wherever, and saw the crappy boat, how long would you continue to believe the people who say they know what they are doing? I suggest that the people running these shows make it quite clear to their customers that there are offering the only option allowed. I could be wrong.

harvyk1 said :

I know this is a repost, but I think it needs to be seen on this thread…

Rather than more conjecture, I thought I would cite something.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

1. Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.

Hmmm… I’m clearly not a lawyer, so I might have missed something obvious here. But I don’t think that’s accurate.

From the UN convention:

Article 31

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
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 their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.”

The key phrase there is “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. This could be interpreted as: if the boats are embarking from Indonesia then the people on them need to be seeking asylum from Indonesia to avoid detainment, being sent back to the embarkation point, or being sent elsewhere where they aren’t in danger.

Also note that the convention recognises that arriving without authorisation is actually illegal (“…show good cause for their ILLEGAL entry or presence”). This is in line with the Migration Act 1958 which recognises such arrivals as “unlawful non-citizens”. The convention we’ve signed doesn’t make such arrivals legal, it says that provided they meet the requirements, we won’t punish them for arriving illegally.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer so if anyone has more experience with this I’m happy to be corrected. It just seems that saying “it’s not illegal to seek asylum” is an over-simplification of a fairly complex issue.

chewy14 said :

5. This is where it gets interesting and what I think is a major flaw in the refugee convention. It was designed for cross border movements when long range international travel was very difficult to achieve. Obviously that is not the case today and the effect of this point allows refugees with means to bypass the system and get resettled earlier. Do we as Australians think this is fair or equitable? Do we as Australians think that a refugee who can travel (usually by plane) through multiple countries to reach Indonesia is more in need of our help than someone languishing in an overseas camp with no means of escape?

6. It’s very difficult to get a visa to Australia regardless but this fact also gives incentive for non refugees to destroy their documentation and hop on a boat. Of course this may only be a small percentage of people, but it does happen and exacerbates the point I make in 5.

I guess the flip side of the coin is if it’s fair we ignore said people just because they have the money to travel here to seek asylum.

Of course an interesting option could be that we change things so airlines may bring asylum seekers here on the understanding that their return ticket is already paid for in the event that their claim is rejected. That would stop boats pretty quickly as well.

p1 said :

Has it ever occurred to anyone to wonder why the cashed up queue jumping economic refugee scammers actually have to pay the evil nasty people smugglers to get on shitty boats?

Let me propose a hypothetical situation:

There is a group of people (myself and my friends) in Indonesia Victoria, and have a desire to travel to Australia Tasmania and claim asylum. I can’t just jump on a plane for some reason (don’t actually have a passport, or won’t be given a visa). But we do have $5k each to finance the trip.

We are a reasonably intelligent group, with the ability to access the internet to research things, and have somehow overcome any language problems in order to negotiate with people smugglers.

Why don’t we put together our $5k each, jump on ebay, buy a less then total death trap boat and cruise out of the harbour and across the water? How hard is it to steer a boat in open water these days, with GPS and the like?

I suspect the the simple reason is that the coast guard, police, military, etc know full well which people are allowed to sail off to and claim asylum, and who hasn’t paid the appropriate kick backs and isn’t allowed to undermine the existing business structure with freelance operations. So organised crime runs the operation, and the key driver becomes profit maximisation – [cheapest boat * maximum number of passengers = profit]. Doesn’t matter if the boat doesn’t make it, they have already paid.

Anywho, that’s my rant for the morning. Not really sure what I think we (Australia) should do on this subject, but I think anything which looks at the deeply entrenched corruption of out neighbours government and military can only help.

So would you with no experience attempt an open water crossing if you have an option to entrust that to someone who claims they know what they are doing?

Even though I’ve been driving boats since I was about 5, I would not attempt an open water crossing like that without a lot more experience. GPS will only take you so far.

harvyk1 said :

I know this is a repost, but I think it needs to be seen on this thread…

Rather than more conjecture, I thought I would cite something.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

1. Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.

2. “Boat People” are in fact MORE likely to be refugees (In 2010-11, 89.6% of “boat people” where found to be genuine refugees) than those who travel here under some sort of other visa and then claim asylum (only 43.7%) I will point out this has now changed my opinion of Mr Rudds PNG solution probably not enough to change my vote, but certainly give me food for thought.

3. In 2011, 34,396 visa security assessments where made, only 45 visas were refused or revoked. At 0.13% the risk is extremely low to the point that there are no security concerns.The article also points out that due to the risk of crossing by boat, plus the more rigorous security and character checks undertaken by this method it is highly unlikely a terrorist would use it to gain entry to Australia.

4. The UN Refugee Convention excludes people who have committed war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or other serious non-political crimes from obtaining refugee status.

and finally

5. Economic status has no bearing on refugee status. A refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

6. (not strictly from the above article), a few people are asking why people can’t just purchase a plane ticket and fly instead considering the amount of money it costs to get onto one of the boats. The problem with that is that airlines will do passport and visa checks on check-in. If you are someone who has no or limited documentation and do not process a visa then the airline can not legally carry you and they themselves face big fines for doing so. This is despite the fact it is legal for someone to arrive here without a visa and claim asylum.

Just some food for thought…

1.Correct

2. There are arguments to be made about the process of determining refugee status but basically correct.

3. Yep.

4. Yep.

5. This is where it gets interesting and what I think is a major flaw in the refugee convention. It was designed for cross border movements when long range international travel was very difficult to achieve. Obviously that is not the case today and the effect of this point allows refugees with means to bypass the system and get resettled earlier. Do we as Australians think this is fair or equitable? Do we as Australians think that a refugee who can travel (usually by plane) through multiple countries to reach Indonesia is more in need of our help than someone languishing in an overseas camp with no means of escape?

6. It’s very difficult to get a visa to Australia regardless but this fact also gives incentive for non refugees to destroy their documentation and hop on a boat. Of course this may only be a small percentage of people, but it does happen and exacerbates the point I make in 5.

Has it ever occurred to anyone to wonder why the cashed up queue jumping economic refugee scammers actually have to pay the evil nasty people smugglers to get on shitty boats?

Let me propose a hypothetical situation:

There is a group of people (myself and my friends) in Indonesia Victoria, and have a desire to travel to Australia Tasmania and claim asylum. I can’t just jump on a plane for some reason (don’t actually have a passport, or won’t be given a visa). But we do have $5k each to finance the trip.

We are a reasonably intelligent group, with the ability to access the internet to research things, and have somehow overcome any language problems in order to negotiate with people smugglers.

Why don’t we put together our $5k each, jump on ebay, buy a less then total death trap boat and cruise out of the harbour and across the water? How hard is it to steer a boat in open water these days, with GPS and the like?

I suspect the the simple reason is that the coast guard, police, military, etc know full well which people are allowed to sail off to and claim asylum, and who hasn’t paid the appropriate kick backs and isn’t allowed to undermine the existing business structure with freelance operations. So organised crime runs the operation, and the key driver becomes profit maximisation – [cheapest boat * maximum number of passengers = profit]. Doesn’t matter if the boat doesn’t make it, they have already paid.

Anywho, that’s my rant for the morning. Not really sure what I think we (Australia) should do on this subject, but I think anything which looks at the deeply entrenched corruption of out neighbours government and military can only help.

To those who support the Labor and Liberal parties’ cruelty on asylum seeker (sorry) people smuggler policies…

How do you see these policies playing out?

What will your response be if in a year or two from now, despite a complete media lockout, we are hearing constant reports of suicide, children self harming, hunger strikes, riots, etc coming from the PNG camps. Camps that, despite nominally being run by the PNG government, are in fact funded and operated by Australia. And asylum seekers still keep coming?

Do you think that we should then withdraw from the Refugee Convention so that we can be harsher still? Turn our backs on the sort of ideals that so many Australians have fought and died for? How do you think such a move would be regarded by our allies, or those countries that we wish to see improve their own conduct with respect to human rights?

I know that you are all hoping that maybe we have finally been cruel enough. That we have metaphorically kicked their heads in enough times that they will finally stop bothering us with their troubles. Maybe you are right. Maybe we have managed to sweep this “problem” away – out of sight and out of your mind. But what if we haven’t?

curmudgery said :

If these individuals were serious about human rights abuses then, surely, they’d be protesting outside the embassies of the countries from which people seek refuge and asylum.

.

Or even more pertinantly where they are denied refuge and asylum

wildturkeycanoe said :

And graffiti will give these people a “voice” or some kind of credibility? Yeah right. That is not the way to go about this in a democratic society. Leave the vandalism back where you came from.

And where exactly would that be? Graffitti is one of (perhaps the only) universal commonality existing in human society at every time in every place.

harvyk1 said :

I know this is a repost, but I think it needs to be seen on this thread…

Rather than more conjecture, I thought I would cite something.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

1. Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.

2. “Boat People” are in fact MORE likely to be refugees (In 2010-11, 89.6% of “boat people” where found to be genuine refugees) than those who travel here under some sort of other visa and then claim asylum (only 43.7%) I will point out this has now changed my opinion of Mr Rudds PNG solution probably not enough to change my vote, but certainly give me food for thought.

3. In 2011, 34,396 visa security assessments where made, only 45 visas were refused or revoked. At 0.13% the risk is extremely low to the point that there are no security concerns.The article also points out that due to the risk of crossing by boat, plus the more rigorous security and character checks undertaken by this method it is highly unlikely a terrorist would use it to gain entry to Australia.

4. The UN Refugee Convention excludes people who have committed war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or other serious non-political crimes from obtaining refugee status.

and finally

5. Economic status has no bearing on refugee status. A refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

6. (not strictly from the above article), a few people are asking why people can’t just purchase a plane ticket and fly instead considering the amount of money it costs to get onto one of the boats. The problem with that is that airlines will do passport and visa checks on check-in. If you are someone who has no or limited documentation and do not process a visa then the airline can not legally carry you and they themselves face big fines for doing so. This is despite the fact it is legal for someone to arrive here without a visa and claim asylum.

Just some food for thought…

Good post. I find there’s a lot of ignorance regarding this issue, and you summarised many of the key areas.

wildturkeycanoe said :

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

Please look up oxymoron in the dictionary.

Unless by “stop the boats” you mean “treat asylum seekers with compassion and dignity while trying to find a solution to them getting on dangerous boats”.

Deterrence doesn’t work. More deterrence still doesn’t work. More, nastier, cruel, expensive deterrence – no that doesn’t work either, but some security company makes a motza.

IP

Deterrence did work, when Howard had it under control.
Look up the figures:
– virtually no illegal arrivals
– no deaths at sea
– no children in custody
– very few adults in custody

Your assertion to the contrary betrays your irrational need to allow foreign cheats to walk all over you. Some of us aren’t so easily conned.
There are genuine refugees in the world. People with the means to pay people smugglers are not among them.

Let’s hear you barracking for the victims of the on-going Indonesian genocide in West Papua, …..?

Silence on the real refugees?

So, you are basing your argument for supporting Howard’s policies on his deterrent causing a drop in refugee numbers, rather than the fact that the middle east conflicts became relatively peaceful in 2001 when the policy was introduced. It stayed like that until conflicts erupted in 2008 and drove them to our shores under a new PM’s rule.
I think it was just a coincidence that timed itself nicely for him, nothing more than sheer luck and little to do with policy. As if the boat people knew the policies, they were apparently just “fleeing for their lives” from oppression.

Not saying that Howard’s policies were good, but don’t you find it just a tad odd that the huge influx came exactly after Rudd dismantled the then current system? I mean, just the slightest twinge that Occam’s Razor may be applied here?

I guess Rudd must have been plain unlucky. Nothing to do with the fact that his capacity for releasing unplanned, disingenious policy on the run is only overshadowed by his ego.

I’m also interested to know what specific conflicts erupted in 2008 to ensure that Rudd got lumbered with the huge increase?

Sri Lanka? Nah, has been going on for decades. Iraq? That Saddam seemed such a nice bloke. Afghanistan? Have we already forgotten the Russians or the fact that the taliban kicked them out and then started their own reign of terror?

Don’t get me wrong, Rudd’s current solution is the cruellest piece of policy this country has ever seen in regards asylum seekers and is doomed to fail. Abbott is not much better.

Frankly, if people are going to be stopped from attempting the risky journey then we need to bribe Indonesian officials. Oh sorry, provide foreign aid. And open an Australian run processing centre in Indonesia where genuine refugees can be safely transported to this country. Again, that would require more bribes, sorry, again I mean, foreign aid.

Agreed. There is so much poverty in Indonesia that it opens the door for corruption which is clearly rampant.While I continue to maintain that removing the people smugglers out of the equation is the most effective solution to the problem one must acknowledge that,to state the bleedin’ obvious,it ain’t gonna be easy by any stretch of the imagination..

harvyk1 said :

Just some food for thought%u2026

Good luck; some commentators have sewn their lips shut and are on a starvation diet.

…and so I note this morning that much of the graffitti around there is now adorned with swastikas.

I know this is a repost, but I think it needs to be seen on this thread…

Rather than more conjecture, I thought I would cite something.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

1. Thanks to the UN Refugee Convention which we’ve signed, it is perfectly legal for an asylum seeker to travel here without a Visa.

2. “Boat People” are in fact MORE likely to be refugees (In 2010-11, 89.6% of “boat people” where found to be genuine refugees) than those who travel here under some sort of other visa and then claim asylum (only 43.7%) I will point out this has now changed my opinion of Mr Rudds PNG solution probably not enough to change my vote, but certainly give me food for thought.

3. In 2011, 34,396 visa security assessments where made, only 45 visas were refused or revoked. At 0.13% the risk is extremely low to the point that there are no security concerns.The article also points out that due to the risk of crossing by boat, plus the more rigorous security and character checks undertaken by this method it is highly unlikely a terrorist would use it to gain entry to Australia.

4. The UN Refugee Convention excludes people who have committed war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or other serious non-political crimes from obtaining refugee status.

and finally

5. Economic status has no bearing on refugee status. A refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

6. (not strictly from the above article), a few people are asking why people can’t just purchase a plane ticket and fly instead considering the amount of money it costs to get onto one of the boats. The problem with that is that airlines will do passport and visa checks on check-in. If you are someone who has no or limited documentation and do not process a visa then the airline can not legally carry you and they themselves face big fines for doing so. This is despite the fact it is legal for someone to arrive here without a visa and claim asylum.

Just some food for thought…

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

Please look up oxymoron in the dictionary.

Unless by “stop the boats” you mean “treat asylum seekers with compassion and dignity while trying to find a solution to them getting on dangerous boats”.

Deterrence doesn’t work. More deterrence still doesn’t work. More, nastier, cruel, expensive deterrence – no that doesn’t work either, but some security company makes a motza.

IP

Deterrence did work, when Howard had it under control.
Look up the figures:
– virtually no illegal arrivals
– no deaths at sea
– no children in custody
– very few adults in custody

Your assertion to the contrary betrays your irrational need to allow foreign cheats to walk all over you. Some of us aren’t so easily conned.
There are genuine refugees in the world. People with the means to pay people smugglers are not among them.

Let’s hear you barracking for the victims of the on-going Indonesian genocide in West Papua, …..?

Silence on the real refugees?

So, you are basing your argument for supporting Howard’s policies on his deterrent causing a drop in refugee numbers, rather than the fact that the middle east conflicts became relatively peaceful in 2001 when the policy was introduced. It stayed like that until conflicts erupted in 2008 and drove them to our shores under a new PM’s rule.
I think it was just a coincidence that timed itself nicely for him, nothing more than sheer luck and little to do with policy. As if the boat people knew the policies, they were apparently just “fleeing for their lives” from oppression.

Barcham said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

And graffiti will give these people a “voice” or some kind of credibility? Yeah right. That is not the way to go about this in a democratic society. Leave the vandalism back where you came from.

This is why it upsets me when people with good intentions do dumb things.

People will use the fact you’ve done this one stupid to disregard your entire opinion, even when it in no way relates to the issues at hand…………..

Well that’s what happens when anyone allows the Socialist Alliance nutjobs to become involved in any form of protest. They always over step the mark to make some sort of dramatic point, and I believe are the main reason not many people attend these sorts of marches or protests anymore.

At least this time the message seemed fairly focussed, and wasn’t the usual all-out SA protest-fest, with 20 different messages on placards covering everything from saving the rainforests, women’s rights, uranium mining, gay marriage, and everything inbetween.

if these any of these people have jobs, I wonder what type of leave they will be claiming for attending the protest?

IrishPete said :

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

Please look up oxymoron in the dictionary.

Unless by “stop the boats” you mean “treat asylum seekers with compassion and dignity while trying to find a solution to them getting on dangerous boats”.

Deterrence doesn’t work. More deterrence still doesn’t work. More, nastier, cruel, expensive deterrence – no that doesn’t work either, but some security company makes a motza.

IP

The most effective deterrent is to focus on putting the people smugglers out of business by allocating substantial resources to shut down their operations through bilateral agreements with Indonesia and Malaysia.

The primary reason why so many policies don’t succeed,whatever the cause,is due to the paltry and inadequate resources often allocated to fix the problem.

IrishPete said :

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

Please look up oxymoron in the dictionary.

Unless by “stop the boats” you mean “treat asylum seekers with compassion and dignity while trying to find a solution to them getting on dangerous boats”.

Deterrence doesn’t work. More deterrence still doesn’t work. More, nastier, cruel, expensive deterrence – no that doesn’t work either, but some security company makes a motza.

IP

Deterrence did work, when Howard had it under control.
Look up the figures:
– virtually no illegal arrivals
– no deaths at sea
– no children in custody
– very few adults in custody

Your assertion to the contrary betrays your irrational need to allow foreign cheats to walk all over you. Some of us aren’t so easily conned.
There are genuine refugees in the world. People with the means to pay people smugglers are not among them.

Let’s hear you barracking for the victims of the on-going Indonesian genocide in West Papua, …..?

Silence on the real refugees?

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

Please look up oxymoron in the dictionary.

Unless by “stop the boats” you mean “treat asylum seekers with compassion and dignity while trying to find a solution to them getting on dangerous boats”.

Deterrence doesn’t work. More deterrence still doesn’t work. More, nastier, cruel, expensive deterrence – no that doesn’t work either, but some security company makes a motza.

IP

Jethro said :

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

So you would support a plan like Malcolm Frasers that would likely stop the boats while also meeting our human rights obligations? Or is it less the boats you want to stop and more the actual people seeking asylum?

For mine I consider that Fraser’s suggestion that an offshore processing centre be set up in Indonesia with oversight by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has merit.Of course we would need to negotiate that possibility with Indonesia who would obviously need to lift its game and stop the corruption with links to the scum that are people smugglers.

One needs to bear in mind that on average, Australia accepts around 13,500 refugees and humanitarian entrants each year via legal means. As to how magnanimous we can afford to be i’ll leave that judgement to those in power whose responsibility it is to set quotas.

I assume the reason why Rudd went with the PNG solution was primarily that they are far more compliant and he made them an offer they couldn’t refuse.Striking a deal with Indonesia is far more difficult and problematic for they are nowhere near as receptive and easily influenced as the Papuan people.

Jethro said :

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

So you would support a plan like Malcolm Frasers that would likely stop the boats while also meeting our human rights obligations? Or is it less the boats you want to stop and more the actual people seeking asylum?

Malcolm Fraser’s proposal gives unfair advantage to those asylum seekers who have the means to reach Indonesia in the first place. Why would anyone with a sense of fairness and equity support such a policy?

Or is it less the boats you want to stop and more being seen to be the most compassionate and progressive whilst actually giving preferential treatment to those with money?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/29/let-them-all-come-is-stop-the-boats-for-unthinking-progressives/

This article in Crikey today is a great look at this issue, unfortunately some of the people on the left side of politics are exactly as ignorant and stupid on this issue as the apparent ‘racists’ they deride.

We cannot help everyone and we need to stop people dying on the dangerous boat journey here. It offends my sense of fairness that refugees that have the means to get to Indonesia and hop on a boat are given preference to those who do not.

I don’t understand how those people who are generally so against richer people getting preferential treatment on nearly every other issue could support it on this one.

Well interestingly I didn’t see a placard regarding those refugees on the bones of their arse stuck in some UN camp waiting for a country to take them on; too poor to purchase a airfare to say Java .
Then pay cash to some dodgy bloke for a ride on a ship which would have meant they ( if they get here ), have successfully given the finger to the UN camp people. “Viva capitalism” ..

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Probably no white Zimbabwean farmers left – they have already been murdered.
Oh, I nearly forgot THE SOURCE !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105477/White-farmer-killed-Zimbabwe.html

I’m not in any way disputing the argument that they face terrible persecution that would justify their asylum claims.

But then again, Hazaras and Tamils also face terrible persecution.

Thanks for proving my point though…. if a boatload of white Zimbabwean farmers turned up, the focus would be on the persecution they suffer, the terrible ordeals they have been through, the plight of white people in Zimbabwe, etc…. It was the very first thing you said in response to my comment. They would be humanised and accepted as legitimate refugees.

If said white farmers came via boat without any documentation to prove their nationality, they would go through the same processing as anyone else who arrived on the same boat, so why make it an example. The opinion of the Australian public of them might be different, but the process would not change. The plight of the people is not the argument, it’s what we do with them when they arrive illegally that is apparently the issue. Some would have them welcomed with open arms regardless who they are or where they are from, just because they say “I’m a refugee.”

I noticed that the Anarchist’s logo is sprayed just below the “No Borders” graffiti. Does this represent the protester’s anti-government view and how they would like the world to turn? Poor us if it is and they get any kind of power.

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Probably no white Zimbabwean farmers left – they have already been murdered.
Oh, I nearly forgot THE SOURCE !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105477/White-farmer-killed-Zimbabwe.html

I’m not in any way disputing the argument that they face terrible persecution that would justify their asylum claims.

But then again, Hazaras and Tamils also face terrible persecution.

Thanks for proving my point though…. if a boatload of white Zimbabwean farmers turned up, the focus would be on the persecution they suffer, the terrible ordeals they have been through, the plight of white people in Zimbabwe, etc…. It was the very first thing you said in response to my comment. They would be humanised and accepted as legitimate refugees.

You would have to bring them back to life first.

MissAppropriation said :

It was held in Woden as the ALP where holding a meeting inside the Woden Southern Cross Club while the Rally was being held outside. It was an attempt to send a message to the ALP that their racist policy on Asylum Seekers is not acceptable nor wanted by the Australian Public.

Thanks for telling us what we want, can you tell me what I want for breakfast tomorrow?

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

Probably no white Zimbabwean farmers left – they have already been murdered.
Oh, I nearly forgot THE SOURCE !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105477/White-farmer-killed-Zimbabwe.html

I’m not in any way disputing the argument that they face terrible persecution that would justify their asylum claims.

But then again, Hazaras and Tamils also face terrible persecution.

Good, so Hazaras can go and settle among some friendly fellow-muslims somewhere near wherever it is they come from, and the Tamils can return to their homeland which is 50km away from the island they tried (and failed) to invade instead oif travelling 5,000km to scam hand-outs and free housing from the Australian taxpayer with whom they share no common culture nor ethnic origin.

As for the white Zimbabweans who have been undergoing systematic eradication at the hands of left-wing racists for the last 25 years (to the sound of utter silence from the do-gooder lefties everywhere else) – they can go back to Britain which was their origin. On the other hand, seeing as there is no doubt Zimbabwe was a safer, freer, more prosperous place when they were in charge, perhaps we could send in the armed forces to eradicate the evil Mugabe and his mindless thugs instead, thus solving the problem “at source”?
No?
No. couldn’t have any real solutions, could we.

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

It beggars belief that the obvious scam that is being perpetrated by these asylum-system cheats isn’t apparently spotted by these limp-wristed do-gooders.

bundah said :

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

So you would support a plan like Malcolm Frasers that would likely stop the boats while also meeting our human rights obligations? Or is it less the boats you want to stop and more the actual people seeking asylum?

dungfungus said :

Probably no white Zimbabwean farmers left – they have already been murdered.
Oh, I nearly forgot THE SOURCE !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105477/White-farmer-killed-Zimbabwe.html

I’m not in any way disputing the argument that they face terrible persecution that would justify their asylum claims.

But then again, Hazaras and Tamils also face terrible persecution.

Thanks for proving my point though…. if a boatload of white Zimbabwean farmers turned up, the focus would be on the persecution they suffer, the terrible ordeals they have been through, the plight of white people in Zimbabwe, etc…. It was the very first thing you said in response to my comment. They would be humanised and accepted as legitimate refugees.

Jethro said :

Ben_Dover said :

harvyk1 said :

Sigh, ready for another 50 posts from bigots…..

Sigh… is everyone with a differing view to yours a “bigot” then?

In the case of the ‘stop the boats’ mob, I think it’s fair to say a very large percentage of people are bigots.

A case in point is the response in the comments section of an article by Malcolm Fraser in today’s Fairfax publications.

After Fraser laid out a humane and legal way we could deal with asylum seekers in the region and stop the boats coming, the ‘stop the boats’ crowd had little more to say other than, “yeah, but they’re Muslims and we don’t want more Muslims coming here.”

At the heart of this issue is the type of people who are coming on boats. You only have to look at the number of times the specter of the evil Muslim was raised on the other thread on this topic on R.A. to see evidence of that.

As Fraser asked in another article a couple of weeks back, how would people respond if we had a boatload of white Zimbabwean farmers turn up on our doorstep seeking asylum?

If you suspect the answer is that we’d probably respond differently, then you know that one of the primary drivers of the increased race to the bottom in our treatment of asylum seekers is, indeed, bigotry.

Probably no white Zimbabwean farmers left – they have already been murdered.
Oh, I nearly forgot THE SOURCE !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105477/White-farmer-killed-Zimbabwe.html

i agree. no borders: http://the-riotact.com/borders-gone/46981

It may come as a surprise to some but there are those who agree that it’s appropriate to ‘stop the boats’ who are actually not bigoted.

DrKoresh said “Why was the rally held in Woden, does anyone know? Wouldn’t Civic, or even Capital Hill, have been a better idea?”

It was held in Woden as the ALP where holding a meeting inside the Woden Southern Cross Club while the Rally was being held outside. It was an attempt to send a message to the ALP that their racist policy on Asylum Seekers is not acceptable nor wanted by the Australian Public.

I wish we could stop the bogans from having opinions on such matters where human decency & using common sense are needed.

I agree with many of their sentiments (except the “no borders” part), but they have destroyed their message with the totally unnecessary graffiti.

The photo of Simon Sheikh standing in front of the graffiti reminds me of Tony Abbott, Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Mirabella standing in front of the “Ditch the Witch” placards. Guys, you will be judged by the company you keep and these photos will remain as evidence of your poor judgement.

Ben_Dover said :

harvyk1 said :

Sigh, ready for another 50 posts from bigots…..

Sigh… is everyone with a differing view to yours a “bigot” then?

In the case of the ‘stop the boats’ mob, I think it’s fair to say a very large percentage of people are bigots.

A case in point is the response in the comments section of an article by Malcolm Fraser in today’s Fairfax publications.

After Fraser laid out a humane and legal way we could deal with asylum seekers in the region and stop the boats coming, the ‘stop the boats’ crowd had little more to say other than, “yeah, but they’re Muslims and we don’t want more Muslims coming here.”

At the heart of this issue is the type of people who are coming on boats. You only have to look at the number of times the specter of the evil Muslim was raised on the other thread on this topic on R.A. to see evidence of that.

As Fraser asked in another article a couple of weeks back, how would people respond if we had a boatload of white Zimbabwean farmers turn up on our doorstep seeking asylum?

If you suspect the answer is that we’d probably respond differently, then you know that one of the primary drivers of the increased race to the bottom in our treatment of asylum seekers is, indeed, bigotry.

harvyk1 said :

Sigh, ready for another 50 posts from bigots…..

Sigh… is everyone with a differing view to yours a “bigot” then?

A Human Rights protest? Ha! This is just Emote-A-Crowd. Even the placards are generic.

If these individuals were serious about human rights abuses then, surely, they’d be protesting outside the embassies of the countries from which people seek refuge and asylum.

Lasting remedies are applied to the source – all others are merely band-aids.

Sigh, ready for another 50 posts from bigots… If anyone is interested I posted up some cited facts under http://the-riotact.com/the-imagery-of-asylum-seeker-politics/110419/comment-page-4#comments post 116…

DrKoresh said :

Where does it say anything about “no borders”? I think most people protesting understand the need for borders and border protection, they just don’t see how that equates to locking up people like animals and completely failing to uphold our obligations in accepting and resettling refugees.

And what’s this graffiti everyone is crapping on about? What does it have to do with the rally? I agree with Barchy, it only serves as fodder for people who want to muck-rake against a worthy cause.

Why was the rally held in Woden, does anyone know? Wouldn’t Civic, or even Capital Hill, have been a better idea?

<a href=https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/cGwjw1R4TjdyXHMr9KhChqUFuNSzeiX9SK55MMZn9ZE=w328-h218-p-no. My arm gets tired from all this spoonfeeding…

Dumb as a bag of bricks. Vandalism and a cry for “no borders…”

Baggy said :

“A collection of people who believe in human rights went for a walk to let Australia know about how they felt about its lack of concern for human rights.”…. whilst some of the group adequately demonstrated to the rest of us that they have no respect for the rule of law in spraying graffiti over public property (even if I think it is an improvement to the ‘artwork’).

Honestly, “no borders”? Do you nutjobs even think about the practical consequences of your policy positions? Hrm, sounds like young Greens candidates in the making.

Where does it say anything about “no borders”? I think most people protesting understand the need for borders and border protection, they just don’t see how that equates to locking up people like animals and completely failing to uphold our obligations in accepting and resettling refugees.

And what’s this graffiti everyone is crapping on about? What does it have to do with the rally? I agree with Barchy, it only serves as fodder for people who want to muck-rake against a worthy cause.

Why was the rally held in Woden, does anyone know? Wouldn’t Civic, or even Capital Hill, have been a better idea?

wildturkeycanoe said :

And graffiti will give these people a “voice” or some kind of credibility? Yeah right. That is not the way to go about this in a democratic society. Leave the vandalism back where you came from.

This is why it upsets me when people with good intentions do dumb things.

People will use the fact you’ve done this one stupid to disregard your entire opinion, even when it in no way relates to the issues at hand.

Also… “Leave the vandalism back where you came from.” What?

“A collection of people who believe in human rights went for a walk to let Australia know about how they felt about its lack of concern for human rights.”…. whilst some of the group adequately demonstrated to the rest of us that they have no respect for the rule of law in spraying graffiti over public property (even if I think it is an improvement to the ‘artwork’).

Honestly, “no borders”? Do you nutjobs even think about the practical consequences of your policy positions? Hrm, sounds like young Greens candidates in the making.

And graffiti will give these people a “voice” or some kind of credibility? Yeah right. That is not the way to go about this in a democratic society. Leave the vandalism back where you came from.

To the gent on the left I would suggest perhaps if he obtained the whole card instead of just a piece of it he could be able to articulate his message..