It's not spin at all. It's a fact: the majority of boat people have been found to be refugees and are granted protection.
No, that the majority of boat people turn out to meet the requirements to be considered genuine refugees DOES NOT mean they were genuine refugees. That is the inherint weakness in the system which allows them to take advantage of it. Its hard to prove someone isnt a refugee when they turn up on your doorstep with nothing except a name, hometown and reason for seeking asylum - the problem is many of them are now coming from places which are impossible to just suddenly arrive from. If they have already left their hometown and are in a safe, albeit poor, country then they should no longer be considered refugee's by countries downstream.... like Australia. You know it makes sense, but throw another chop on.
Semantics. The majority of boat people have been granted refugee status and given permanent protection visas. There you go. Changing the wording doesn't alter the statistics. Maybe so, however, the fact of the matter is that the majority of them have been granted refugee status (by the Australian Government).
This is one of the most ludicrously absurd statements I have ever seen. The system isnt about attempting to prove that someone isnt a refugee. Its about establishing the veracity of their claims that they are refugees. Can you name one of these safe and poor countries, thanks.
I know, but I was trying to discuss why they could be considered criminals and how irrelevant it was whether they were successful in getting refugee status or not. Repeating irrelevant statistics doesnt help solve the problem, and I dont even understand how you consider no problem to exist to begin with - so to me it seems your taking a biased position and using stat's to misrepresent whats going on, to support your position. Thats your call, but it doesnt change the fact they are breaking laws in many countries which makes them criminals, and then paying criminal people smugglers which itself is criminal again, and then Australia has to struggle with the refined product at the end.... thats why its a problem... they are criminals (unless they've come here direct from their home country which is impossible for places like Iraq, Afghanistan etc). The Malaysian solution was better but a stupid idea, logically flawed (like most of the ALP) - you do not pay money to a country to take boat people which is within the pipeline because they lose interest in stopping the pipeline if that would result in less cash from Australia. Howard had the right idea, if we are going to pay others to process then we could support struggling small pacific island nations in our neighbourhood instead.
Anyone who barges their way into OZ by boat or plane, without the required vsia just looking to suck off the (generous) welfare teat, should be kicked out and sent back from whence they came immediatley. Many who try and enter into OZ by plane illegally are returned from whence they came, and often at the airport, but more action is needed for those who slip through the net. We don't want that type of scum in Australia! If they want to come and live in OZ, they must go through the proper channels and wait thier turn.
***MOD EDIT: PERSONAL ATTACK***for the criteria list under the convention, the Queen would nearly qualify as a genuine refugee under those weak terms.
Well, that's not going to happen anytime soon. The Migration Act 1958 allows asylum seekers to enter without a visa. Not my opinion, it's the law. Don't you respect the law?
Hardly, its ludicrous you think that. Same thing, they'd use whichever approach was best supported by accurate information.... the goal is determine the truth. India, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, East Timor. Safe and poor are relative terms applied to the conditions they are seeking refugee from.
Seeking asylum on a boat, without a visa, is one of the "proper channels". They then "wait their turn", in detention. The Migration Act 1958 allows for it. "Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act), asylum seekers who arrive on the Australian mainland without a valid visa must be held in immigration detention until they are granted a visa or removed from Australia." http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html "Australia has obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa." All above board, legal and proper.
Have you never heard of the old saying 'The law is an Ass'?Very apt under the circumstances. But then the Legal Beagles are very complicit in this illegal human trade. But who's surprised that this 'trade' has jumped from the moment the ALP dismantled JH's,very successful, Pacific Solution. Australia must be the laughing stock of the Pacific!
Yep, I certainly have. If you wish to have the laws changed you might need to do some lobbying. Perhaps join a political party and have your say; make a difference. Maybe run for a seat. Screaming about it on a 'net forum probably won't achieve much.
One illegal probably costs the Aussie taxpayer as much as the Queen. How foolish and incompetent this federal Government looks. If only it had the guts to retain JH's pacific Solution and not listen to the 'Let them all in to the (welfare) Mob!!
So, you're talking about people who come by plane and overstay their visas now? They're the "illegals". I don't think they cost too much though. Boat people, however, are perfectly legal (as you are well aware - even though the law, in your eyes, is an ass) so you mustn't be talking about them.
Boat people arrive in Australia unlawfully. They fund a dangerous, criminal and corrupt system of 'people smuggling'. If they then apply for asylum in Australia, they are detained until their application can be processed. Their arrival was still unlawful, but they have a legal right to seek asylum. The problem with the system is that a refugee is not just someone who is under persecution, but someone who is 'nation-less'. And so what we get is all these people who are not being persecuted or in any immediate danger, but who destroy all of their id papers and pay criminals $5-15k to 'smuggle' them into Australia. They basically deliberately isolate themselves to force a situation where they must be given asylum. Effectively corrupt Indonesian soldiers and organised criminals are running our humanitarian immigration program for their own profit. Meanwhile thousands of people already deemed genuine refugees rot in camps around the world waiting for their turn to be relocated to Australia. More boat people does not mean more refugees. We have a QUOTA of around 13k refugees per year. This criminal enterprise of people smuggling is a big F*CK YOU to the UNHCR program. And then these 'asylum seekers' try and blackmail the immigration department by threatening self harm, hunger strikes, etc, because their applications are taking ages to process. When they are the ones that destroyed their ID after having usually FLOWN out of their home countries to Indonesia with a passport. The system is blatantly being exploited, it is not achieving what it is supposed to achieve. It's a sad state of affairs and it needs to be fixed.
Yes that's right Ziggy. They have made made a real ass of this Government, as they laugh all the way to Centerlink (at our expense,of course). And they don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about all those, probably much more deserving souls, ahead of them in the ever lengthening queue. It's about time the Federal Government told the Indonesian Government the brutal truth.Fix up your end of the people smuggling racket or our never ending Aid (read largesse) will cease.
I quite like Ziggy's post too, so I'm unsubscribing from this thread before it goes pear shaped again. Good evening gents
East timor? Where are the refugees coming from East Timor? Anyway all wrong. None of these countries grant asylum seeker or refugee status. They are not signatory to the UN convention as we are.
Personal attack? I can`t imagine how my post could have been interpreted as a personal attack. I think someone might have been at the sooky pills. It makes for a boring conversation when cry babies jump on the mummy button at the slightest diddums tantrum. Obviously, forum threads need moderation, but if we all had a dummy spit over every little thing, all the pages would be blank. People who have led battery hen style sheltered lives tend to be a bit unrealistic.
So sure of yourself? I was answering what safe but poor countries existed enroute from places like the MidEast. Your wrong in saying Im wrong even though that wasnt what I was saying. "In dealing with refugees in Indonesia or elsewhere, the UNHCR has three options: voluntary repatriation of the refugees to their home country when it is safe; local integration in the country of asylum; or resettlement to a third country," So 2 of the 3 options are relevant to the countries I listed, and make the security risks a lot smaller by making the chain of criminality shorter.
No, you are wrong. None of these countries you mentioned offer asylum or refugee status. You just need to admit that now and move on, or look like an idiot. Your choice.
No, you are by yourself on this one Im afraid. Your main problem is that you just parrot right wing talking points without investigating whether any of it is factual information. Its not difficult to find out whether or not Indonesia and other countries grant asylum seeker and refugee status, the information is freely available, its the fact that you cant be bothered to find out before you argue that makes you look foolish.
