Job vacancy: Asylum seeker turnaround project

Masquara said :

Gawd. Saw the headline and knew immediately who the author would be. Mind you, within a day of this item being posted, it turned out that Labor had also licked their fingers and counted out sheafs of hundred dollar bills! John? What’s your response to Labor’s involvement in same?

I don’t like it and I condemn it and have done so within the Party.

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Are you advocating an asylum or immigration policy based on race or religion?

I am saying all immigration should cease and that includes refugees.

Just as well you weren’t in charge when I came to Australia or when Tony Abbott came to Australia, or when the guys who built the Snowy all came here, etc etc. This place was built by people who came here and had their kids here – you are supposedly one of those – and the difference now is?

vintage123 said :

rubaiyat said :

HiddenDragon said :

I have yet to hear a critic of the tough (and, at times, questionable) measures taken by successive Australian governments in relation to asylum seekers explain – in detail – how a truly humane approach would not, in time, become an open door policy for anyone who could get here, by whatever means.

WE actually benefit as have all nations that have had an open door to people fleeing injustice.

England has always been great because it welcomed fugitives from oppression. As has America and most of the advanced countries of the world.

Which would you rather have someone who toughed it out to get here or someone who can fill out a form or bribe someone?

I am neither here or there on the issue. However I have noticed the impact of immigration rates on Australia’s housing affordability issue. Noting that 400,000 people immigrate to Australia each year, that’s the whole of the canberra population each year, it’s not difficult to see some of the challenges it presents. In Canberra we are somewhat immune, however if the canberra population increased by 400,000 people in one year, and all that would take is that all the immigrants came to the ACT then in think people,would have varying opinions on the impact of such a large immigration rate vs population. It’s kinda out of sight, out of mind to people in canberra.

Let’s take that argument to its logical extreme. How about if all the refugees in the world moved into your back bedroom…

Well they are not, nor is Australia’s entire migration program coming to Canberra.

Curious though to see those who spend considerable time on these forums, with their heads buried in the sand on most other larger matters, eg climate change, are concerned about people’s parochial thinking.

rubaiyat said :

HiddenDragon said :

I have yet to hear a critic of the tough (and, at times, questionable) measures taken by successive Australian governments in relation to asylum seekers explain – in detail – how a truly humane approach would not, in time, become an open door policy for anyone who could get here, by whatever means.

WE actually benefit as have all nations that have had an open door to people fleeing injustice.

England has always been great because it welcomed fugitives from oppression. As has America and most of the advanced countries of the world.

Which would you rather have someone who toughed it out to get here or someone who can fill out a form or bribe someone?

I am neither here or there on the issue. However I have noticed the impact of immigration rates on Australia’s housing affordability issue. Noting that 400,000 people immigrate to Australia each year, that’s the whole of the canberra population each year, it’s not difficult to see some of the challenges it presents. In Canberra we are somewhat immune, however if the canberra population increased by 400,000 people in one year, and all that would take is that all the immigrants came to the ACT then in think people,would have varying opinions on the impact of such a large immigration rate vs population. It’s kinda out of sight, out of mind to people in canberra.

rubaiyat said :

HiddenDragon said :

I have yet to hear a critic of the tough (and, at times, questionable) measures taken by successive Australian governments in relation to asylum seekers explain – in detail – how a truly humane approach would not, in time, become an open door policy for anyone who could get here, by whatever means.

WE actually benefit as have all nations that have had an open door to people fleeing injustice.

England has always been great because it welcomed fugitives from oppression. As has America and most of the advanced countries of the world.

Which would you rather have someone who toughed it out to get here or someone who can fill out a form or bribe someone?

That is totally untrue. Most migrants from the middle east for example are still unemployed after living here 5 years. It may benefit them but not the taxpayer-funded welfare system that supports them.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Are you advocating an asylum or immigration policy based on race or religion?

I am saying all immigration should cease and that includes refugees.

Then Australia’s population and economy would shrink. Is that what you really want?

Not only me wants immigration to stop. At current rates Australia needs housing and infrastructure for a city the size of Canberra annually to cope with the inflow. This is putting unsustainable pressures on everything (including the necessity to sell more cars and build more of those evil roads).
This benefits only those who are coming here legally or otherwise and the big end of town who own the supermarkets etc..
Time to bring down the shutters; surely you can see that.
And our population wouldn’t shrink, it would just become manageable. No need for unbridled growth for the sake growth.

Gawd. Saw the headline and knew immediately who the author would be. Mind you, within a day of this item being posted, it turned out that Labor had also licked their fingers and counted out sheafs of hundred dollar bills! John? What’s your response to Labor’s involvement in same?

rubaiyat said :

HiddenDragon said :

I have yet to hear a critic of the tough (and, at times, questionable) measures taken by successive Australian governments in relation to asylum seekers explain – in detail – how a truly humane approach would not, in time, become an open door policy for anyone who could get here, by whatever means.

WE actually benefit as have all nations that have had an open door to people fleeing injustice.

England has always been great because it welcomed fugitives from oppression. As has America and most of the advanced countries of the world.

Which would you rather have someone who toughed it out to get here or someone who can fill out a form or bribe someone?

If we’re talking about refugees, then I’d like the people who are most in danger of persecution.

If we’re talking about immigrants then I want the ones with needed skills who can provide an immediate boost to our economy.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Are you advocating an asylum or immigration policy based on race or religion?

I am saying all immigration should cease and that includes refugees.

Then Australia’s population and economy would shrink. Is that what you really want?

“Then Australia’s population and economy would shrink. Is that what you really want?”

Why do you equate a shrinking population with a shrinking economy; that is if it is looked at per head of population? Yes, the economy can appear to be doing better with an increasing population, but that can disguise the fact that at an individual level, we may be worse off. I’m not advocating a shrinking population, at least initially. I would say we need to stabilise the population, and then see how that goes. As our population increases we are not keeping up with it. It’s isn’t only a matter of increasing expenses in health care, schools, etc to cover the increasing population, but also the expense to replace what we have now as it wears out. Countries with stable populations such as Norway are doing okay economically, so why do you think we wouldn’t be able to too?
If we slashed the immigration numbers, we might even be able to increase the refugee levels, and still stabilise the population.

HiddenDragon said :

I have yet to hear a critic of the tough (and, at times, questionable) measures taken by successive Australian governments in relation to asylum seekers explain – in detail – how a truly humane approach would not, in time, become an open door policy for anyone who could get here, by whatever means.

WE actually benefit as have all nations that have had an open door to people fleeing injustice.

England has always been great because it welcomed fugitives from oppression. As has America and most of the advanced countries of the world.

Which would you rather have someone who toughed it out to get here or someone who can fill out a form or bribe someone?

I have yet to hear a critic of the tough (and, at times, questionable) measures taken by successive Australian governments in relation to asylum seekers explain – in detail – how a truly humane approach would not, in time, become an open door policy for anyone who could get here, by whatever means.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Are you advocating an asylum or immigration policy based on race or religion?

I am saying all immigration should cease and that includes refugees.

Then Australia’s population and economy would shrink. Is that what you really want?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/japans-demography

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Are you advocating an asylum or immigration policy based on race or religion?

I am saying all immigration should cease and that includes refugees.

Then Australia’s population and economy would shrink. Is that what you really want?

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Are you advocating an asylum or immigration policy based on race or religion?

I am saying all immigration should cease and that includes refugees.

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Maybe you need to stop believing everything the fear mongers tell you. Most fears are irrational and based on things you believe to be far more serious than they actually are. I just returned from a trip to Jordan, you know a country that actually does have a right to be fearful, because it borders Syria and Iraq. However the people were far friendlier than the average Australian. I felt ashamed in many ways that Australia would rather deny large groups of people freedom from war and terror, just because there is a tiny miniscule chance our screening doesn’t pick up a terrorist among them.

Yet people drive cars everyday and statistically its one of the most dangerous things we do. We let convicted murderers, rapists and domestic violence offenders back onto our streets to reoffend, but geez we better not let any muslims in, one might be a terrorist. Reality is, anti-terrorism and wars win votes and have nothing to do with our safety in society.

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

Are you advocating an asylum or immigration policy based on race or religion?

vintage123 said :

Gee I am getting forgetful In my old age, forgot to add;
– they can also claim an rent assistance allowance of 89% of the Centrelink rent assistance rate.
– they can recieve a payment of four weeks rent in advance
– they can receive a payment of four weeks rent as bond

Thank you Vintage. I guess now I understand better the Indonesian politicians remarks ‘remove the sugar from the table’ when he was commenting on the boats heading to here.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

That’s a big call considering the number of people involved are not “small” but of course, this is how the system is abused.
The process of “rigorous assessment” is also abused as identity documents a deliberately destroyed to frustrate the process.
How often do we hear the same excuse from the Muslim leaders?
They say “it is only 1% of us that are jihadists”. That 1% equates globally to about 1,000,000.
I am not about racism – let’s get that straight. I also do not want to go in fear to shopping malls and public places in Australia.

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

vintage123 said :

Oops, I forgot to add in the ASAS entitlements,
“Among the benefits that can be made available to those granted protection visas, and those granted refugee status, is a one-off household formation package of up to $9850. Families can be eligible for education assistance of up to $9220. People granted refugee status become eligible for welfare payments immediately without having to wait the two-year period set for immigrants. Single applicants are eligible for a Newstart Allowance. Parents are eligible for Centrelink’s parenting payment. Refugees, and some on bridging visas, also receive Medicare assistance for medical, hospital, dental, medicine and optical costs. Mobile phones are provided to those who arrive as unaccompanied minors.”

Would you prefer they were forced to live on the street? Yeah, why not. They can fish though rubbish bins for food and sleep under the stars. What a life!

Plenty of Australians who were born in Australia already scavenge through garbage cans and live on the streets.

So, if you were born here, you are entiled to be treated better than someone who was born overseas and has settled here? Really? Are you trolling?

Aragornerama said :

vintage123 said :

bryansworld said :

vintage123 said :

Gee I am getting forgetful In my old age, forgot to add;
– they can also claim an rent assistance allowance of 89% of the Centrelink rent assistance rate.
– they can recieve a payment of four weeks rent in advance
– they can receive a payment of four weeks rent as bond

Are we supposed to be outraged that people who have been assessed to be fleeing from persecution, and consequently have been invited to join the Australian community, are getting some assistance? It makes me proud to be Australian that we do this.

I don’t know, I was just providing some factual information for the comparison between Australia and India on the financial support front. Considering we provide $150k pa per person and India provide $300 dollars, may impact the rationale as to why they prefer to travel 9000km to Australia as opposed to 50km to India.

I had a look through the DSS fact sheet you posted earlier. Here’s a quote: “Refugees and other humanitarian entrants do not receive higher benefits than other social security recipients. They have the same entitlements as all other Australian permanent residents.”

That doesn’t sound like $150k p/year (more like $13,500), and I couldn’t see the figure anywhere on that page. Assuming it is accurate, I’d say it’s spent on services that are essential for helping them settle in effectively here. Language classes, counselling, translation support and help finding work, etc. None of those seem unreasonable to me.

$150k pa per person is the cost to the government, not the payment to the individual.

Aragornerama said :

vintage123 said :

Oops, I forgot to add in the ASAS entitlements,
“Among the benefits that can be made available to those granted protection visas, and those granted refugee status, is a one-off household formation package of up to $9850. Families can be eligible for education assistance of up to $9220. People granted refugee status become eligible for welfare payments immediately without having to wait the two-year period set for immigrants. Single applicants are eligible for a Newstart Allowance. Parents are eligible for Centrelink’s parenting payment. Refugees, and some on bridging visas, also receive Medicare assistance for medical, hospital, dental, medicine and optical costs. Mobile phones are provided to those who arrive as unaccompanied minors.”

Would you prefer they were forced to live on the street? Yeah, why not. They can fish though rubbish bins for food and sleep under the stars. What a life!

Plenty of Australians who were born in Australia already scavenge through garbage cans and live on the streets.

Aragornerama said :

vintage123 said :

Oops, I forgot to add in the ASAS entitlements,
“Among the benefits that can be made available to those granted protection visas, and those granted refugee status, is a one-off household formation package of up to $9850. Families can be eligible for education assistance of up to $9220. People granted refugee status become eligible for welfare payments immediately without having to wait the two-year period set for immigrants. Single applicants are eligible for a Newstart Allowance. Parents are eligible for Centrelink’s parenting payment. Refugees, and some on bridging visas, also receive Medicare assistance for medical, hospital, dental, medicine and optical costs. Mobile phones are provided to those who arrive as unaccompanied minors.”

Would you prefer they were forced to live on the street? Yeah, why not. They can fish though rubbish bins for food and sleep under the stars. What a life!

Yeah, apparently you should just be grateful because Australia let you settle here. How dare you think you are entitled to any dignity, or the ability to look after your family when you first get here?

Aragornerama said :

vintage123 said :

Oops, I forgot to add in the ASAS entitlements,
“Among the benefits that can be made available to those granted protection visas, and those granted refugee status, is a one-off household formation package of up to $9850. Families can be eligible for education assistance of up to $9220. People granted refugee status become eligible for welfare payments immediately without having to wait the two-year period set for immigrants. Single applicants are eligible for a Newstart Allowance. Parents are eligible for Centrelink’s parenting payment. Refugees, and some on bridging visas, also receive Medicare assistance for medical, hospital, dental, medicine and optical costs. Mobile phones are provided to those who arrive as unaccompanied minors.”

Would you prefer they were forced to live on the street? Yeah, why not. They can fish though rubbish bins for food and sleep under the stars. What a life!

No. But if the system was standardised globally whereby they received the same entitlements irrespective of the country they travelled to, then maybe they wouldn’t take the 9000km sea voyage and instead would travel safely somewhere closer. It’s not about not helping, in fact it is the opposite, it’s about keeping them safe whilst they travel.m

vintage123 said :

bryansworld said :

vintage123 said :

Gee I am getting forgetful In my old age, forgot to add;
– they can also claim an rent assistance allowance of 89% of the Centrelink rent assistance rate.
– they can recieve a payment of four weeks rent in advance
– they can receive a payment of four weeks rent as bond

Are we supposed to be outraged that people who have been assessed to be fleeing from persecution, and consequently have been invited to join the Australian community, are getting some assistance? It makes me proud to be Australian that we do this.

I don’t know, I was just providing some factual information for the comparison between Australia and India on the financial support front. Considering we provide $150k pa per person and India provide $300 dollars, may impact the rationale as to why they prefer to travel 9000km to Australia as opposed to 50km to India.

I had a look through the DSS fact sheet you posted earlier. Here’s a quote: “Refugees and other humanitarian entrants do not receive higher benefits than other social security recipients. They have the same entitlements as all other Australian permanent residents.”

That doesn’t sound like $150k p/year (more like $13,500), and I couldn’t see the figure anywhere on that page. Assuming it is accurate, I’d say it’s spent on services that are essential for helping them settle in effectively here. Language classes, counselling, translation support and help finding work, etc. None of those seem unreasonable to me.

vintage123 said :

Oops, I forgot to add in the ASAS entitlements,
“Among the benefits that can be made available to those granted protection visas, and those granted refugee status, is a one-off household formation package of up to $9850. Families can be eligible for education assistance of up to $9220. People granted refugee status become eligible for welfare payments immediately without having to wait the two-year period set for immigrants. Single applicants are eligible for a Newstart Allowance. Parents are eligible for Centrelink’s parenting payment. Refugees, and some on bridging visas, also receive Medicare assistance for medical, hospital, dental, medicine and optical costs. Mobile phones are provided to those who arrive as unaccompanied minors.”

Would you prefer they were forced to live on the street? Yeah, why not. They can fish though rubbish bins for food and sleep under the stars. What a life!

bryansworld said :

vintage123 said :

Gee I am getting forgetful In my old age, forgot to add;
– they can also claim an rent assistance allowance of 89% of the Centrelink rent assistance rate.
– they can recieve a payment of four weeks rent in advance
– they can receive a payment of four weeks rent as bond

Are we supposed to be outraged that people who have been assessed to be fleeing from persecution, and consequently have been invited to join the Australian community, are getting some assistance? It makes me proud to be Australian that we do this.

I don’t know, I was just providing some factual information for the comparison between Australia and India on the financial support front. Considering we provide $150k pa per person and India provide $300 dollars, may impact the rationale as to why they prefer to travel 9000km to Australia as opposed to 50km to India.

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

No, I want them rigorously assessed, and a decision made on that basis. I don’t want a policy that writes off a whole ethnic group on the basis of the behaviour of a small of group of individuals. Guess what? That’s racist.

vintage123 said :

Gee I am getting forgetful In my old age, forgot to add;
– they can also claim an rent assistance allowance of 89% of the Centrelink rent assistance rate.
– they can recieve a payment of four weeks rent in advance
– they can receive a payment of four weeks rent as bond

Are we supposed to be outraged that people who have been assessed to be fleeing from persecution, and consequently have been invited to join the Australian community, are getting some assistance? It makes me proud to be Australian that we do this.

Gee I am getting forgetful In my old age, forgot to add;
– they can also claim an rent assistance allowance of 89% of the Centrelink rent assistance rate.
– they can recieve a payment of four weeks rent in advance
– they can receive a payment of four weeks rent as bond

Oops, I forgot to add in the ASAS entitlements,
“Among the benefits that can be made available to those granted protection visas, and those granted refugee status, is a one-off household formation package of up to $9850. Families can be eligible for education assistance of up to $9220. People granted refugee status become eligible for welfare payments immediately without having to wait the two-year period set for immigrants. Single applicants are eligible for a Newstart Allowance. Parents are eligible for Centrelink’s parenting payment. Refugees, and some on bridging visas, also receive Medicare assistance for medical, hospital, dental, medicine and optical costs. Mobile phones are provided to those who arrive as unaccompanied minors.”

MERC600 said :

vintage123 said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

But the entitlements provided by the Australian government under the visa systems are so good compared to those provided by India. Are you aware of what is being provided to visa holders?

Am I aware of entitlements ? No. But somehow , over these last few years, I’d been thinking that they mustn’t be to bad; maybe the best in the region? ( including India )

Here you go MERC600, I think this may assist in your thoughts on why they come to Australia, mind you they get $15 a month in India. The nominal cost to government is approximately $150k per person per annum.
https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/fact-sheet-98-settlement-services-for-refugees

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

Do you really want Australia to take a risk in re-settling these people?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html

John Hargreaves said :

I would have given them succour. I……

But what does that actually mean in today’s context?

Every Western country is struggling with this problem.

This very public hand-wringing on social media, without putting forward a concrete proposal as to what we should actually do, smacks of
Slacktivism.

.

It would be MUCH more productive to propose a solution and argue about that, rather than continually berate others from self-appointed moral high ground.

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

I’d blame them. It’s not very nice to judge people on the basis of their ethnicity. Not every Tamil is a suicide bomber, or they weren’t the last time I checked.

bryansworld said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

The link is a bit dated as you suggest however as Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber can you blame India for not being welcoming to other Tamils, whatever their circumstances?

vintage123 said :

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

But the entitlements provided by the Australian government under the visa systems are so good compared to those provided by India. Are you aware of what is being provided to visa holders?

Am I aware of entitlements ? No. But somehow , over these last few years, I’d been thinking that they mustn’t be to bad; maybe the best in the region? ( including India )

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

But the entitlements provided by the Australian government under the visa systems are so good compared to those provided by India. Are you aware of what is being provided to visa holders?

dungfungus said :

“And where do you propose we get our next generation of doctors, dentists, accountants, programmers and professionals?”
No from our detention centres if that is what you are alluding to.

If it makes you feel in better company you sound just like my Troskyist Social Science lecturer who claimed the Vietnamese boat people had gold bricks smuggled in with them in the boats.

I had three words for him which shut him up for a week or two: “Like the Jews?”

Needless to say my marks for “Contextual Studies” were never up there with the rest. We were not being marked on thinking for ourselves, despite all the chin music to the contrary.

John, what is your stance on Capt Emad and his extended family, noting that his extended family remain residents of the ACT public housing system, yet i believe it was determined Capt Emad was an economic migrant and people smuggler.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/captains-family-left-in-waiting-20130211-2e8xq.html

MERC600 said :

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

This link, which is a bit dated, addresses your question. Some of the response is still relevant,

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

Interesting that some of these seekers were from Sri Lanka. You would think that if things are so crook in Lanka you need to seek asylum , you would make a beeline for the nearest joint you could find. And thats India.
India is just 41 kms away. You can catch a ferry.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

And how would you have handled the situation, John?

I would have given them succour. I disagree with the policies of both Labor and Liberals. I don’t suggest that I have a solution but rescue and welcome for refugees is my starting point.

I looked into the dead eyes of a woman who had come from the Bosnian conflict. Her husband had been killed in front of her children and herself, she and her daughter raped and their sons took off to the hills. She was assisted out of the country, reunited with her sons and the four of them started an epic journey ending here in a boat.

Canberra welcomed her, we gave her public housing, we helped get the boys into school and counselling and support for her daughter.

I saw the lights go on again in her eyes. She was not a terrorist but she was a boat person. She had no papers and only one of the sons had a modicum of English. She was Muslim.

My contribution was small but I would do it all again in an instance.

That’s one person that you have understandably become emotionally involved with.
With about the other 99,000 asylum seekers whose background and credentials are nothing like that person?

What, all the rest are bad? Are you for real?

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

As long as the boats are not coming anymore, the aforementioned detention centres will be closed down eventually and running costs will fall commensurately in the meantime.
Surely you see that.

And where do you propose we get our next generation of doctors, dentists, accountants, programmers and professionals?

I remember the objection to the Vietnamese boat people, only not so hysterical by the Liberal Party of the day.

I also remember how the world responded to the plight of the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany prior and during WWII. Australia actually interned those on behalf of the UK. They were the lucky ones who were not turned back to meet their fate, out of our sight.

Somehow a very white Australia in the 70s and early 80s managed to cope with 100,000 Indochinese refugees. Now we go crazy over a fraction of that. I’m worried that we have turned into a selfish, callous, narrow-minded bunch. Sad.

Different mob and cultures involved now. If you are worried about that move to Europe and see what has happened there.

Don’t worry there were plenty of people talking about the Indochinese in the 70s in same the way that you seek to whip up fear of Muslims. Those views were consigned to the dustbin of history. As yours will be in due course.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

And how would you have handled the situation, John?

I would have given them succour. I disagree with the policies of both Labor and Liberals. I don’t suggest that I have a solution but rescue and welcome for refugees is my starting point.

I looked into the dead eyes of a woman who had come from the Bosnian conflict. Her husband had been killed in front of her children and herself, she and her daughter raped and their sons took off to the hills. She was assisted out of the country, reunited with her sons and the four of them started an epic journey ending here in a boat.

Canberra welcomed her, we gave her public housing, we helped get the boys into school and counselling and support for her daughter.

I saw the lights go on again in her eyes. She was not a terrorist but she was a boat person. She had no papers and only one of the sons had a modicum of English. She was Muslim.

My contribution was small but I would do it all again in an instance.

That’s one person that you have understandably become emotionally involved with.
With about the other 99,000 asylum seekers whose background and credentials are nothing like that person?

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

As long as the boats are not coming anymore, the aforementioned detention centres will be closed down eventually and running costs will fall commensurately in the meantime.
Surely you see that.

And where do you propose we get our next generation of doctors, dentists, accountants, programmers and professionals?

I remember the objection to the Vietnamese boat people, only not so hysterical by the Liberal Party of the day.

I also remember how the world responded to the plight of the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany prior and during WWII. Australia actually interned those on behalf of the UK. They were the lucky ones who were not turned back to meet their fate, out of our sight.

“And where do you propose we get our next generation of doctors, dentists, accountants, programmers and professionals?”
No from our detention centres if that is what you are alluding to.

bryansworld said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

As long as the boats are not coming anymore, the aforementioned detention centres will be closed down eventually and running costs will fall commensurately in the meantime.
Surely you see that.

And where do you propose we get our next generation of doctors, dentists, accountants, programmers and professionals?

I remember the objection to the Vietnamese boat people, only not so hysterical by the Liberal Party of the day.

I also remember how the world responded to the plight of the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany prior and during WWII. Australia actually interned those on behalf of the UK. They were the lucky ones who were not turned back to meet their fate, out of our sight.

Somehow a very white Australia in the 70s and early 80s managed to cope with 100,000 Indochinese refugees. Now we go crazy over a fraction of that. I’m worried that we have turned into a selfish, callous, narrow-minded bunch. Sad.

Different mob and cultures involved now. If you are worried about that move to Europe and see what has happened there.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

As long as the boats are not coming anymore, the aforementioned detention centres will be closed down eventually and running costs will fall commensurately in the meantime.
Surely you see that.

And where do you propose we get our next generation of doctors, dentists, accountants, programmers and professionals?

I remember the objection to the Vietnamese boat people, only not so hysterical by the Liberal Party of the day.

I also remember how the world responded to the plight of the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany prior and during WWII. Australia actually interned those on behalf of the UK. They were the lucky ones who were not turned back to meet their fate, out of our sight.

Somehow a very white Australia in the 70s and early 80s managed to cope with 100,000 Indochinese refugees. Now we go crazy over a fraction of that. I’m worried that we have turned into a selfish, callous, narrow-minded bunch. Sad.

dungfungus said :

As long as the boats are not coming anymore, the aforementioned detention centres will be closed down eventually and running costs will fall commensurately in the meantime.
Surely you see that.

And where do you propose we get our next generation of doctors, dentists, accountants, programmers and professionals?

I remember the objection to the Vietnamese boat people, only not so hysterical by the Liberal Party of the day.

I also remember how the world responded to the plight of the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany prior and during WWII. Australia actually interned those on behalf of the UK. They were the lucky ones who were not turned back to meet their fate, out of our sight.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

And how would you have handled the situation, John?

I would have given them succour. I disagree with the policies of both Labor and Liberals. I don’t suggest that I have a solution but rescue and welcome for refugees is my starting point.

I looked into the dead eyes of a woman who had come from the Bosnian conflict. Her husband had been killed in front of her children and herself, she and her daughter raped and their sons took off to the hills. She was assisted out of the country, reunited with her sons and the four of them started an epic journey ending here in a boat.

Canberra welcomed her, we gave her public housing, we helped get the boys into school and counselling and support for her daughter.

I saw the lights go on again in her eyes. She was not a terrorist but she was a boat person. She had no papers and only one of the sons had a modicum of English. She was Muslim.

My contribution was small but I would do it all again in an instance.

Good on you John. Those advocating the current hardline need to be reminded as often as possible that we are dealing with fellow human beings.

dungfungus said :

And how would you have handled the situation, John?

I would have given them succour. I disagree with the policies of both Labor and Liberals. I don’t suggest that I have a solution but rescue and welcome for refugees is my starting point.

I looked into the dead eyes of a woman who had come from the Bosnian conflict. Her husband had been killed in front of her children and herself, she and her daughter raped and their sons took off to the hills. She was assisted out of the country, reunited with her sons and the four of them started an epic journey ending here in a boat.

Canberra welcomed her, we gave her public housing, we helped get the boys into school and counselling and support for her daughter.

I saw the lights go on again in her eyes. She was not a terrorist but she was a boat person. She had no papers and only one of the sons had a modicum of English. She was Muslim.

My contribution was small but I would do it all again in an instance.

And how would you have handled the situation, John?

rubaiyat said :

I hope the People Smuggler positions were properly advertised by the Abbott Government and not just an executive appointment.

I also hope that the government negotiated a Workplace Agreement that made sure their new Indonesian employees will not be hitting them for overtime overseas or any H & S issues such as paper cuts occurred whilst counting the mint fresh notes.

Appointment under the Captain’s Call provisions

Mysteryman said :

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

I agree. It’s worth reading the account of the Dutch and American journalists who travelled on an asylum seeker vessel in 2013. From their reports, it appears that almost everyone aboard was an economic migrant.

This is why we need a rigorous assessment process, and rapid returns for those found not to be genuine asylum seekers. However, at present genuine refugees are being treated like economic migrants!

What are you basing that assumption on? What evidence have you got to support that claim?

The fact that people are not being allowed to settle in Australia, despite being assessed to be genuine refugees. Simply because of the way they travelled to Australia. There is also a very opaque on water process for assessment, with no ability to appeal the decsion to a court. Both of these aspects have been clearly found by the UN to be in breach of our obligations under the Refugee Convention.

I hope the People Smuggler positions were properly advertised by the Abbott Government and not just an executive appointment.

I also hope that the government negotiated a Workplace Agreement that made sure their new Indonesian employees will not be hitting them for overtime overseas or any H & S issues such as paper cuts occurred whilst counting the mint fresh notes.

Anyone who says the conditions within detention centres are terrible and kids are mistreated are misled and misinformed. I have travelled the country to all centres, interviewed residents and had significant input into the upgrades and redesign of the villawood centre. Here’s some info: http://www.villawoodredevelopment.immi.gov.au
Reiterating the majority of residents within the centres are quite happy with the situation.

John Hargreaves said :

Coupla things. The asylum seekers were not from Indonesia, they were in transit on the way to NZ. .

Of course they said they were on their way to New Zealand, but they almost certainly weren’t.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

Just to update you on that John, on 7.30 ABC TV tonight, Leigh Sales interviewed a UN refugee official from Indonesia who said a UN staffer had interviewed the passengers “collectively” on the boat and only one said he saw an Australian seaman give the captain of the fishing boat a brown paper bag. There was no mention of individual crew members getting “brown paper bags”.
That is the extent of the anecdotal “evidence” that keeps this media beat-up inflated. It’s only you and the media at this stage too as the Labor opposition has retreated for reasons you would know about.
Even if money has been paid I see no difference to the ongoing policy of us offering to pay “go home money” to individual asylum seekers we are holding in detention. There is no “secret” attached to this policy which was practised by the Labor government also.
I don’t agree that we could be classed as people smugglers TO Indonesia either as the passengers on the intercepted boat were coming from Indonesia in the first place.
It would be pleasing if you could see the bigger picture about border security John (you have studied this at university I believe). If Australia doesn’t hold the line on the invasion we are facing we will end up like Europe which is fast losing it’s unique continental fabric – it will soon be called North-North Africa.
I would like to say that one day we will all thank Tony Abbott for sticking to policy on this issue but I realise that would be not well received by several on this thread.

Coupla things. The asylum seekers were not from Indonesia, they were in transit on the way to NZ. If we pay a captain to take people from international waters (or our own) to another country, outside that country’s normal entry conditions, we are smuggling them into that country.

What part of the plight of those from Myanmar don’t people get? These people were from Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Bangladesh, not Indonesia.

I don’t care about the semantics, or pedantry around the payments or who has engaged in it in the past. I wish a pox on both their houses.

To me the payments are as mercenary as paying assassins.

The problem is that the policy is just shifting a global issue further away from our soil so it looks politically good. this applies equally to Labor and the Coalition.

Spread fear and paranoia and then stop the boats, just to win some votes. Meanwhile people die in refugee camps, because we are too selfish to let a few of them come and live in Australia. Sure there is no one dying at sea (as far as we’ve been told), but how many are dying in refugee camps or trying to get to a refugee camps, mostly due to conflicts the west have helped along. There is a lot of inconvenient truths around all of this and our political parties couldn’t give a toss, because its not about that, its about them winning votes to get in power.

I’m all for a strong border, i don’t have any real issue to turning back boats either, but surely helping ease the pressure on refugee camps, by accepting a few more would also help. Cutting aid doesn’t help, because when you cut aid, it lets the baddies of the world recruit more disillusioned people to become terrorists, especially when they have nothing to live for.

There is no solution to this problem which involves only tightening our borders up and bombing the crap out of any group we don’t like. The greens while having a nicer policy for refugees, its also not very practical either.

But all we are doing is sweeping the problem under the carpet, because of selfish people who have been scared by various governments into thinking these people are a serious threat to our county, just to ensure they get their vote at the next election.

I could easily argue, why not let the economic refugees into the country, take the cash from them directly, take it as a bond which can be refunded assuming they are found to be a genuine refugee (or some other T&Cs). Just because someone has some money doesn’t make them less of a refugee. If you have a farm and are being threatened by terrorists, selling it up and using the money to go somewhere else seems like a sensible idea to me. Why not open up a genuine avenue for refugees able to pay for a boat, to pay us directly instead and take the business away from the people smugglers.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Acton said :

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

These are Indonesian owned boats, flying Indonesia flags coming from Indonesian ports and crewed by Indonesians.

…and paid by the Australian taxpayer.

This solution is not a solution. It is just this government desperately sweeping the problem under the carpet and doing everything it can, legal and apparently illegal to make sure they are not scrutinised doing it.

And if we let them in the Australian taxpayer will pay a lot more than the amounts allegedly paid to the boat crew.

Sure, more than the amounts being paid to crews. But a tiny fraction of the millions being spent on Nauru, Manus and Cambodia…

As long as the boats are not coming anymore, the aforementioned detention centres will be closed down eventually and running costs will fall commensurately in the meantime.
Surely you see that.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Acton said :

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

These are Indonesian owned boats, flying Indonesia flags coming from Indonesian ports and crewed by Indonesians.

…and paid by the Australian taxpayer.

This solution is not a solution. It is just this government desperately sweeping the problem under the carpet and doing everything it can, legal and apparently illegal to make sure they are not scrutinised doing it.

And if we let them in the Australian taxpayer will pay a lot more than the amounts allegedly paid to the boat crew.

Sure, more than the amounts being paid to crews. But a tiny fraction of the millions being spent on Nauru, Manus and Cambodia…

rosscoact said :

Acton said :

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

These are Indonesian owned boats, flying Indonesia flags coming from Indonesian ports and crewed by Indonesians. They are ‘intercepted’ by the Australian navy and told not to proceed to Australia and to go back home. There is nothing wrong with Australia taking action to return Indonesian boats to Indonesia, irrespective of what sort of ‘cargo’ they are being paid to smuggle – drugs, guns, fish or people.
Indonesia should take its own action against Indonesians engaging in corrupt, illegal and unneighbourly practices rather than complaining about Australia being forced to take action because of Indonesian inaction.
Actually ‘intercepting’ boats is not the right term because people smugglers generally want to be met by the Australian navy and phone their position details ahead in order to ensure reception, an escort and safe passage.
The alternative to doing nothing is demonstrated by what happened under Rudd/Gillard and what is happening daily now in the Mediterranean. An uncontrolled influx.

But why stop at paying criminal people smugglers to take their cargo somewhere else? If this is going to be Government policy from now on, use it to solve other prolmes the government has with crime.

‘Sir, I see you have a few kilogram of heroin in your luggage, here’s $25,000 to take it to South Africa. Off you hop’

‘Sir, I see you have been making kiddie porn. Here’s $50,000 to do it in India. Shall I call you a cab?’

‘Sir, I see you are killing teenagers and wearing their skins as cocktail frocks. Here’s $100,000 to do it in New Zealand. Don’t let the door hit you….”

TA was on the teev last night saying that people smuggling is evil and illegal and if paying evil criminals to do their crimes elsewhere is acceptable in that instance then let’s not be squeamish and hypocritical.

Funny how beheading people elsewhere is acceptable also.
Is there a link?

rubaiyat said :

Acton said :

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

These are Indonesian owned boats, flying Indonesia flags coming from Indonesian ports and crewed by Indonesians.

…and paid by the Australian taxpayer.

This solution is not a solution. It is just this government desperately sweeping the problem under the carpet and doing everything it can, legal and apparently illegal to make sure they are not scrutinised doing it.

And if we let them in the Australian taxpayer will pay a lot more than the amounts allegedly paid to the boat crew.

Acton said :

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

These are Indonesian owned boats, flying Indonesia flags coming from Indonesian ports and crewed by Indonesians. They are ‘intercepted’ by the Australian navy and told not to proceed to Australia and to go back home. There is nothing wrong with Australia taking action to return Indonesian boats to Indonesia, irrespective of what sort of ‘cargo’ they are being paid to smuggle – drugs, guns, fish or people.
Indonesia should take its own action against Indonesians engaging in corrupt, illegal and unneighbourly practices rather than complaining about Australia being forced to take action because of Indonesian inaction.
Actually ‘intercepting’ boats is not the right term because people smugglers generally want to be met by the Australian navy and phone their position details ahead in order to ensure reception, an escort and safe passage.
The alternative to doing nothing is demonstrated by what happened under Rudd/Gillard and what is happening daily now in the Mediterranean. An uncontrolled influx.

But why stop at paying criminal people smugglers to take their cargo somewhere else? If this is going to be Government policy from now on, use it to solve other prolmes the government has with crime.

‘Sir, I see you have a few kilogram of heroin in your luggage, here’s $25,000 to take it to South Africa. Off you hop’

‘Sir, I see you have been making kiddie porn. Here’s $50,000 to do it in India. Shall I call you a cab?’

‘Sir, I see you are killing teenagers and wearing their skins as cocktail frocks. Here’s $100,000 to do it in New Zealand. Don’t let the door hit you….”

TA was on the teev last night saying that people smuggling is evil and illegal and if paying evil criminals to do their crimes elsewhere is acceptable in that instance then let’s not be squeamish and hypocritical.

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

I agree. It’s worth reading the account of the Dutch and American journalists who travelled on an asylum seeker vessel in 2013. From their reports, it appears that almost everyone aboard was an economic migrant.

This is why we need a rigorous assessment process, and rapid returns for those found not to be genuine asylum seekers. However, at present genuine refugees are being treated like economic migrants!

This x1000. Turning economic migrants away is one thing, but letting genuine refugees, especially women and kids languish for years is not on and needs to be fixed, now.

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

I agree. It’s worth reading the account of the Dutch and American journalists who travelled on an asylum seeker vessel in 2013. From their reports, it appears that almost everyone aboard was an economic migrant.

This is why we need a rigorous assessment process, and rapid returns for those found not to be genuine asylum seekers. However, at present genuine refugees are being treated like economic migrants!

What are you basing that assumption on? What evidence have you got to support that claim?

Acton said :

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

These are Indonesian owned boats, flying Indonesia flags coming from Indonesian ports and crewed by Indonesians.

…and paid by the Australian taxpayer.

This solution is not a solution. It is just this government desperately sweeping the problem under the carpet and doing everything it can, legal and apparently illegal to make sure they are not scrutinised doing it.

Mysteryman said :

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

I agree. It’s worth reading the account of the Dutch and American journalists who travelled on an asylum seeker vessel in 2013. From their reports, it appears that almost everyone aboard was an economic migrant.

This is why we need a rigorous assessment process, and rapid returns for those found not to be genuine asylum seekers. However, at present genuine refugees are being treated like economic migrants!

John Hargreaves said :

Rephrasing last sentence of post: Alternatively, doing nothing as demonstrated by what happened under Rudd/Gillard and what is happening daily now in the Mediterranean, is an uncontrolled influx.

Mysteryman said :

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

I agree. It’s worth reading the account of the Dutch and American journalists who travelled on an asylum seeker vessel in 2013. From their reports, it appears that almost everyone aboard was an economic migrant.

I read that article and it was detailed and interesting, and seemed very factual. Much better than the usual high level emotive cr*p we see. Highly recommended.

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

These are Indonesian owned boats, flying Indonesia flags coming from Indonesian ports and crewed by Indonesians. They are ‘intercepted’ by the Australian navy and told not to proceed to Australia and to go back home. There is nothing wrong with Australia taking action to return Indonesian boats to Indonesia, irrespective of what sort of ‘cargo’ they are being paid to smuggle – drugs, guns, fish or people.
Indonesia should take its own action against Indonesians engaging in corrupt, illegal and unneighbourly practices rather than complaining about Australia being forced to take action because of Indonesian inaction.
Actually ‘intercepting’ boats is not the right term because people smugglers generally want to be met by the Australian navy and phone their position details ahead in order to ensure reception, an escort and safe passage.
The alternative to doing nothing is demonstrated by what happened under Rudd/Gillard and what is happening daily now in the Mediterranean. An uncontrolled influx.

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

I agree. It’s worth reading the account of the Dutch and American journalists who travelled on an asylum seeker vessel in 2013. From their reports, it appears that almost everyone aboard was an economic migrant.

I am confused, I thought the boats had stopped, hence killing off this supposed trade. Yet the government is turning and allegedly paying boats to turn around. Doesn’t that mean they are still arriving, hence they haven’t been stopped and the trade is still very much alive?

As for the last government, one key difference I can see is the policy of paying for intelligence etc was no secret.

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

Agree entirely and it only makes it worse when the fifth column already here eggs them on to do un-Australian things to get attention of the left media.

John Hargreaves said :

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

Just to update you on that John, on 7.30 ABC TV tonight, Leigh Sales interviewed a UN refugee official from Indonesia who said a UN staffer had interviewed the passengers “collectively” on the boat and only one said he saw an Australian seaman give the captain of the fishing boat a brown paper bag. There was no mention of individual crew members getting “brown paper bags”.
That is the extent of the anecdotal “evidence” that keeps this media beat-up inflated. It’s only you and the media at this stage too as the Labor opposition has retreated for reasons you would know about.
Even if money has been paid I see no difference to the ongoing policy of us offering to pay “go home money” to individual asylum seekers we are holding in detention. There is no “secret” attached to this policy which was practised by the Labor government also.
I don’t agree that we could be classed as people smugglers TO Indonesia either as the passengers on the intercepted boat were coming from Indonesia in the first place.
It would be pleasing if you could see the bigger picture about border security John (you have studied this at university I believe). If Australia doesn’t hold the line on the invasion we are facing we will end up like Europe which is fast losing it’s unique continental fabric – it will soon be called North-North Africa.
I would like to say that one day we will all thank Tony Abbott for sticking to policy on this issue but I realise that would be not well received by several on this thread.

One point out to me was that in giving the crew money, we become people smugglers TO Indonesia…. just sayin’.

vintage123 said :

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

Umm, because they are abused and sometimes killed in those detention camps? At best held for years doing basically nothing, in limbo, never knowing their fate. Not accused of anything except being unwanted and incarcerated indefinitely.

It’s a tricky one but put yourself in their shoes if you can.

Even of they are lucky enough to get out of there, it haunts them the rest of their lives. I worked with a Sudanese refugee who had a severely damaged hip and dead right arm. He limped his way to work and back everyday, was always quietly spoken but I never saw him smile or speak about anything but work (not much there either). I think that there must be an ever present fear of being sent back if they slip up in any way.

It’s a tricky one.

Why aren’t the asylum seekers relieved and happy when they have reached the australian detention centres?

I say this, because if they are legitimate and fleeing persecution and civil war then wouldn’t they feel relieved and safe once housed away from such situations.

I think it gets all messed up, when a bunch of phoneys and economic migrants see Australia as a destination of first choice and therefore make false claims for asylum for financial gain.

Aragornerama said :

I’m going to bow out in a second because I don’t like dominating threads.

First though, isn’t it a moot point whether its legal or illegal? It is a mistake to equate legality with morality. Illegal activities are not prima facie wrong (eg jaywalking, etc). Returning to Grimm’s comment, he/she seems to be implying that both parties’ disgraceful treatment of asylum seekers is justified because they entered illegally. Well, I’ve got a challenge for you: please explain, without reference to legal norms, exactly what asylum seekers who arrive by boat are doing wrong. If you can’t, whether they’re legal or illegal is irrelevant (although I stand by my previous position).

People are weird. I worked for a long time with a Hungarian who, along with his wife, fled Hungary by illegally crossing the border into Austria before eventually getting to Australia.

He had a visceral hatred of particularly Arab refugees. When I pointed out that they probably had as great a threat to their lives, if not more, than he did, he swept it all away with “that’s different”.

The only difference I could see was that it was him and not them.

Let’s hope that we all do not end up as refugees some day. We may get a taste of our own mean spirit, but looking on the bright side that will be because “that’s different”.

Aragornerama said :

I’m going to bow out in a second because I don’t like dominating threads.

First though, isn’t it a moot point whether its legal or illegal? It is a mistake to equate legality with morality. Illegal activities are not prima facie wrong (eg jaywalking, etc). Returning to Grimm’s comment, he/she seems to be implying that both parties’ disgraceful treatment of asylum seekers is justified because they entered illegally. Well, I’ve got a challenge for you: please explain, without reference to legal norms, exactly what asylum seekers who arrive by boat are doing wrong. If you can’t, whether they’re legal or illegal is irrelevant (although I stand by my previous position).

I agree with you. Whether or not a genuine asylum seeker arrives illegally or not is basically irrelevant.

Mysteryman said :

rubaiyat said :

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

We should get together and celebrate Unauthorised White Boat People’s Day next January 26th.

Celebrate whatever you like. I’ll celebrate being born in a great country, despite efforts from the left to ruin that too.

Currently it is the (massively hypocritical and not too bright) right’s turn to ruin this great country.

I’m going to bow out in a second because I don’t like dominating threads.

First though, isn’t it a moot point whether its legal or illegal? It is a mistake to equate legality with morality. Illegal activities are not prima facie wrong (eg jaywalking, etc). Returning to Grimm’s comment, he/she seems to be implying that both parties’ disgraceful treatment of asylum seekers is justified because they entered illegally. Well, I’ve got a challenge for you: please explain, without reference to legal norms, exactly what asylum seekers who arrive by boat are doing wrong. If you can’t, whether they’re legal or illegal is irrelevant (although I stand by my previous position).

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Aragornerama said :

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

Ok, maybe I should have been more precise. Seeking asylum by boat is not illegal. It’s the first myth addressed on the link I posted. Argue if you like, but the people at the Kaldor Centre know their stuff. Jane McAdam is quite literally the world’s leading authority on refugee law (probably alongside Guy Goodwin-Gill).

The thing that I think confuses people is that the Convention doesn’t link method of arrival with seeking asylum. How a person gets here is irrelevant: they’re allowed to present themself as a refugee, and if this is found to be a legitimate claim that is upheld then no penalty is applied for the (possibly) illegal entry to the country.

Whether someone arrives by boat, plane, train, walking, swimming or in a hanglider has nothing to do with their claim for asylum.

I’d go further. If they susbequently have their asylum claim upheld, then they did not enter illegally. This would be somewhere in the Migration Act. Or at least would have been up until when this Government excised the Refugee Convention from the Act….

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

So, how come people smuggling is illegal then?

Unauthorised entry to a country (like Australia) is illegal.

The UNHCR Convention Article 31 states that
1. 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.

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

Given that most asylum sneakers are from the middle east and sub-continent and most transit with passports through Malyasia and Indonesia, why don’t they seek asylum in those countries which according to the UN is what refugees should do?
Why do they see a need to come to Australia without passports? I don’t really care what the boffins say, as far as I am concerned they are co-conspirators with people smugglers to enter Australia illegally and they should be treated accordingly.

rubaiyat said :

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

We should get together and celebrate Unauthorised White Boat People’s Day next January 26th.

Celebrate whatever you like. I’ll celebrate being born in a great country, despite efforts from the left to ruin that too.

Aragornerama said :

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

Ok, maybe I should have been more precise. Seeking asylum by boat is not illegal. It’s the first myth addressed on the link I posted. Argue if you like, but the people at the Kaldor Centre know their stuff. Jane McAdam is quite literally the world’s leading authority on refugee law (probably alongside Guy Goodwin-Gill).

I note that in the link you provided she intentionally ignored the caveats that are necessary for their illegal status to be ignored.

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

Not if you are seeking asylum, it’s not.

Yes. It is. The difference is that as a signatory to the UN convention, we agree not to treat them as “unlawful non-citizens” provided they have come directly from the state they are seeking asylum from. Since they are nearly all travelling through multiple countries before embarking on boats for Australia, we treat them as illegal arrivals without contravening the convention.

Aragornerama said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

So, how come people smuggling is illegal then?

Unauthorised entry to a country (like Australia) is illegal.

The UNHCR Convention Article 31 states that
1. 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.

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

Using Article 31 to establish illegality is taking the word out of context: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/are-they-illegals-no-and-scott-morrison-should-know-better-20131022-2vz6a.html.

Not sure what the article is trying to say. Article 31 clearly recognises that unlawful presence is illegal, but states that no penalty will be imposed if the person meets the stated requirement. The person is not ‘an illegal’, the person is the person. Their entry method may have been illegal, but the Convention recognises that they may have had no other choice, and hence no penalty is applied.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

So, how come people smuggling is illegal then?

Unauthorised entry to a country (like Australia) is illegal.

The UNHCR Convention Article 31 states that
1. 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.

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

Sorry, I posted the wrong link in my last response. This one is pithier and more appropriate: http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/news/2013/10/it-alright-describe-asylum-seekers-illegal

Aragornerama said :

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

Ok, maybe I should have been more precise. Seeking asylum by boat is not illegal. It’s the first myth addressed on the link I posted. Argue if you like, but the people at the Kaldor Centre know their stuff. Jane McAdam is quite literally the world’s leading authority on refugee law (probably alongside Guy Goodwin-Gill).

The thing that I think confuses people is that the Convention doesn’t link method of arrival with seeking asylum. How a person gets here is irrelevant: they’re allowed to present themself as a refugee, and if this is found to be a legitimate claim that is upheld then no penalty is applied for the (possibly) illegal entry to the country.

Whether someone arrives by boat, plane, train, walking, swimming or in a hanglider has nothing to do with their claim for asylum.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

So, how come people smuggling is illegal then?

Unauthorised entry to a country (like Australia) is illegal.

The UNHCR Convention Article 31 states that
1. 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.

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

Using Article 31 to establish illegality is taking the word out of context: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/are-they-illegals-no-and-scott-morrison-should-know-better-20131022-2vz6a.html.

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

We should get together and celebrate Unauthorised White Boat People’s Day next January 26th.

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

So, how come people smuggling is illegal then?

Unauthorised entry to a country (like Australia) is illegal.

The UNHCR Convention Article 31 states that
1. 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.

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

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

Ok, maybe I should have been more precise. Seeking asylum by boat is not illegal. It’s the first myth addressed on the link I posted. Argue if you like, but the people at the Kaldor Centre know their stuff. Jane McAdam is quite literally the world’s leading authority on refugee law (probably alongside Guy Goodwin-Gill).

Mysteryman said :

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

Not if you are seeking asylum, it’s not.

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Please don’t muddy the waters. Nobody is suggesting that seeking asylum is illegal.

However, arriving by unauthorised vessel IS illegal.

The hypocrisy of both sides of Parliament knows no bounds:

Anybody remember how we had an Evil People Smuggler right on our doorstep but mysteriously were unable to arrest him:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/alleged-people-smuggler-allowed-to-flee-because-police-did-not-have-enough-to-charge-him/story-fn9hm1gu-1226387557975

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-04/powerful-people-smugglers-caught-living-in-australia/4050506

Now we have a Liberal government that pretty well looks like they are actually financing people smugglers with “go away money, come back for more later”:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/13/pressure-on-abbott-over-claims-people-smugglers-were-paid-to-turn-back-boats

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/demands-for-answers-from-tony-abbott-over-reports-australia-pays-to-stop-the-boats/story-fns0jze1-1227396386705

What we have on both sides is desperate attempts to look like they are dealing with the problem, all at huge expense to the Australian taxpayer, not the politicians involved, whilst whipping up maximum hysteria and producing next to no good outcomes.

When you are going to massively stuff up, probably break numerous Australian and International laws, waste enormous amounts of money and make a mystery of the lives of refugees and the people who have to deal with them you of course have to maintain maximum secrecy so no-one, especially those entitled to know, can find out what is going on.

Making a total joke of all the celebrations and significance of the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta.

justin heywood said :

Perhaps the same guys who were paying people smugglers to dob in their rivals under Rudd/Gillard/Rudd could be persuaded to take up the positions John?

Or perhaps you haven’t heard of the latest round of hypocrisy involving the boat trade. I notice the ABC is strangely silent on the matter, so you might have to look elsewhere.

It appears to have gone off today’s question time agenda in the house also.
Labor are on about the cruelty of stripping dual citizenship from terrorists (just like Whitlam did to British immigrants 40 years ago).

Aragornerama said :

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

So, how come people smuggling is illegal then?

Dude, they’re not jumping any queues and seeking asylum isn’t illegal: http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/debunking-myths

Perhaps the same guys who were paying people smugglers to dob in their rivals under Rudd/Gillard/Rudd could be persuaded to take up the positions John?

Or perhaps you haven’t heard of the latest round of hypocrisy involving the boat trade. I notice the ABC is strangely silent on the matter, so you might have to look elsewhere.

Oh no!
How dare the Federal Government want people to enter the country legally and not queue jump!