High court challenge on asylum seekers

The high court has upheld the injunction on the Malaysia deal for the case to be heard.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/court-upholds-injunction-on-asylum-seekers-20110808-1iitp.html

The fact that the injunction is upheld would mean that there is a case to be heard.

Will this spell the end for this agreement?

IMO, it should, simply because, it will not achieve the results the government state it will. That is simply to stop the boats. Perhaps the government should consider spending the money where these boats come from to process these asylum seekers rather than trying to score political points off the lives of these people.

What is the general consensus on this deal? Should it end?

 

It should end because it is immoral.

These poor people are fleeing war torn countries. They are fleeing rape and murder and torture and God knows what else. They come here for a better life, hoping to make Australia their home, and instead we treat them like cattle and send them to Malaysia, one of the worst countries to be an asylum seeker.

These people are innocent of any wrongdoing, and we treat them like criminals. Its sickening.

 

It should end because it is a disgraceful way for us to act, but it should end via legislation and not because those parasitic human rights lawyers want to make a buck out of it.

I don't like the idea of boat loads of people rolling up and demanding to live here but I dislike the slimy way the government is dealing with it even more.

 

I do not wish to debate the intentions or the idealism of the issues of asylum seekers, that is a well established sentiment of many here. I am asking about this policy and what others believe is best to stop this very dangerous activity. For me it is process more where the boats come from. a very expensive action and it would move the political importance from the boats to the real issue of asylum seekers. However, it would not seem to be the best practice of the government to remove the most controversial issue in this entire debate.

 

Good Lord. Never thought I'd see the words "parasitic" and "human rights" in the same breath / sentence.

The lawyer leads the Refugee and Immigration legal centre in Melbourne. He's parasitic? On what grounds? That he's trying to make a buck?

Unbelievable.

 

Asylum seekers arent llegal immigrants. Massive fail for you o great viking warrior. (lol)

 

par·a·site (pr-st)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Lock me in for 2a thanks Eddie.

 

I think you are exactly right. The government should consider spending the money where these boats come from to process these asylum seekers rather than trying to score political points off the lives of these people.

Bear in mind - a High Court block on the Malaysian deal will also block the "Nauru Solution". So - no matter how much Abbott may bleat - the fact is that neither party has a workable policy.

At least the receipt of bone fide refugees from Malaysia is still going ahead. that is the only good part of the Malaysia deal.

 

I agree with you totally, Finally a lawyer with a backbone, who represents what the majority think. This Malaysian Asylum Solution, is wrong,
Malaysia is the only winner in this Policy, gets rid of 4000 of its pesky Asylum Seekers, and gets 800 back, and a bonus is thrown in, extra money from our gov, in order for them to look after these asylum seekers.
We should be processing these asylum seekers in Australia, It is a huge mistake, to herd them like cattle to Malaysia, to fend for themselves in a country, that has no concern or respect for its chinese minority, for its elderly, sick and unemployed. and for people that don't follow the Muslim rule of this country.

 

The 'queue' in Malaysia is apparently 90,000 long. So how long will it take for those poor people to be processed?

 

I have not heard of what actions are to be taken with the influx of refugees from Malaysia is going to be. I gather though they are already processed to the satisfaction of the government so they should not impact on those still waiting.

I think thought the immigration minister should be very guarded on this High court challenge, He would seem to be setting himself up for a public discrediting. He seems so certain that there is no case, but obviously there is, as this problem has been caused by the government attempting to stall the process and the fact the High court feels a case should be heard. However, this by no means will halt this deal unless it is decided that the government is wrong. His has suffered a big hit in his ability with the due process case earlier in the issues which he should have possibly been removed for, but apparently Labor feels incompetence is not a disqualification for a portfolio( much like liberals in their last term).

 

1. and what have you contributed to australia, with your ignorance, comparing these human beings to an organism.
2. Says you, Plenty of asylum seekers that have settled in australia are greatful of our generosity, working hard, and are good citizens.
b.what are you blabbering on about, ????
3. Professional dinner guest, Its clear, that you have made up your mind all asylum seekers are users. to justify your fear, they might impact on your cosy comfortable me me world.

 

That is correct - that is nothing to do with the High Court

The Government is probably wrong. Just as the last government was. Lu
ckily we still have a High Court to reign in these idiots

 

The 4000 are still coming. That is where the policy works.

Sorry, I know that racists don't like that.

But nobody likes racists....

 

Yes, I know, I should have made it more of a question for curiosity sake, more than anything to do with the topic.

It would seem that there is a reason for them to be concerned. If this case succeeds the implications for the Gillard government would seem to be exponentially. Now world government is commenting on how useless they appear to be.

 

I hope it spells the end of the agreement. It's an appalling agreement.

It's not stopping the boats, the boats are still coming. That's what happens when people are DESPERATE... they keep coming...

It's not right to send unaccompanied minors to Malaysia. Or to send any of the refugees there.

Australia should take more refugees. Once established they are genuine, have been checked out, they should be allowed into communities to become productive happy members of this country. Not locked away for years in detention centres like dogs to become mentally ill and depressed.

Instead of focussing on stopping the boats... perhaps we need to focus - in my opinion - on upping our intake of refugees so that more can get here safely.

Stopping the boats... in effect means stopping refugees from coming to Australia. All very well to talk about the unsafety of these boats and to say that's the reason we're trying to stop them... because we don't want them to jeopardise their lives... BUT - if that was really all the concern was about... we would actually be doing more in providing the means for more refugees to get here safely.

Malaysia a 300 million dollar deal? Jesus. We need to process the refugees here. It is madness the loopy lengths this government is going to in trying to stop the boats. And with Malaysia? Not a signatory. Very bad record in human rights. How could we even think to send them there? To scare the boat people coming in leaky boats... by telling them they will be sent to big bad Malaysia?

It's just gotten so incredibly screwy. And refugees once again the political football being screwed and kicked around.

 

I don't know about Malaysia being a winner. I think it's a good thing we are taking 4,000 refugees over five years. But the 800 shouldn't be sent there. Some are comparing this "swap" to that of human trafficking. The 800 shouldn't be sent to Malaysia - not when we cannot guarentee their safety in Malaysia - given what we know of human rights abuses over there.

 

Fair enough, it would seem that this agreement is not seen by anybody as a means of stopping this dangerous activity at all. This policy would be simply the Gillard government trying to look as if they are doing something, nothing more.

Unfortunately, the reason for sending the unaccompanied minors is the very reason this policy can not work. IMO it is immoral to send these minors anywhere that is known to not have the same regard for them as Australia, this actually sounds more like the same policy TYPE of those people, many years ago, that generated the stolen generation. NOT a good thing at all.

I do not think there is any correlation of intake to boat arrivals, However, if you have anything to show, I could not argue. I do think this practice is a very important issue due to the fact that there are many waiting in other countries that do not seem to get the resources that reflect the demand. If the Australian government where to spend more money to provide these resources, then the need for them to climb into a boat may well be removed, or at least reduced. Of course this is an expensive exercise due to the fact that once accepted the government would need to provide transport as well as man power for processing.

No, stopping the boats do not mean stopping the refugees. I think somewhere these topics are covered you will find that the boat people actually consist a very small percentage of people arrivals to Australia asking asylum. I feel the government needs to stop meandering about and spend the money to process these people before they get on the boats. Sure this sounds simplistic, with a majority leaving from a few countries then by simply removing the need to get on the boat will reduce this dangerous activity by a large percentage. Of course it will never eliminate it.

Very good point, this would seem to be a very expensive operation that is not going to work, to score a political point of the lives of many.

So true.

 

If the Australian embassy manages to process 1 refugee completely in a day then it would take an average of 1200 years each. Of course raising this rate to 10 refugeees a day would cut the time in the "queue" to only 120 years each. Due to Howard era cuts there are now only 3 people working in the Malaysian embassy on a rotational basis so on the average each refugee will only have to wait 357.49 years in the queue.

 

LOL Howard?

Why didn't Rudd and Gillard increase the numbers?

Come on if it's such a big (*)(*)(*)(*)ing deal why hasn't something been done? They have been in power long enough. Why haven't they attended to yet more JWH mistakes? When does their tenure start in the blame game? Rudd is foreign affairs, why hasn't he demanded something be done?

Why Ian why?

 

Because they are weak-willed politicians who quake in fear when a some big-eared idiot in budgie smuggles starts chanting "Stop the Boats", "Stop the Boats" to his audience of drooling Jones and Bolt worshippers.

 

There is one very simple way to stop the boats. Too bad no-one in government has the balls to enact such a brilliant method. It goes like this:

Step 1. Don't intercept them
Step 2. There is no step 2

You bewtey!!! Job done! Let's see how far they get. Maybe they sail right to the mainland. Congratulations! Welcome to Oz! Your nearest town is 650km thadaway.

Oh, that's right. There's that thing about sparing human life. Woops. How inconvenient. Governments NEVER kill people. Never ever ever.... except that thing called war, where its own citizens are sent off and used as expendable pawns for some ridiculous, poxy, peace-promoting cause. But not to worry, you made a big "sacrifice" and the hero status will be with you, because that's what really matters when you're dead.

So the boys at the UN, who have finished shedding a few tears at the thought of some Afghan woman and her 7 children, along with an assortment of others, rotting on some deserted beach in Aus, now feel warm and fuzzy about saving those lives and now redirect their focus on sending another few thousand troops to Afghanistan. Funny, I wonder if this hypothetical coincidence could be related?

One can only hope, that those at the UN, will at some point become (s)aged enough so their noses scab and peel to the point where it doesn't protrude so intrusively in someone else's business.

 

I beleive I made my point regarding the alleged "queue" in malaysia.

 

Hey BUGALUGS
Throwing around names like RACIST does not give you much creditably. You missed my point, or refused to see it??, let me spell it out for you. These Asylum Seekers are the ball in this game, the Malaysian and Australian gov are playing, at the expense of Asylum seekers.
My comment that Malaysia gets rid of 4000 of its pesky Asylum seekers, was meant to mean this policy is to the advantage of Malaysia, But you read into it, that I don't like the fact we will be getting 4000 from Malaysia.
An assumption on your part that is wrong, I believe as a part of the world communtity, we have an obligation to welcome and assist, people arriving on boats.
Is it so hard for this gov to find a good solution, to this Asylum Seekers problem. They should be processed here, Involving a country with such a poor humane record,as Malaysia has, is a big mistake. If that makes me racist in your eyes, then so be it. I am on the Asylum Seekers side, But don't hold much trust that our gov is actually trying to help these Asylum seekers, more like scoring political points.

 

My apologies.

You do not sound like a racist. But you did make one large error:

My comment that Malaysia gets rid of 4000 of its pesky Asylum seekers, was meant to mean this policy is to the advantage of Malaysia, But you read into it, that I don't like the fact we will be getting 4000 from Malaysia.

The 4000 from Malaysia are not asylum seekers. They are refugees. Their asylum has been granted.

Taking them is to the advantage of everyone. Not just Malaysia.