Why don't you learn to understand the idiosyncrasies of the English language, so we can have a proper debate?And I suggest you start with the word 'queue'. But if you insist in the literal meaning of every word or phrase in the English language, then the debate is over before it has even started.
LOL You obviously don't understand what a time span range is. Let me try again. Please pay attention, and remember those words "At different times". At one particular point in time, 70% of asylum seekers were genuine refugees. That was the accurate figure: 70%. No guesswork, no range, no doubt. It was 70%. At another period in time the percentage was 97%. That was the accurate figure at that particular moment. No guesswork, no range, no doubt. It was 97%. Both figures were correct at their respective points in time, however, the two figures are now being used to represent a range over a long period of time. This is so easy to understand, I can't believe I actually have to explain it. Do you understand now, or do you need further clarification? I'm genuinely trying to be helpful here. Here, I'll try to explain it in another way (example): In 1970 a particular worker earned $200 per week. In 1990 the same worker earned $800 per week. His earnings "at different times" range from $200 to $800. There's no guesswork involved. Both figures are 100% accurate, but they represent different points in time. Just because there is a difference of $600, it doesn't make the range inaccurate. The same with the refugee percentages: just because there's a 27 point difference, it doesn't make the range inaccurate. Understand now?
I am not interested in a 'range' that is so disparate and old. I want accurate and u pto date figures - period.
Here are some more update figures on 'illegal' arrivals in Australia, from the Parliamentary Libraray: Year Boats People (inc crew) 2002 1 1 2003 1 53 2004 1 15 2005 4 11 2006 6 60 2007 5 148 2008 7 161 2009 61 2849* 2010 134 6879** 2011 (to 30 June) 28 1675*** See the enrmus soike since the advent of the Federal Labour Party in Canberra!
Sure. "during the Rudd Government approximately 9095 per cent of assessments completed on Christmas Island resulted in protection visas being granted. For example, of the 1254 claims assessed on Christmas Island between 1 July 2009 and 31 January 2010, only 110 people were assessed as not being refugees. These figures suggest that 1144 (approximately 91 per cent) of those claims were successful." http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0910/diac/32_qon.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0910/diac/30_qon.pdf http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2008-09/html/outcome1/output1-2-2.htm
The Parliamentary Library site, which I declared at the beginning of my post. You can, if you so desire, go back to 1976: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm#_Toc285178607 The last para. should read: See the enormous spike in arrivals since the advent of the Federal Labor Party in Canberra (I pressed the wrong button!)
Thanks. So you've changed the subject to 'the number of boats arriving' now? We're all finished on the percentage of boat arrivals who are genuine refugees? I just want to get it straight, because as far as I know nobody is disputing how many boats arrive.
It just clearliy demonstrates very clearly the stupidity and incompetence of this Federal Labor Government, which so hastily dismantled the Howard Government's carefull crafted 'illegals' policy. We will a high price in inflated welfare costs for their sheer incompetence and stupidty!
1144 people turned out to be genuine refugees, in genuine need of help, and the Government provided that help to them. I fail to see how helping people in genuine need is a dsiplay of "sheer incompetence and stupidty". Are you of the opinion that nobody deserves help? Not even genuine refugees?
The number of boat arrivals is obviously going to have an effect on the number of number of illegals sucking of the Australian Welfare Teat, so that figure is important.This Labor Government, by removing the impediments inserted by the Howard Government, has made it much easier for illegals to munch their way through our Welfare system.
What "illegals". Most of the boat arrivals turn out to be genuine refugees, and the ones who aren't are sent home. The only people getting anything from our welfare system are genuine refugees. Are you against genuine refugees receiving welfare?
The stats also show the number of arrivals and is not limited to the number of boats.I suggest you open your eyes and read the stats properly, or is this just one of your deliberate distractions?!
I am opposed to so called genuine refugees being given preference over those who have been waiting patiently in numerous lines overseas. The so called Refugee Convention is a grossly outdated Convention designed in the immediate post WW11 period, is no longer relevant to our times. and should be immediately discarded into the trash bin of history!
What on earth are you talking about? You seem to be the one trying to distract. This was my question: 1144 people turned out to be genuine refugees, in genuine need of help, and the Government provided that help to them. I fail to see how helping people in genuine need is a dsiplay of "sheer incompetence and stupidty". Are you of the opinion that nobody deserves help? Not even genuine refugees?
OK, so no boat people: just people who come by plane? Gotchya! "13 Times More Illegal Immigrants Arrive By Plane Than By Boat" "I came across an interesting read over at Adelaide now this morning. Apparently there are enough illegal immigrants living in Australia to fill a large regional city, and nearly all of these 58,400 people arrive by plane" "Put another way, there are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat." http://www.gettingdownunder.com/2011/11/21/13-times-more-illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane-than-by-boat/
I make no distinction between illegals coming by boat or illegals coming by plane. I have seen a number of instances where people who have illegally arrived in Australia by plane have been sent back, and some very shortly after their arrival, on the next available plane. So I don't know why you are making a distinction between illegals coming by boat, as opposed to those illegals coming by plane.They both deserve to be sent back from whence they came. Pronto! I think you should start reading newspapers that tell some semblance of truth and not those that fit in with your prejudiced view of life. Your argument is along the track, that because some illegals come by plane, we should let all illegals who come by boat to stay in Australia.What a weird argument is that. And I have seen and read of many instances where these illegals who come by plane are tracked down and returned to their country of orgin. So don't imply that all illegals who come by plane all are allowed to remain in Australia. Many who come by plane are simply overstayers which you and the paper you read would probably classify as illegals, whilst in actual fact they have just overstayed their visa time limit, and will eventually return to their country. I know a number of people personally who would have fitted into that category and one I helped to extend her visa for twelve months(she worked for a coy. part time) so she could finish her study.Then she returned to Malaysia.
I have grave reservations that the Australian immigration authorities are using the correct terms in the refugee and asylum seeker protocols and convention when they are approving applications, and firmly believe they are mixing one with the other to allow these country shoppers into our country at the Governments and UN's command. I personally would like to have a look at some of the applications to see if everything is in order, and also believe that an independent organisation should be inspecting these applications before these people are allowed into my county, as I wouldnt trust a politician or a Government representative to feed my dog - all incompetent nit-wits trying to justify their own jobs.
That's easy to answer. Asylum seekers coming by boat are not illegals. People who arrive by plane and overstay their visas are illegals. Simple.
They're using the correct terms. 'In countries with discrete refugee assessment procedures, an asylum seeker is someone whose claim for protection has not been decided by the country in which she or he has submitted their claim. Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.' http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/62assistance.htm
Really, its all about the votes. Abbott is aware that only a slim sliver of votes in the right electorates going their way will see the Libs gain power in the next election. If he has to pander to the racist element to get the votes he will. I think he has seriously misjudged his political position on this though, we now even have the Admiral commanding Australias Navy saying he will expect his officers to disregard any orders which contravene international maritime regulations. A very serious loss of Abbotts already tiny credibility.
Yep, fly in, toss your visa and walk off laughing. Not much of a chance of being caught if you can speak good english. But these illegal immigrants cost us nothing, no medicare and no welfare. They have to support themselves or be supported by friends and family already here. Unlike the boat arrivals who have the red carpet rolled out for them with immediate full board, medical and dental care, clothing and free legal representation. They cost Australia billions!
The boat people are legal asylum seekers and the vast majority of them turn out to be genuine refugees. I have no problem with them receiving help funded from my tax dollars. What do you have against people in need? Are you really that callous?
