Overstary your visa - fine. Come by leaky boat - not fine.

John Hargreaves said :

So let me get this right. You righties say that well, we can’t find them so OK . It costs too much to do a man hunt. Good one that. Compare that against the 14,000 arrivals of alum seekers at its height. And by you numbers we have 30,000 of these people seeking help in Australia at the moment.

So 30,000 people seeking assistance from persecution against 400,000 over stayers who are here because they can abscond and no-one is going to be serious about kicking them out. having a 3 year ban on visas once a holiday or business visa expires is some threat!

If I was king of the world, I would open our hearts to those who run from death, who run from torture, who risk their lives and that of their kids. I would spend more on the checking of asylum claims and less on sending the Border Patrols after them.

AND… I would legislate that if a visa is overstayed for other than humanitarian reasons, it would mean no future visas at all. and I would insist that this information be advised to travellers at the point of airline/ship bookings and on the carriers themselves. You get advised of the consequences of importing drugs and fruit, why not the consequences of overstaying a visa.

But I’m not the immigration guru. Dutton is and his priority is not the 400,000 over stayers, it is the miniscule number of “bikers” and criminals who come to our shores with malice aforethought! I feel so safe now!

This guy is just creating something else for us to be scared of. Where are the figures of thugs coming into Australia in such numbers as should warrant being on the top of the “hit list”?

Firstly, it’s not 400000 overstayers. Secondly, the illegal boat arrivals were growing enormously under the previous government’s policy, year on year.

You seem to have missed answering my last question, so I’ll ask again so we can all he sure of your exact position:
How many refugees should Australia accept and if you accept there needs to be limited, what should we do with the limit +1 boat arrival?

rosscoact said :

Justin, certainly a vexed issue and no simple answers. It seems to be getting more complicated as policy shifts in other countries affect the actions of refugees and the people who profit off them.

It’s not the policy intention that bothers me. Well I should say, that it doesn’t bother me as much as it used to. It is the heartless cruelty that is applied to vulnerable people. Every person and organisation, who isn’t paid by the present government or who has a ulterior motive eg IPA and News Corp, and has first hand knowledge of the conditions in which people are detained offshore, decries the conditions in which they are detained.

Keeping children in detention for extended periods (and both sides of politics are guilty of this) is abhorrent and frankly disgusting. Handing over people who are seeking asylum to the very regime from which they are escaping is almost beyond comprehension.

The high moral ground is easy to take when you would, because it is morally right, protect a person you are responsible for while they are in your care. You and everyone else on this forum would I expect, give a person who had been assaulted medical care, attempt to protect a woman from rape and give succour to those who need it.

State supported/concealed physical and mental abuse of the weakest minorities is the stamp of the worst totalitarian regimes. I fear this is happening under the guise of ‘operational security’ right now. Concentrating on the higher policy issues is fine but we shouldn’t ever endorse calculated and systemic cruelty to people by our governments.

Fixed the garbled bits, shouldn’t be having breakfast and two conversations while writing

So let me get this right. You righties say that well, we can’t find them so OK . It costs too much to do a man hunt. Good one that. Compare that against the 14,000 arrivals of alum seekers at its height. And by you numbers we have 30,000 of these people seeking help in Australia at the moment.

So 30,000 people seeking assistance from persecution against 400,000 over stayers who are here because they can abscond and no-one is going to be serious about kicking them out. having a 3 year ban on visas once a holiday or business visa expires is some threat!

If I was king of the world, I would open our hearts to those who run from death, who run from torture, who risk their lives and that of their kids. I would spend more on the checking of asylum claims and less on sending the Border Patrols after them.

AND… I would legislate that if a visa is overstayed for other than humanitarian reasons, it would mean no future visas at all. and I would insist that this information be advised to travellers at the point of airline/ship bookings and on the carriers themselves. You get advised of the consequences of importing drugs and fruit, why not the consequences of overstaying a visa.

But I’m not the immigration guru. Dutton is and his priority is not the 400,000 over stayers, it is the miniscule number of “bikers” and criminals who come to our shores with malice aforethought! I feel so safe now!

This guy is just creating something else for us to be scared of. Where are the figures of thugs coming into Australia in such numbers as should warrant being on the top of the “hit list”?

justin heywood said :

rosscoact said :

It’s obvious you are in the minority here John.

Compassion and the capacity for independent considered thought are both in short supply, at least for the rusted on minority…..

Glad you joined in there roosso.

You see a lot of people make claims to the high moral ground without actually proposing a solution to illegal immigration. I just want to know what the solution is – me and the rest of the world actually.

Because a workable solution is so rarely proposed by critics of the current system, some might think that claiming the high moral ground is entirely the point, but I’m unsure.

Obviously on-shore processing and ‘release into the community’ just results in a flotilla of leaky boats and more misery and deaths, so that’s out. Obviously. If we are actually talking about being compassionate.

So lease give us simple people some guidance to the higher path. What would you do?

Justin, certainly a vexed issue and no simple answers. It seems to be getting more complicated as policy shifts in other countries affect the actions of refugees and the people who profit off them.

It’s not the policy intention that bothers me. Well I should say, that it doesn’t bother me as much as it used to. It is the heartless cruelty that is applied to vulnerable people. Every person and organisation, who isn’t paid by the present government or who has a ulterior motive eg IPA and News Corp, and has first hand knowledge of the conditions in which people are detained offshore, decries the abuse in which they arrive.

Keeping children in detention for extended periods (and both sides of politics are guilty of this) is abhorrent and frankly disgusting. Handing over people who are seeking asylum to the very regime from which they are escaping is almost beyond comprehension.

The high moral ground is easy to take when you would, because it is morally right, protect a person you are responsible for while you are in their care. You and everyone else on this forum would I expect, give a person who had been assaulted medical care, attempt to protect a woman from rape and give succour to those who need it.

State supported/concealed physical and mental abuse of the weakest minorities is the stamp of the worst totalitarian regimes. I fear this is happening under the guise of ‘operational security’ right now. Concentrating on the higher policy issues is fine but we shouldn’t ever endorse calculated and systemic cruelty to people by our governments.

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

There are probably about 400,000 visa over-stayers in Australia at any one time. When they are detected and deported or decide to go home they are refused re-entry.

Where does the 400,000 figure come from?

And just to add detail on your behalf, people who overstay their visa for more than 28 days are subject to an exclusion period that prevents them from being granted a temporary visa for three years.

Actually, the figure was only 394,478 but respecting your need for the “exact” details I concede I exaggerated a bit just as I did with the statement that visa overstayers would not be allowed to return to Australia. Next time I will give you links to everything so you can examine it until the cows come home.
The information came from someone who used to track them down.

Links would be great. Many thanks.

rosscoact said :

It’s obvious you are in the minority here John.

Compassion and the capacity for independent considered thought are both in short supply, at least for the rusted on minority…..

Glad you joined in there roosso.

You see a lot of people make claims to the high moral ground without actually proposing a solution to illegal immigration. I just want to know what the solution is – me and the rest of the world actually.

Because a workable solution is so rarely proposed by critics of the current system, some might think that claiming the high moral ground is entirely the point, but I’m unsure.

Obviously on-shore processing and ‘release into the community’ just results in a flotilla of leaky boats and more misery and deaths, so that’s out. Obviously. If we are actually talking about being compassionate.

So lease give us simple people some guidance to the higher path. What would you do?

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

There are probably about 400,000 visa over-stayers in Australia at any one time. When they are detected and deported or decide to go home they are refused re-entry.

Where does the 400,000 figure come from?

And just to add detail on your behalf, people who overstay their visa for more than 28 days are subject to an exclusion period that prevents them from being granted a temporary visa for three years.

Actually, the figure was only 394,478 but respecting your need for the “exact” details I concede I exaggerated a bit just as I did with the statement that visa overstayers would not be allowed to return to Australia. Next time I will give you links to everything so you can examine it until the cows come home.
The information came from someone who used to track them down.

Yes, I would like you to post the links thanks. The information linked previously shows the department’s estimate for visa overstayers in the country was approximately 54000 in 2010.

Would be quite a jump to get to 400000 in four years, don’t you think?

It’s obvious you are in the minority here John.

Compassion and the capacity for independent considered thought are both in short supply, at least for the rusted on minority. Wait until 2015 when the cruelty ramps up and the most vulnerable in our community are targeted for ‘special treatment’.

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

There are probably about 400,000 visa over-stayers in Australia at any one time. When they are detected and deported or decide to go home they are refused re-entry.

Where does the 400,000 figure come from?

And just to add detail on your behalf, people who overstay their visa for more than 28 days are subject to an exclusion period that prevents them from being granted a temporary visa for three years.

Actually, the figure was only 394,478 but respecting your need for the “exact” details I concede I exaggerated a bit just as I did with the statement that visa overstayers would not be allowed to return to Australia. Next time I will give you links to everything so you can examine it until the cows come home.
The information came from someone who used to track them down.

I cant believe we have this debate going one again here. Overstaying a visa and arriving illegally by boat are completely different issues. The people smuggling can be and has been stopped by successful policies by the Howard government and yet again by the current LNP. Where as people who come here by Visa we know exactly who they are and they choose to overstay nothing you can do about that and you cant just initiate a man hunt for every one that overstays so thats just one thing we have to live with. They usually get found eventually.

It seems to be some sort of trendy thing for those of the left to associate with and they like to seem like they are morally superior. But that compassion has resulted in 1000’s of deaths at sea and 30,000 people including children in detention when at the end of the Howard years it was less than 10 illegal maritime arrival people in detention. And it ended up costing over a $10 billion it was an utter disaster.

We now have the situation under control people kids have left detention the detention centres are closing and gradually the people are leaving. By the next election a good % of them should be out of detention. They have also increased the genuine refugee intake which is what the Greens etc wanted and they have stopped the deaths at sea.

Look at whats happening in Europe since Italy did what the Greens want and essentially opened the flood gates and stopped prosecuting illegal boat arrivals. 1000s of deaths at sea and social chaos in Europe as Italy allowed them all to arrive and move on to other countries in Europe. They have now stopped this though because it was a disaster. Basically it was a repeat on a much bigger scale to what happened here under Rudd Labor and totally predictable.

It seems like John Hargreaves is having is own Malcolm Fraser moment.

dungfungus said :

There are probably about 400,000 visa over-stayers in Australia at any one time. When they are detected and deported or decide to go home they are refused re-entry.

Where does the 400,000 figure come from?

And just to add detail on your behalf, people who overstay their visa for more than 28 days are subject to an exclusion period that prevents them from being granted a temporary visa for three years.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

Weatherman said :

It’s quite simple. If someone arrives by plane, they must go through customs and they can be accounted for due to documentation. If someone arrives by boat without documentation, it is difficult to track who the asylum seeker really is and whether they are actually genuine or not. The destruction of documentation was also documented by Dutch photojournalist Joel van Houdt and American reporter Luke Mogelson when they went undercover as asylum seekers to document their journey as undercover journalists.

“Upon nearing Christmas Island a crew member used a satellite phone to call Australian authorities for help, before passengers destroyed passports and identity documents and threw mobile phones overboard.”

Asylum seekers needed documentation to arrive at Indonesian and/or Indonesia via Malaysian airports only to subsequently destroy documentation only to transit to Australia undocumented as an irregular maritime arrival.

Funny how this wasn’t reported by the ABC or Fairfax.
I am anxiously waiting to hear John’s comments on this.

So what is magical about valid docos when the expiry date is ignored? It shows the desperation of people to try to come here without documents. You say they threw all their docos overboard. what proof is there that all the asylum seekers did this? Scott Morrison’s? Peter Reith’s?

Must be true then.

Reith said they their their kids overboard I remember. And he knew it was not true!

But let’s go to the reason people are coming here “illegally” The overstayers like it here and want a better life. They are not being threatened with death! The asylum seekers are not here illegally, they are here asking for help. and they are under threat of death. And people like you either don’t know the difference or are too hard hearted to care!

WRONG.

Get your facts straight.

I note that commentators from the Left who talk about the issue of illegal immigration rarely propose an actual solution – I argue that it’s because there isn’t one; it’s just a cheap political stick used by political bystanders to beat up the people who have to make the hard decisions. Illegal immigration is a complex problem with no easy solution, and every Western country is grappling with the issue.

After years of berating Howard on the boat people issue, the ALP quickly discovered on gaining power that making boat people more ‘welcome’ here simply resulted in more leaky boats, more deaths and more misery.

So nowadays they are a lot less strident in condemning the current policy, which has undeniably saved many lives. It’s mainly the hard left and the Greens who still play the issue for a cheap pat on the back from the usual suspects. It’s easy to TALK about how compassionate you are compared to your enemies, but in this case what would appear to be more ‘compassionate’ policies actually result in more suffering, as Rudd discovered.

So come on John, imagine that the stars aligned and you became immigration minister; tell us about the actual changes YOU would make to our immigration policy?

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

Algernon said :

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Masquara said :

The overstayers have gotten themselves jobs and are contributing to our economy.

chewy14 said :

What a silly comparison.

Most of the visa overstayers are different people each year, they do eventually go home and we know exactly who they are. They are mostly holiday makers who stay longer than allowed before going home.

They don’t receive welfare or any government assistance whilst they are here.

By my reading, Stanhope’s article was about overstayers and therefore I refer you to a document on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website ‘Fact Sheet 86 – Overstayers and other Non-Lawful Citizens.

Dungfungus, you’re right. People who enter Australia with a visa are not illegals. People who stay in Australia once their visa has expired are. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. The politicians who tell you they are, are lying to you.

Masqara, Fact Sheet 86 says: “Unlawful non-citizens are nationals from another country who do not have the right to be in Australia. The majority of unlawful non-citizens in Australia at any given time have either overstayed the visa issued to them or are people whose visas have been cancelled.”

It also says:”Overstayers and others who are working illegally are taking job opportunities away from unemployed Australian citizens and residents.”

Chewy, it would appear, through your use of the Royal ‘we’, that you work in DIBP. You say that overstayers do not receive any assistance. Why, then does Fact Sheet 86 say: “Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.”

Can you explain what debts, other than the cost of removal, an overstayer has to repay in order to be given a new visa.

Fact Sheet 86 is illuminating in understanding why DIBP is not too concerned with overstayers. It says: “These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status.”

Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.

“Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.”
To compare Australian detention centres to “concentration camps” is totally disingenuous.
Please supply proof of what you claim.

Barbed wire, accusations of being terrorists, poor medical service, poor educational facilities, constant questioning, separation of families, deportation to islands like Christmas Island and Nauru, threats of deportation to a third world country, Stigmatisation, Government encouraged demonization, shall I go on?

I lived in a number of camps for six years, migrant camps, and they were not holiday camps. They were there to change the “migrant’ into “Aussies”. They were for short term assistance. What about six years is short?

Putting kids into detention centres and they did, even if those are now out. and who’s to say the next lot of families won’t be separated for the adults to go into camps offshore and the kids into camps on shore. More Stolen Generations?

Nit picking between concentration camps and detention camps just shows the writer has never been near one let alone in one.

You should have destroyed your papers John and you would have been out of there in 6 months.
Honestly, I have never seen so much drivel. You should go and live with Malcolm Fraser.

chewy14 said :

Algernon said :

Chewy, it would appear, through your use of the Royal ‘we’, that you work in DIBP. You say that overstayers do not receive any assistance. Why, then does Fact Sheet 86 say: “Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.”

Can you explain what debts, other than the cost of removal, an overstayer has to repay in order to be given a new visa.

Fact Sheet 86 is illuminating in understanding why DIBP is not too concerned with overstayers. It says: “These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status.”

Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.

How about you tell me what other government financial assistance visa overstayers receive, should be easy right?

And where on that fact sheet does it say that DIBP is not concerned with overstayers? It makes a factual statement that these overstayers often blend into their communities and their neighbours and friends are often unaware of their status.

The fact sheet clearly says:

“Unlawful non-citizens have no entitlement to remain in Australia and are expected to depart. Where unlawful non-citizens refuse to leave Australia voluntarily, they may be detained and removed from Australia at the earliest practicable opportunity.”

Pretty straight forward I would say.

The clear difference between them and asylum seekers is that visa overstayers have already been checked and cleared for entry into Australia and there are various reasons why they might want to extend their stay and the department offers reasonable methods for them to apply to do so. But in the end, if they overstay their visas they become unlawful non citizens and will be removed.

Yeah but they’re not! We have had 60,000 of them in the country at any onetime and this figure is more or less the same as for decades and the action of Immigration is insufficient to counter it.

The fact is that they don’t know where the over stayers are. And they get jobs and pay for their medical treatment by going to the emergency Dept and getting free medical. I know one such lady who complained that she had been here for five years and was ineligible for medicare to treat her recently diagnosed cancer. She came here from the UK on a three month visitor’s visa and stayed in Canberra to be next to her son. She recently died. after going back after being disgruntled she couldn’t get the aged pension. She came back on a sponsored migration package later, but my point is made..

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

Weatherman said :

It’s quite simple. If someone arrives by plane, they must go through customs and they can be accounted for due to documentation. If someone arrives by boat without documentation, it is difficult to track who the asylum seeker really is and whether they are actually genuine or not. The destruction of documentation was also documented by Dutch photojournalist Joel van Houdt and American reporter Luke Mogelson when they went undercover as asylum seekers to document their journey as undercover journalists.

“Upon nearing Christmas Island a crew member used a satellite phone to call Australian authorities for help, before passengers destroyed passports and identity documents and threw mobile phones overboard.”

Asylum seekers needed documentation to arrive at Indonesian and/or Indonesia via Malaysian airports only to subsequently destroy documentation only to transit to Australia undocumented as an irregular maritime arrival.

Funny how this wasn’t reported by the ABC or Fairfax.
I am anxiously waiting to hear John’s comments on this.

So what is magical about valid docos when the expiry date is ignored? It shows the desperation of people to try to come here without documents. You say they threw all their docos overboard. what proof is there that all the asylum seekers did this? Scott Morrison’s? Peter Reith’s?

Must be true then.

Reith said they their their kids overboard I remember. And he knew it was not true!

But let’s go to the reason people are coming here “illegally” The overstayers like it here and want a better life. They are not being threatened with death! The asylum seekers are not here illegally, they are here asking for help. and they are under threat of death. And people like you either don’t know the difference or are too hard hearted to care!

Yes, people do come here for a better life John. So how many refugees should Australia accept and if you accept there needs to be limited, what should we do with the limit +1 boat arrival?

It’s easy to be infinitely empathetic when you don’t have to deal with the consequences.

dungfungus said :

Weatherman said :

It’s quite simple. If someone arrives by plane, they must go through customs and they can be accounted for due to documentation. If someone arrives by boat without documentation, it is difficult to track who the asylum seeker really is and whether they are actually genuine or not. The destruction of documentation was also documented by Dutch photojournalist Joel van Houdt and American reporter Luke Mogelson when they went undercover as asylum seekers to document their journey as undercover journalists.

“Upon nearing Christmas Island a crew member used a satellite phone to call Australian authorities for help, before passengers destroyed passports and identity documents and threw mobile phones overboard.”

Asylum seekers needed documentation to arrive at Indonesian and/or Indonesia via Malaysian airports only to subsequently destroy documentation only to transit to Australia undocumented as an irregular maritime arrival.

Funny how this wasn’t reported by the ABC or Fairfax.
I am anxiously waiting to hear John’s comments on this.

So what is magical about valid docos when the expiry date is ignored? It shows the desperation of people to try to come here without documents. You say they threw all their docos overboard. what proof is there that all the asylum seekers did this? Scott Morrison’s? Peter Reith’s? Must be true then.

Reith said they their their kids overboard I remember. And he knew it was not true!

But let’s go to the reason people are coming here “illegally” The overstayers like it here and want a better life. They are not being threatened with death! The asylum seekers are not here illegally, they are here asking for help. and they are under threat of death. And people like you either don’t know the difference or are too hard hearted to care!

Algernon said :

Dungfungus, Dictionary.com defines a concentration camp as: (n) a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc., especially any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World War II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners.

And chewy, I don’t know what sort of repayments overstayers have to make to the Commonwealth on their deportation or prior to them seeking a visa to stay here. I was asking you because it would appear you have inside knowledge.

We all know you were trying to associate our detention centres with Nazi concentration camps so don’t now try and dilute your inference with a broader dictionary definition.
According to DIBP Fact Sheet 82 on Immigration Detention, the detainees of your “concentration camps” receive the following:
“The detention service provider runs cultural and lifestyle classes, sporting activities, excursions such as fishing or shopping trips, educational programmes and English language classes for detainees in immigration detention.
Detainees in immigration detention facilities have access to resources and equipment for self-education and recreation. These include computers, CDs and videos, art and craft supplies, sport and recreational facilities and equipment, a library with a variety of reading material in various languages, and computers with internet access.
Food
A variety of nutritious meals are served three times a day. Meals are also prepared for cultural and religious festivals, such as Ramadan and Christmas. Detainees who need special diets for cultural or medical reasons are catered for. Beverages and snacks are available between meals as well.”
This is better treatment than a lot of Australians not in detention receive and it is all free to them.
Australia must surely be a world leader in management of concentration camps.

dungfungus said :

Algernon said :

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Masquara said :

The overstayers have gotten themselves jobs and are contributing to our economy.

chewy14 said :

What a silly comparison.

Most of the visa overstayers are different people each year, they do eventually go home and we know exactly who they are. They are mostly holiday makers who stay longer than allowed before going home.

They don’t receive welfare or any government assistance whilst they are here.

By my reading, Stanhope’s article was about overstayers and therefore I refer you to a document on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website ‘Fact Sheet 86 – Overstayers and other Non-Lawful Citizens.

Dungfungus, you’re right. People who enter Australia with a visa are not illegals. People who stay in Australia once their visa has expired are. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. The politicians who tell you they are, are lying to you.

Masqara, Fact Sheet 86 says: “Unlawful non-citizens are nationals from another country who do not have the right to be in Australia. The majority of unlawful non-citizens in Australia at any given time have either overstayed the visa issued to them or are people whose visas have been cancelled.”

It also says:”Overstayers and others who are working illegally are taking job opportunities away from unemployed Australian citizens and residents.”

Chewy, it would appear, through your use of the Royal ‘we’, that you work in DIBP. You say that overstayers do not receive any assistance. Why, then does Fact Sheet 86 say: “Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.”

Can you explain what debts, other than the cost of removal, an overstayer has to repay in order to be given a new visa.

Fact Sheet 86 is illuminating in understanding why DIBP is not too concerned with overstayers. It says: “These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status.”

Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.

“Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.”
To compare Australian detention centres to “concentration camps” is totally disingenuous.
Please supply proof of what you claim.

Barbed wire, accusations of being terrorists, poor medical service, poor educational facilities, constant questioning, separation of families, deportation to islands like Christmas Island and Nauru, threats of deportation to a third world country, Stigmatisation, Government encouraged demonization, shall I go on?

I lived in a number of camps for six years, migrant camps, and they were not holiday camps. They were there to change the “migrant’ into “Aussies”. They were for short term assistance. What about six years is short?

Putting kids into detention centres and they did, even if those are now out. and who’s to say the next lot of families won’t be separated for the adults to go into camps offshore and the kids into camps on shore. More Stolen Generations?

Nit picking between concentration camps and detention camps just shows the writer has never been near one let alone in one.

Algernon said :

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Masquara said :

The overstayers have gotten themselves jobs and are contributing to our economy.

chewy14 said :

What a silly comparison.

Most of the visa overstayers are different people each year, they do eventually go home and we know exactly who they are. They are mostly holiday makers who stay longer than allowed before going home.

They don’t receive welfare or any government assistance whilst they are here.

By my reading, Stanhope’s article was about overstayers and therefore I refer you to a document on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website ‘Fact Sheet 86 – Overstayers and other Non-Lawful Citizens.

Dungfungus, you’re right. People who enter Australia with a visa are not illegals. People who stay in Australia once their visa has expired are. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. The politicians who tell you they are, are lying to you.

Masqara, Fact Sheet 86 says: “Unlawful non-citizens are nationals from another country who do not have the right to be in Australia. The majority of unlawful non-citizens in Australia at any given time have either overstayed the visa issued to them or are people whose visas have been cancelled.”

It also says:”Overstayers and others who are working illegally are taking job opportunities away from unemployed Australian citizens and residents.”

Chewy, it would appear, through your use of the Royal ‘we’, that you work in DIBP. You say that overstayers do not receive any assistance. Why, then does Fact Sheet 86 say: “Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.”

Can you explain what debts, other than the cost of removal, an overstayer has to repay in order to be given a new visa.

Fact Sheet 86 is illuminating in understanding why DIBP is not too concerned with overstayers. It says: “These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status.”

Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.

Bravo, I say

Dungfungus, Dictionary.com defines a concentration camp as: (n) a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc., especially any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World War II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners.

And chewy, I don’t know what sort of repayments overstayers have to make to the Commonwealth on their deportation or prior to them seeking a visa to stay here. I was asking you because it would appear you have inside knowledge.

Algernon said :

Chewy, it would appear, through your use of the Royal ‘we’, that you work in DIBP. You say that overstayers do not receive any assistance. Why, then does Fact Sheet 86 say: “Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.”

Can you explain what debts, other than the cost of removal, an overstayer has to repay in order to be given a new visa.

Fact Sheet 86 is illuminating in understanding why DIBP is not too concerned with overstayers. It says: “These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status.”

Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.

How about you tell me what other government financial assistance visa overstayers receive, should be easy right?

And where on that fact sheet does it say that DIBP is not concerned with overstayers? It makes a factual statement that these overstayers often blend into their communities and their neighbours and friends are often unaware of their status.

The fact sheet clearly says:

“Unlawful non-citizens have no entitlement to remain in Australia and are expected to depart. Where unlawful non-citizens refuse to leave Australia voluntarily, they may be detained and removed from Australia at the earliest practicable opportunity.”

Pretty straight forward I would say.

The clear difference between them and asylum seekers is that visa overstayers have already been checked and cleared for entry into Australia and there are various reasons why they might want to extend their stay and the department offers reasonable methods for them to apply to do so. But in the end, if they overstay their visas they become unlawful non citizens and will be removed.

Weatherman said :

It’s quite simple. If someone arrives by plane, they must go through customs and they can be accounted for due to documentation. If someone arrives by boat without documentation, it is difficult to track who the asylum seeker really is and whether they are actually genuine or not. The destruction of documentation was also documented by Dutch photojournalist Joel van Houdt and American reporter Luke Mogelson when they went undercover as asylum seekers to document their journey as undercover journalists.

“Upon nearing Christmas Island a crew member used a satellite phone to call Australian authorities for help, before passengers destroyed passports and identity documents and threw mobile phones overboard.”

Asylum seekers needed documentation to arrive at Indonesian and/or Indonesia via Malaysian airports only to subsequently destroy documentation only to transit to Australia undocumented as an irregular maritime arrival.

Funny how this wasn’t reported by the ABC or Fairfax.
I am anxiously waiting to hear John’s comments on this.

Algernon said :

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Masquara said :

The overstayers have gotten themselves jobs and are contributing to our economy.

chewy14 said :

What a silly comparison.

Most of the visa overstayers are different people each year, they do eventually go home and we know exactly who they are. They are mostly holiday makers who stay longer than allowed before going home.

They don’t receive welfare or any government assistance whilst they are here.

By my reading, Stanhope’s article was about overstayers and therefore I refer you to a document on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website ‘Fact Sheet 86 – Overstayers and other Non-Lawful Citizens.

Dungfungus, you’re right. People who enter Australia with a visa are not illegals. People who stay in Australia once their visa has expired are. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. The politicians who tell you they are, are lying to you.

Masqara, Fact Sheet 86 says: “Unlawful non-citizens are nationals from another country who do not have the right to be in Australia. The majority of unlawful non-citizens in Australia at any given time have either overstayed the visa issued to them or are people whose visas have been cancelled.”

It also says:”Overstayers and others who are working illegally are taking job opportunities away from unemployed Australian citizens and residents.”

Chewy, it would appear, through your use of the Royal ‘we’, that you work in DIBP. You say that overstayers do not receive any assistance. Why, then does Fact Sheet 86 say: “Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.”

Can you explain what debts, other than the cost of removal, an overstayer has to repay in order to be given a new visa.

Fact Sheet 86 is illuminating in understanding why DIBP is not too concerned with overstayers. It says: “These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status.”

Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.

“Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.”
To compare Australian detention centres to “concentration camps” is totally disingenuous.
Please supply proof of what you claim.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Nor are those who arrive seeking assume. Can you understand that?

That said someone with a valid visa who doesn’t abide by said visa, read overstays (or works if their visa says they cannot) then become an unlawful non citizens.

The OP stated:
“The illegals who come by plane are fine but the asylum seekers who come by boat are not!”
Are you chiding me or the person who made the statement in the OP?
I am not concerned about the legal/illegal status of asylum seekers – I was merely alluding to the fact that anyone who comes into Australia with a visa is granted legal entry.
There are probably about 400,000 visa over-stayers in Australia at any one time. When they are detected and deported or decide to go home they are refused re-entry.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Nor are those who arrive seeking assume. Can you understand that?

Actually nearly all of them are unlawful non citizens. Read what I posted earlier.

It’s quite simple. If someone arrives by plane, they must go through customs and they can be accounted for due to documentation. If someone arrives by boat without documentation, it is difficult to track who the asylum seeker really is and whether they are actually genuine or not. The destruction of documentation was also documented by Dutch photojournalist Joel van Houdt and American reporter Luke Mogelson when they went undercover as asylum seekers to document their journey as undercover journalists.

“Upon nearing Christmas Island a crew member used a satellite phone to call Australian authorities for help, before passengers destroyed passports and identity documents and threw mobile phones overboard.”

Asylum seekers needed documentation to arrive at Indonesian and/or Indonesia via Malaysian airports only to subsequently destroy documentation only to transit to Australia undocumented as an irregular maritime arrival.

Masquara said :

The overstayers have gotten themselves jobs and are contributing to our economy.

Overstayers no doubt keep under the radar as much as possible, meaning:
– They work in a job illegally or under false identity, so they aren’t paying tax.
– The money they earn is not going into our casinos or property market, they weasel it away and send it back to their families in the home country. Those dollars are not being spent here either.
– When raids are made on these people, they are found breaching working and safety conditions, for example, the ones who are prostituting themselves in dingy little premises owned by unscrupulous folks who rip them off by paying meager wages.
– If they can’t get these kind of jobs, I’d say they turn to crime or drug related activities which certainly don’t contribute positively to our economy or our social well being.
Overstaying a Visa costs our economy and also costs taxpayers as we have to fund the government departments who actively seek them out. If they have legitimate reason to be here, they shouldn’t have to hide from the community or our lawmakers in order to do so.

So what’s your take on people smugglers John? Are they providing a legitimate service to those seeking asylum? Or are they just money hungry criminals who are happy to send families off on unseaworthy boats in the interest of turning a quick dollar?

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Nor are those who arrive seeking assume. Can you understand that?

That said someone with a valid visa who doesn’t abide by said visa, read overstays (or works if their visa says they cannot) then become an unlawful non citizens.

dungfungus said :

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Masquara said :

The overstayers have gotten themselves jobs and are contributing to our economy.

chewy14 said :

What a silly comparison.

Most of the visa overstayers are different people each year, they do eventually go home and we know exactly who they are. They are mostly holiday makers who stay longer than allowed before going home.

They don’t receive welfare or any government assistance whilst they are here.

By my reading, Stanhope’s article was about overstayers and therefore I refer you to a document on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website ‘Fact Sheet 86 – Overstayers and other Non-Lawful Citizens.

Dungfungus, you’re right. People who enter Australia with a visa are not illegals. People who stay in Australia once their visa has expired are. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. The politicians who tell you they are, are lying to you.

Masqara, Fact Sheet 86 says: “Unlawful non-citizens are nationals from another country who do not have the right to be in Australia. The majority of unlawful non-citizens in Australia at any given time have either overstayed the visa issued to them or are people whose visas have been cancelled.”

It also says:”Overstayers and others who are working illegally are taking job opportunities away from unemployed Australian citizens and residents.”

Chewy, it would appear, through your use of the Royal ‘we’, that you work in DIBP. You say that overstayers do not receive any assistance. Why, then does Fact Sheet 86 say: “Even after the exclusion period has finished, the person cannot be granted a visa unless they repay any debt they owe to the Commonwealth, including for costs of removal, or they make satisfactory arrangements to repay their debt.”

Can you explain what debts, other than the cost of removal, an overstayer has to repay in order to be given a new visa.

Fact Sheet 86 is illuminating in understanding why DIBP is not too concerned with overstayers. It says: “These long-term overstayers become neighbours, friends, colleagues, employees and even relatives of lawful Australian residents, some of whom might not be aware of their unlawful status.”

Gee, isn’t that nice!. Asylum seekers get thrown into concentration camps.

It is a fact that those who come here do not do so illegally. They are seeking asylum and until they are proven not to be genuine, they have the protection of international charters we have signed up to.

That is not correct John and you need to actually read the relevant Migration Act and the UN convention. I got so tired of hearing both sides of this argument that I decided to read them myself some time ago.

Our Migration Act says that people who arrive without any of the proper paperwork, and attempt entry without going via the proper processes, are illegal. There is no confusion there. You are suggesting that being a signatory to The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees means that anybody who claims asylum must not be treated as an illegal arrival. That is not true. The convention says that anyone who arrives illegally (as defined by our Migration Act) will not be subject to punitive measures applied to illegal arrivals, so long as they meet the conditions. One of those conditions is that they must have come directly from the state they are seeking asylum from. If they have come via another country, like Indonesia, then they are still arriving illegally. Every boat arrival from the last few years that I’m aware of has come from a secondary or tertiary state. The boat occupants could have at any stage sought asylum from the other nations before choosing to continue to Australia. I’m more than happy to admit that I don’t know all the details of their journey, but to my mind being that picky about the destination raises some serious questions about the legitimacy of their claim for asylum.

I’m really tired of people cherry picking the facts to support their stance on asylum seekers. People need to read the documents themselves, rather than just parroting what they’ve head.

Your other point about the people overstaying their visas has some merit, but comparing it to asylum seekers is a false equivalency if for no other reason than we know who the over-stayers are, they’ve undergone security screening before being granted their visas, and they applied through the proper channels without attempting to circumvent our legal process. That’s more than can be said for people arriving by boat, without travel documents or identification, hoping to get through undetected. From a security standpoint there is no comparison.

Masquara said :

“I remind those who continue to bag my stance that the World Trade Centre in 2001 was attacked by passengers who took over control of aeroplanes, not leaky boats.”
Huh?

The 9/11 terrorists were on domestic flights. Pre-boarding security is much more stringent on international flights into the USA and they knew that.

What a silly comparison.

Most of the visa overstayers are different people each year, they do eventually go home and we know exactly who they are. They are mostly holiday makers who stay longer than allowed before going home.

They don’t receive welfare or any government assistance whilst they are here.

How that is meant to be compared to our humanitarian refugee intake who do mostly stay permanently and do necessarily require significant government assistance I don’t know. It’s a completely false equivalence.

“I remind those who continue to bag my stance that the World Trade Centre in 2001 was attacked by passengers who took over control of aeroplanes, not leaky boats.”
Huh?

The overstayers have gotten themselves jobs and are contributing to our economy.

I thought this was another Jon Stanhope rant for a moment.
Please note, people who arrive in Australia with a visa are not illegals. Can you understand that?

Geez John. Your off to a flying start. You suffering from a bad prawn from Xmas?

One thing that I wondered about is why a lot of the ‘boat’ people fly into Indonesia, then fork out big dough to climb into a leaky boat, destroy their documents, and hope the thing hits land before it sinks (and as we now know, for around 1200 people, ‘hoping’ didn’t cut it )

If they were able to fly into Indo, why not fly direct to Sydney, and then claim asylum? Am not up with our asylum laws, but is arriving by boat, better that arriving by plane. Is boat arrival some sort of ‘back door’ access.