Mr Rudd, asylum seekers are real people

warb says:

11:04am | 21/10/09

Que jumpers, plain and simple.. I don’t come to work for 8+ hours a day, spend time from my young family, pay ridiculous amounts of tax to support these people, harsh however true… there are two sides to every story I’m sure..

AJ says:

11:05am | 21/10/09

Good piece.  Incredibly depressing that nobody in the Labor/Liberal scene has the courage to write it.  Still, glad to have the Greens as a genuine alternative.

Bob H says:

11:05am | 21/10/09

Sarah - do you really think any politician has any other concern above their own driving ambition and political survival?.  His worry on this issue is that it may give a foothold to opposition from which they can chuck stones, he will do whatever it takes to maintain his position - mercy is not a quality needed in high office.

Eric says:

11:07am | 21/10/09

Yet another article bemoaning rational policies. There is more to the world than that warm glow you get from the illusion of moral superiority.

This is our country. We decide who comes here, and under what circumstances. If we lose that ability, then Australia will become one of the hell-holes from which people seek to escape.

Of course, you are welcome to swap places with any of the queue-jumpers if it will make you feel better. However, I doubt your commitment extends that far.

empatt says:

11:07am | 21/10/09

So what’s your suggested solution, Sarah?

DaveA says:

11:22am | 21/10/09

So perhaps the answer is for Australia to withdraw from the UN refugee convention?  I mean given that the overwhelming majority of our near neighbours are not signatories why should we constrain ourselves.

In many ways many of us would be better off if we simply flung open the borders, we would of course have to get rid of some of the things we now enjoy, like unemployment benefits, a livable minimum wage and government funded healthcare.  The rich however would be able to insulate themselves from the shanty towns developing around our cities and would be able to hire a lot more help. 

Its so much more glamourous to care about the diasadvantaged arriving by boat from the other side of the world than those struggling to make ends meet in our outer suburbs. 

While many will disagree this issue is simply a matter of supply and demand.  There will always be supply, this is of course due to the ineffectual nature of the UN in managing global conflicts but I digress.  Supply is relatively fixed, demand depends on the deal that each country offers.  Britain offers a much better deal than France, hence asylum seekers who are safe from persecution in France are still keen to get to Britain. 

John Howard offered asylum seekers a terrible deal, to be locked up indefinitely on a island somewhere with only a temporary visa and very limited welfare opportunities.  No wonder once the terms became known and it was clear they would be enforced there were so few takers.  If I was an Asylum seeker I’d go for Britain too.

Rudd’s deal is to offer quick processing and permanent residency within the space of months.  In terms of deals offered to Asylum seekers this is an absolute winner.  Just throw in some free steak knives and trhey’ll all come on down.

The small print of Rudds deal is that we’re going to pay Indonesia an absolute fortune to make sure virtually no one gets to take him up on the deal.  This lets Rudd parade his “humanity” without ever actually having to pay for it.  It does of course mean we won’t be criticising indonesia for anything, I wouldn’t want to be a member of the Bali 9 awaiting execution.

The Rudd policy gives false hope to the world’s disadvantaged.  Howard was a model of honesty in comparison.

Furthermore this government daren’t criticise Sri Lanka for fear of jeopardising the US security council seat.  What a fine direction we’ve been led in….

Tim says:

11:28am | 21/10/09

There is only one problem with you assessment Sarah,
these people have passed through many countries before they hopped on a boat to Australia.
What was so wrong with these other countries that they couldn’t apply for asylum there, and then move to Australia if accepted later?
What about the poor people who didn’t have the funds to get here? do we leave them to rot in their own countries, while other people force their way in?

Biff says:

11:52am | 21/10/09

If I lived at Parramatta and my life was threatened I’d go to the Parramatta police station, or perhaps Merrylands police station. I certainly wouldn’t drive to Ballarat police station seeking help. According to the map of Africa, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania are countries that would offer protection. It is not illegal to seek asylum in Australia and it is also not illegal to seek asylum in Djibouti, a country with an understanding of the language of Somalis.

Sherlock says:

11:52am | 21/10/09

I can’t understand why the left is supporting people who have the money to

a) leave the endangered area and make their way to a safe country
b) Pay a considerable amount to people smugglers for a seat on a boat.

While their countrymen who don’t have the same cash resources remain as political prisoners under threat of death. I know which group I’d prefer to help.

I would suggest most Australians recognise our responsibility to take a fair share of refugees. That doesn’t mean accepting all and sundry with no investigation.

I’d rather see every refugee place going to somebody who really needs it not somebody wealthy enough to buy his way here.

SJ says:

12:04pm | 21/10/09

Sarah - These Sri Lankan “asylum seekers” attempted to emotionally blackmail Australia by subjecting a nine-year-old girl to “front” the media scrum and plea for help, passionately stating that they were fleeing for their lives.
They were not fleeing, they were trying to jump the already-burgeoning queue to get into this country.

They paid US$15,000 to get on the boat, and threw a massive wobbly when informed they would be detained in Indonesia instead of reaching Australian shores.

I don’t know about you, but if i was fleeing for my life i wouldn’t give a rat’s fanny where i ended up, as long as i was safe. I would take it, and be grateful.
Definitely wouldn’t be acting like a prima donna diva and making demands while twittering away on my iPhone.

There is a big difference Sarah, between geniune refugees and sneaky crims trying to slip in through the back door.

John A Neve says:

12:04pm | 21/10/09

It has been said some where before, but I’ll repeat what others have said.
If there are problems in their country of origin, these people are doing nothing to correct the situation by running away. In fact they are making it harder for those they leave behind.
Those countrys which are seen as having it easy, got there by the blood, seat and tears of their people, Britain, France, Russia even America have all had bloody internal wars.
What is wrong with these people, that they won’t fight for their rights and their country?

Brian B says:

12:08pm | 21/10/09

Such a highly emotional and irrational piece would have to come from a Green.
Like your party Sarah, you have no solutions on issues, just fantasy laden dreams which would turn our country into a poverty stricken third class country….........and yes, I do have sympathy for the people involved, but you would be better working to ensure the elected Government maintains a rational and sensible immigration policy.

Nick says:

12:16pm | 21/10/09

Sorry, but when you pass through other friendly countries on the way to Australia with the intent of “seeking asylum”, your no longer an asylum seeker, but a opportunist with a flagrant disregard for a countries boarder policies. Come through the correct channels like everyone else, and I’m happy to welcome you to Australia. Do it by threatening to blow yourself up, starve yourself to death; your using terrorism to get what you want, hardly the type of person we need in this fine land.

Chris says:

12:25pm | 21/10/09

Australia can only afford so many refugee places a year, rational Australians want the places to go to the most deserving not to ellites who can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars passing through several countries before they put their hands up for asylum in Australia.
What about poor refugees in Africa patiently waiting to be relocated who can not afford to spend thousands of dollars on travel getting here? Is it right for others who has the financial means but perhaps not so deserving to get in infront of them?
Sarah also what you, and so many others are blinkered to is ofcourse, the more you let in, the more that will come. In other words If Rudd just lets in every boat load of Sri Lankans, what signal would it send to those with the cash and the desire to migrate make the journey? What does that say to others in refugee camps patiently waiting years for there number to be called?
By wanting to be humane you can actually be cruel.

CJ says:

12:26pm | 21/10/09

Oh my god. Judging by the comments here, you can see why Rudd has taken the stance he has. Clearly we are still suffering from empty north syndrome. And yes, people flee to come to Australia because they hear such wonderful things about it. But I’m sure they won’t want to come here for much longer if we keep saying things like “why won’t they fight for their rights in their country…” At least India already thinks we are racist.  Geez….

Biff says:

12:33pm | 21/10/09

Further to what I said earlier, countries that have signed on to the 1951 Convention relating to refugees are: Djibouti in 1977; Ethiopia in 1969; Kenya in 1966 and Tanzania in 1964. A Somali who is fleeing oppression or danger would find that it is not illegal to seek the protection of those countries. It is illogical not to do so.

annala says:

12:47pm | 21/10/09

the stupid is astounding isn’t it CJ?

Choomsy says:

12:50pm | 21/10/09

Sorry Senator, I had the privilege to visit the Christmas Is. detention facility just before it opened. Maybe I should send some of the pics I took inside at just how good the facility is to the punch so we can see another point of view.

The only reason detainees are holed up in dongers now is because there is now room left in the facility!

I literally laughed when I read your comment that John Howard only build it for political purposes and not practicality… then why is it being used to the point of it being full by KRudd now?

Get real Senator. I would like to see you accept no preferences from the refugee hating ALP or Libs at your next re-election if you feel so strongly like in your seriously hemorrhaging heart op ed above.

RT says:

12:52pm | 21/10/09

Sherlock and John A Neve, do you realise that your arguments apply just as much to most of our immigration program, not just the refugee component. Biff & Tim, I don’t see that the claim that these people pass through other countries to get here makes much difference. So what? By that argument, only refugees from New Guinea or New Zealand would be eligible to come here. They are here, we have signed the UN Convention, we are bound to assess their refugee claims. warb, why do you believe that ‘ridiculous amounts’ of your taxes are going to support refugees? Because the only ridiculous thing is your distorted belief.

I suspect that despite the use of arguments about the finer points of the asylum seeker situation to object, the real thing is good old xenophobia.

John A Neve says:

01:02pm | 21/10/09

CJ,
Please tell, what is wrong with people fighting for what they see as right in their own country?
As to racism; this has nothing in my view to do with racism. Rather, i’s about self worth, you don’t get that by keep running away. You don’t buy freedom in a supermarket and never have.
You tell us CJ, what do these people really want?

annala says:

01:13pm | 21/10/09

John A Neeve. that is rich. if your family were at risk of being killed for religious beliefs or ethnicity you’d just take it like a man? Many Tamils fought and I bet you call them terrorists - most of the fighters are dead now anyway. The ones who are tired of the fighting and want to live in safety and provide a future for their children flee.

People come to Australia because every other country between here and there does not provide them with a stable future. Refugees are in camps all along the Pakistan and Iranian border with Afghanistan for example. There they cannot get a good education, they do not have legal residence and live in fear of deportations and brutality from the authorities in those countries.

The suggestion above that they should go to the ‘police station’ is ridiculous and laughable when they are oftentimes the people they most fear. But you wouldn’t understand that living here in Australia in all the comfort and safety available to someone of your privilege.

John A Neve says:

01:14pm | 21/10/09

RT,
Says “do you realise that your arguments apply just as much to most of our immigration program”?  No I don’t, most of our immigrants went through the proper channels. The are thousands who have been waiting for years in squalid camps to improve their lot. They could not afford air fares or pay people smugglers $thousands to sneak past others.
But my point remains, why not do some thing about conditions in their own country?

Tim says:

01:18pm | 21/10/09

No RT,
we choose to take a certain amount of refugees under our UNHCR obligations. We take people from all around the world.
Arriving here on a boat after passing through many countries makes a massive difference. If you are fleeing for you life, you wouldn’t care which country you got to, as long as you were safe. This is patently untrue for people who arrive here by boat. They have had many chances to claim asylum in many different countries but instead they chose to pay people smugglers a large amount of cash to bypass the system.
Why are you so uncaring of more at-risk refugees left behind?
And yes annala, the stupidy of people who say we should just accept anyone who arrives here by boat is astounding.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

01:20pm | 21/10/09

What is wrong with you cowards?  The thing is you don’t understand that it is illegal to lock up people who have only asked for help, it is more illegal to ask other countries to do it for us and while we squander lives and money doing this 30,000 kids die of hunger every day.

The refugees are not migrants, they are refugees with a legal right to come to any signatory nation and ask for asylum, this right is enshrined in Australian law and it has been part of the law since 1954.

The cretinism in this country can’t be explained in any rational way so let me describe how you clowns are supporting what you call queue jumping.

Refugees in Pakistan have typically been in Pakistan for up to 20 years, they have good lives, many have servants and big houses and they are from the Pashtun ruling classes.  They are the best educated and last year out of 4 million Afghans Australia found a myriad of ways to ignore all but 1185 of them.  None of the Hazara who are being ethnically cleansed get a look in because in Afghanistan and Pakistan they have had 200 years of less status than cockroaches.

To force them to stay when both sides want to kill them borders on supporting genocide.

Sarah is right.  The right to seek asylum from persecution has been an inalienable right since the Universal Declaration of human rights mostly authored by the west after the west sent millions of jews back to be slaughtered.

At this point in time most of the people on Christmas island have sailed directly from Sri Lanka and the Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and others are almost all being accepted as refugees.

Because they are refugees when they leave, not just because they arrive.

Now go off and learn some fucking law before whining about your rights and remember what Hitler did that made the world write the convention in the first place.  Bergen-Belson, Auschwitz, Dachau - the world sat on their hands and watched genocide and didn’t give a damn.

In 1938 Australia justified by claiming we didn’t have a racial problem, in white Australia.

It’s always about race and it always breaks the damn law when we put our own disgusting self interest before the rights of the traumatised and desparate.

If Australia is ever attacked you need to remember you will have the same rights to asylum as the people you are trashing now and you better hope the host country isn’t as cruel and ignorant as you.  Because if you don’t have a passport and money you will be stuck and left to die.

And Choomsy, I have a pretty picture album too.  The place is a maximum security prison fit for the world’s worst criminals.

Refugees asking for help are not criminals and the only reason they are using dongas is because they are useless and lazy, the same gangsters who locked up hundreds of Australian citizens - we will be compensating people for years to come.

Kia says:

01:20pm | 21/10/09

Ummmm annala?  I think you missed the point of the “police station” example.  What was that about laughable?

pete says:

01:22pm | 21/10/09

A few points,
I have no issue with refugees coming to australia

I do have issues with people trying to circumvent processes and “queues” when others stick to those processes.  these processes are put in place for reasons, as much as some find vetting distasteful, it is necessary in the current global political envronment, either that or wear a metal helmet as planes are blown out of the sky over australia. It is not wise to import political extremism.

I do not have a recollection of any journalist or human rights organisation actually going to Sri Lanka to find out if the allegations of actions against Tamils are founded post “war” , as nothing has ever been reported on any news site I frequent.

E says:

01:22pm | 21/10/09

RT, it does matter that they have entered another port befor comming here, if we are paying attention to the UN Charter, refugees only have the right to apply for asylum at their first port of call.
What makes these people queue jumpers is that they have abandoned their right to refugee status by opportunistically attempting to circumvent the immigration process.
The correct and legal way for these people to apply for entry in Australia is to apply for refugee status at their first port of call, and then apply for an immigration place from there.
What they are doing is illegal, they have no status as refugees and they should be treated as criminals, as they are criminals.
CJ, clearly you are one of those people who run away from problems, or expect someone else (the government?) to fix them for you, try putting the latte down and getting your hands dirty.

Tim says:

01:22pm | 21/10/09

Annala you said it yourself:
People come to Australia because every other country between here and there does not provide them with a stable future.”
Now go to:
http://www.unhcr.org.au/index.shtml
and read the definition of a refugee. What you just described would be clearly classified as an economic refugee. Thank you for proving the argument why we should not accept these people.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

01:25pm | 21/10/09

There are very few people rotting in camps now as refugees and the spurious notion that you only allow the lazy who are on the welfare tit of some other country for 25 years ahead of the go-getters and educated is ridiculous.

We are pathetic and wrong with the whinging.  Of the world’s 15.2 million refugees less than 0.0001% of them come to Australia on boats but we spend hundreds of millions to lock them up or keep them out.

We agreed to two things - to process claims of anyone who asks for asylum, including the 60,000+ who fly in and only have a 25% success rate, because most of them are frauds, and the lousy 15,000 who have come on boats in 20 years.

Hardly enough people to fill Manuka Oval.

annala says:

01:25pm | 21/10/09

Tim,

There are no signatories to the Refugee convention between here and Central/South Asia. That is why they come here. Australia is the only safe haven, where they have a chance at a stable life. Every other country, they live with uncertainty and the chance of deportation. Are you hearing me?

SM says:

01:28pm | 21/10/09

Rules are rules.  Turn the boats around and send them back.  The word will spread fairly quickly.  “No point going to Australia”

John A Neve says:

01:29pm | 21/10/09

Annala,
People 200 years ago in this country lived in very similar conditions to the ones you mentioned. But our grandparents and great grandparents did some thing about it. Don’t tell those who died at Eureka they lived “in all the comfort and safety available to someone of you privilege”.

Razor says:

01:31pm | 21/10/09

Australia should withdraw from the Refugee Convention - problem solved.

E says:

01:34pm | 21/10/09

well maybe there is an argument that these people are brave and bright, perhaps by letting in more of them we will raise the average IQ of the nation, worth thinking about.

AFR says:

01:35pm | 21/10/09

I’m not sure why so much is being made of the $15K these people allegedly paid. Having money, having an education, speaking English etc has nothing to do with it. If Bill Gates was in genuine danger he would have much right to seek asylum as anyone else.

Marilyn says:

01:37pm | 21/10/09

By the way there are 1.93 million Afghan refugees in Pakisan and 900,000 in Iran with 500,000 more in Europe.  Australia helped 1185.

There are 5 million Iraqis displaced by a war we helped to start.  Australia helped 2200 last year.

There are 3.65 million Burmese refugees in Thailand, another 140,000 in Malaysia and we accepted 3300.

Do you see the problem?  Less than .1% chance of being accepted into any country at all.

Who would want to stay and die?

I don’t know what is wrong with you clowns but we have seen in recent days that students are being smuggled into Australia on false visas and are being used as slaves, so are migrants from Korea and Malaysia - thousands of them.

Evans even changed the law so that a pretty blond Russian can skate for us next year but he told a 9 year old sobbing child to get fucked.

What a disgraceful toad.  People are allowed to claim asylum in any country - most of our asylum seekers are Chinese with Russians the next, then Pakistanis and Iraqis.

The Chinese and Russians are usually the lying scam artists because they have a tiny rate of acceptance yet they can stay for years in the community appealing and appealing again.  Afghans have a 99% acceptance rate yet we lock them up without lawyers or any legal rights.

What is the point?

annala says:

01:41pm | 21/10/09

There are reasons refugees don’t wait patiently for the nice UN to come and settle them. Stories from refugee camps in the middle east:

September this year (Times Online):

“Mahmoud Hakamian from the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) emphasizes that the 3500 Ashraf residents include men and women who have been fighting against Iranian regime since 1986. In 2003, they gave all their weapons to American forces in exchange for their protection. Americans were protecting the camp until the beginning of this year when they transferred it to the Iraqi government.
The problem is that the Iraqi Government which is very much influenced by the Iranian regime wants to close Camp Ashraf and repatriate the 3500 to Iran where they will face arrest and imminent death. The truth is that on the request by Ahmadinejd’s regime the crackdown on the Iranian resistance is taking place in Iraq. Also Amnesty International has several times notified the Iraqi authorities of their opposition to the repatriation of PMOI members against their will to Iran.”

The Independent:

“Safaid Sang Dari (Persian) for White Rock was an Afghan refugee detention camp inside Iran whose Iranian guards helped to massacre more than 630 of their prisoners in 1998 after inmates protested at their treatment. The atrocity largely unknown in the West ended after two Iranian helicopters strafed the Afghans with machine guns. Quite a story. Quite a movie. “

Sri Lanka, NYTimes:

“Hundreds of thousands of Tamils remain locked in camps almost entirely off limits to journalists, human rights investigators and political leaders. The Sri Lankan government says that the people in the camps are a security risk because Tamil Tiger fighters are hiding among them.

...

The government has clamped down hard on dissent. Journalists have been mysteriously killed, arrested and chased from the country.

Thousands of Tamils have disappeared, presumably arrested by the government on suspicion of being Tamil Tiger fighters.”

Sam says:

01:43pm | 21/10/09

Oh, are we talking about assylum seekers again? there must be a federal election around the corner.
My advice to Kevin, keep up the good work, you’ve got’em covered. Ni hao.
My advice to the coalition, bring back Peter Costello.
My advice to Malcom, put the party before yourself (refer above).
My advice for the Greens, none - you are perfect at being a nuisance (which is your objective no doubt). The day you held back Stott-Despoja’s charge towards the forefront of Australian politics was the day I understood that you guys aren’t actually there to win, just be a nuisance to the others. Well done, keep up the good work there too.

Tim says:

01:44pm | 21/10/09

Wow Marilyn,
you are so angry but you don’t have any solutions do you?
What is your point? That we should just start accepting everyone who arrives here? Yeah that will work really well.
And Annala,
have a look at this map and tell me there are no signatory countries closer than us.
http://www.unhcr.org/4848f6072.html

annala says:

01:50pm | 21/10/09

Tim,

I was obviously referring to refugees who are fleeing life threatening situations who want to live their lives in safety. Which they can’t do in the countries between here and Central/South Asia.

kel says:

01:55pm | 21/10/09

“Its so much more glamourous to care about the diasadvantaged arriving by boat from the other side of the world than those struggling to make ends meet in our outer suburbs. “
Thank you for this sentence Dave A. This is what concerns me the most. We turn a blind eye to our own backyard, which isn’t doing so well folks. Yes, I know it’s nothing like the persecution these people have faced, or perhaps the conditions they are fleeing, but why is that?! Do we have to drop to that level for the citizens already here to be considered worthy of help????

Chris says:

01:57pm | 21/10/09

Marilyn and any other well intentioned bleeding hearts,
Do you accept that Australia can only accept a finite amount of refugees? If so do you accept that if Australia can only accept a finite amount of refugees that place should go to those most deserving not those that have the financial means of getting here.
I reiterate by wanting to be humane you can actually be cruel.

AM says:

01:57pm | 21/10/09

All these are responses are typical of xenophobic rants by a lot of Australians who think they deserve this country’s wealth because they were born here. My father came to Australa with just the clothes on his back and for years was called a wog and so was I.  He know owns a business that employs 60 people, including many new arrivals (6 are actually refugees) and they work harder and do not take sickies unless they are actually sick. They are more reliable and are keen to ensure a brighter future for their families.  There is no “QUEUE” that everyone talks about.  If a conflict suddenly breaks out in a country and all those people fleeing suddenly find themselves looking for asylum, does that mean that they have to wait 15 years to get processed? The refugee camps are terrible and in more recent cases, have become more dangerous than the conflicts that people are fleeing.  Politicians saying that there should be some order in the way these people seek asylum. When the only other option is a gun to your or your childrens’ heads, do you honestly go into an imaginary building and take a number and wait to be served? Come on, all the shrill ranting is further evidence that many people in this country consider themselves superior human beings because they had the good fortune to be born here. Unfortunately these same biggots have the right to vote. There are much poorer countries than Australia receiving up to 20 times more refugees where the debate is not being led by rants about border security but rather how they can help these people.

Tim says:

02:02pm | 21/10/09

Annala,
what is your definition of a safe country then?
This should be interesting.

John A Neve says:

02:06pm | 21/10/09

Annala,

i’m sorry, but you seem to only see what you want to see. There are millions of people who for many reasons have been disenfranchised and persecuted.
We all acknowledge this and there is a system in place to help some of those people. I repeat some, we cannot help them all.
The people you are supporting have gone outside that system and disadvantaged their fellow sufferers. In my view they should not only be returned to where they came from, but place at the back of the queue.

M Cooke says:

02:08pm | 21/10/09

Turn the boats around and send them back, with RUDD AND EVANS ,THEY ARE THE PROBLEM, And bring back John Howard’s method it worked .

E says:

02:08pm | 21/10/09

“Its so much more glamourous to care about the diasadvantaged arriving by boat from the other side of the world than those struggling to make ends meet in our outer suburbs. “
yep, we should all care more about those close to us, charity begins at home

Sam says:

02:10pm | 21/10/09

@Sam
oops, sorry I confused the greens with the democrats… much of a muchness really.

E says:

02:11pm | 21/10/09

This whole boat-people thing is a distraction from domestic policy. What about the rivers, the ETS, the stimulus, what happened to the education revolution?

AJ says:

02:18pm | 21/10/09

To the people concerned about ‘wasting money’ on refugees:

1) process them here, as per our legal obligations, it’s cheaper.
2) as pointed out, the vast majority of boat people are legitimate refugees fleeing genuine persecution, not economic refugees or scam artists.  furthermore, the vast majority of those granted permanent residency go on to be valuable, tax-paying citizens.  The failure of the conservative right to judge these people on the basis of their potential contribution to our supposedly multicultural society is disgusting, particularly given their defeaning silence on the vast majority of illegals who arrive here via British Airways direct from london.
3) Don’t blame them for queue-jumping when the ‘queue’ is in a somali refugee camp.

annala says:

02:20pm | 21/10/09

Chris: “Do you accept that Australia can only accept a finite amount of refugees?”

If you’re talking economics here, Australia needs more people, not less, if we want to take care of our ageing baby boomers, perhaps you are one Chris, in retirement. The people who come here seeking refuge, or those who are migrants, are mostly hard-working and pay taxes just as you and I. Australia’s birth rate is too low to sustain us alone.

Australia accepts a very small number of the world’s refugees. Everyone must share this load. We have a responsibility as people lucky enough to live in a country like Australia to share what we have- particularly when people are fleeing wars of our making.

Tim: what is your definition of a safe country then?

Somewhere where a person can live in peace with the ability to work, obtain residency and contribute to society, where a person doesn’t have to live in fear of being deported to a country where they face death and persecution.

And to those who say we should take care of people already in Australia, there is no reason we can’t do both.

Kia says:

02:22pm | 21/10/09

AM did your father come on a boat illegally or did he follow the correct processess and procedures in place?  If he did so the correct way, how would have felt being pushed back further in the queue (and there is a queue) so that those who came illegally could be processed first?

Personally, I don’t think there is anything xenophobic about believing that refugees should seek asylum the correct way.

N says:

02:24pm | 21/10/09

I love how quickly those with no strong argument quickly play the race card “your xenophobic, racist, bogan, etc”. This isn’t a race issue, never has been, never will be. If it were, legal immigrants would be lynched at the airport as they arrive. Please stop using racism as an argument in this debate, it has no place and only bogs it down without any real development.

Help for the real refugees says:

02:27pm | 21/10/09

Ms Hanson Young, on this mornings news bulletin I saw the story of an 8 year Somali boy. His father was killed in the civil war. His mother was ill. He himself had untreated cystic fybrosis. They are living in basically a humpy in a vile refugee camp, having fled Somalia. They are starving, and people all around them are dying everyday from preventable disease and malnutrition. Do you know, they weren’t complaining. They were so grateful to be in that refugee camp, substandard as it was, and no longer stuck in a war zone.
I want that boy and his mother and people in that situation bought here. I will not have a single complaint. House them, give them welfare, whatever we have to do. Make them citizens and send them to school. Make them safe. But you can keep your fat American accented Sri Lankans who can afford to collectively pay over 4 million USD for a boat out of this country.  Same goes for everyone else who cries ‘asylum’ but manages to travel through 6 or 7 other perfectly safe countries to get here. The people who we should be saving, should be taking care of are rotting in a refugee camp and cannot afford to use people smugglers.

annala says:

02:41pm | 21/10/09

I love how not wanting to send people to their deaths is called “no argument”.

There are many refugees who come here by plane. Where is the outrage and punishment for them? People often sell everything they ever owned to get their family to safety. If one person is facing death or imprisonment for their political views family and friend pitches in to raise the money to get them to safety. Boats are the only option for people who can’t get passports and pass through airports for fear of getting caught. No, it is the boat people who raise Australia’s fears the most for some reason. If they’re lives didn’t depend on coming here that way they sure as hell wouldn’t choose to do so. It ain’t exactly easy and there is no guarantee you will make it to the other end alive.

People who are able to gather the money to get to Australia are still refugees and are still entitled to our protection as signatories to the refugee convention. Your argument that they shouldn’t be given protection because they came here by boat doesn’t make sense. It is not illegal to come to Australia and ask for protection. It is often that or spending the rest of your life in camps. Which would you choose?

Martin says:

02:50pm | 21/10/09

It is clear that there is no consensus on this topic. Indeed there are strongly held and widely divergent views in the community. In this situation should the government go down one path and say to “sucks to you” to those with different opinions? This does not seem wise or workable in the long term. I believe there is a simple, fair solution that would satisfy most people. My suggestion is to allow Australian individuals to sponsor immigration for a migrant. These sponsors would be responsible for all the costs etc for the immigrants for a long enough period for them to get established. This would remove the costs from those community members who do not want to fund it and at the same time allow those in favour to help those they deem worthy.

Tim says:

02:55pm | 21/10/09

Annala,
I love that on one hand you cling to our UNHCR convention obligations and on the other throw them out of the window.
The people you described above would not be classified as refugees under the convention. There is no “safe country” clause. There is no “i get to choose which country i want to go to” clause.
You ask a question which would we choose?
I would choose that seeing as Australia can only take a limited number of Refugees (a fact that you seem to gloss over), that we take the ones who are most at need, most likely to be killed or persecuted and not the ones who managed to bypass the system. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Dan says:

03:03pm | 21/10/09

I’m always astounded by the Greens position on this issue. So can you tell me what the carrying capacity of Australia is for humans as a species? Many people would suggest that we have already surpassed that carrying capacity as evidenced by the massive loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation that has occurred and continues to occur.

And yet the Greens senator for South Australia no less wants to bring in yet more people. I ask again, ignoring the rest of it, how many people can Australia hold? A Senator truly concerned about our environment should be putting as many curbs on immigration as possible to protect our unique and fragile environment.

I’ll leave it to Tim Flannery to say more:
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/too-many-people-not-enough-resources-20090916-fql2.html

James says:

03:03pm | 21/10/09

I take it your offering a room at your place Sarah?

N says:

03:05pm | 21/10/09

Great idea Martin. Often the simplest solutions are the most worthy.

BB says:

03:08pm | 21/10/09

The only legal rights asylum seekers have under the UN Convention on Refugees is to be provided basic food and shelter in the nearest safe haven for the duration of a conflict. There is absolutely no legal obligation to resettle them, give them welfare, allow family reunion or permanent residence. They can be legally deported at any time to their country of origin once hostilities cease.

annala says:

03:11pm | 21/10/09

and martin while we’re at it we can start sponsor a soldier programs, sponsor a retiree and sponsor a student. we can also sponsor a pollie’s salary and sponsor a road.

tim, i don’t find this hard to understand. you are the one who is confused. the stats show that boat people are overwhelmingly refugees. They are the ones who are most at risk, one could argue, because they’re the ones who had to flee tout de suite. Australia’s refugee intake is mostly from camps in any case.

The reason they are refugees is because they are fleeing persecution and war, where they end up or who they ask for help, or how rich they are, or how they managed to pay people smugglers has nothing to do with their refugee status. why do you find that so hard to understand?

Voxpop says:

03:18pm | 21/10/09

I won’t go into the many reasons why (as others have previously articulated that for me) but I fully support asylum seekers and want our government to process them in a timely and humanitarian manner (it’s a part of why I voted them in - and I do not support the previous Howard ‘solution’ so am dismayed that it is still being treated in a similar way by the Labor govt). 

I am saddened and disgusted by the negative attitudes on display - though not really surprised as I totally believe that the “I’m alright Jack” attitude and xenophobia from the rednecks in our society are just business as usual from the vocal minority whipping themselves into a lather.  Hopefully saner heads will prevail as this is an issue that will not go away but sadly intensify.

N says:

03:39pm | 21/10/09

Annala; we have sponsor programs for students, its called a scholarship, sponsoring retirees is often a superannuation fund, people do sponsor sections of road (you will see signs on highways across the country) and politicians and there parties are often sponsored by lobby groups so they are sympathetic to there cause.

Using wealth and or influence to circumnavigate a system is not right by any means, it would appear that you are advocating this? At the end of the day it should come down to the UN and willing governments to decide who is in most need of resettlement, not those with the cash to do so without following due process.

RT says:

03:44pm | 21/10/09

E: the asylum seekers have not ‘abandoned their right to asylum’ by bypassing other countries on their way here.  They are entitled to land here and claim asylum, they have done nothing illegal in doing so and none are ever charged with an offence. 90% of the boat arrivals are granted refugee status here.

John A Neve, your point was that refugees don’t help their countries by running away. The same could be said of almost any migrant anywhere. Are accepting refugees and trying to assist with problems in countries of origin mutually exclusive? No, both already occur. Are you arguing for an increase in foreign aid? I agree with you. Are you arguing for more Afghanistan-style intervention? I don’t agree with you.

Tim - you claim to know what refugees think and when they feel safe, do you? You might think arriving here by boat makes a massive difference. Our laws about refugees don’t apply that way, though.

Tim says:

03:44pm | 21/10/09

Annala,
yes you could argue that the one’s that arrive here by boat are the most at-risk, but you would be wrong.
Once again you ignore the fact that Australia can only accept a certain number of refugees. Do you accept this or do you think we should accept anyone and everyone who arrives with a claim to persecution?
If you accept that we can only take a limited number doesn’t it make sense for Australia to take those that are most at-risk?
Who do you think is most at risk: The person who has flown out of their own country and passed through many other countries since without being persecuted or the person who is living in a camp with a real current threat of danger to their life?

annala says:

03:52pm | 21/10/09

N: and many christian churches and everyday aussies did help refugees settle in Australia once their claims were passed. especially those who were on bridging visas with no right to work or welfare and who were entirely supported by the goodwill of good Australians. so your point is?

Taxes pay for things that need to be paid for, I pay for things i don’t agree with. It’s part of living in a society. In any case, this whole refugee bizzo would be a lot cheaper if they were processed in australia instead of thousands of kms away on xmas island.

Also, re advocating - I advocate for their right to live in safety and I think they should do that any way they can. they aren’t breaking any laws. It’s not illegal to arrive in Australia and ask for protection. there is no system to circumnavigate. waiting patiently in a camp and leaving it up to the gods as to whether you’re the lucky one plucked to safety by the UN is not something I would be able to stand. I would do the same thing they are doing if I was in their situation.

Empathy is something we could all use when the mob brings out the pitch forks.

BB says:

03:59pm | 21/10/09

Why would genuine Tamil refugees spend $15,000 and risk their lives coming to Australia when their traditional Tamil homeland is only a 22km boat trip away?

It now seems that Indian Tamils are being smuggled into Sri Lanka before getting papers to travel to other countries.

annala says:

03:59pm | 21/10/09

Tim: So they are only not most at risk because they chose not to go to the camps where all those people are most at risk? the place you think they should go…where they are most at risk. huh.

N says:

04:12pm | 21/10/09

Annala; the intent of pointing out those “sponsorships” was in response to your attempt at undermining Martins idea.

Don’t you think that accepting asylum seekers through indirect channels (via boat), hurts the chances of those remaining in refugee camps, to be resettled as normally accepting nations have this debate? If process was followed properly, this issue wouldn’t exist.

Tim says:

04:13pm | 21/10/09

Annala,
Third time. Do you agree that Australia can only accept a certain amount of refugees? Or do you want us to accept anyone who arrives with refugee claims?
And I would suggest that passing through many countries in which they are not persecuted would place them at less risk.
RT,
i made no such claim.
But if you could provide me with the number of refugees who were murdered or deported, while waiting to get to Australia by boat i might be better informed. There must be thousands if they are so afraid.

Voxpop says:

04:22pm | 21/10/09

BB @ 3:59pm that’s a wild allegation to make and one that only serves to perversely attack the victims.

And it just doesn’t hold true - India is now the third largest source of immigrants to Australia, after UK and New Zealand - I’d say that Indians already have a far better chance than to risk their lives to do what you have suggested.

annala says:

04:33pm | 21/10/09

I think Australia should accept anyone who arrives here and are refugees. We have a system in place for this and it was used to good effect long before mandatory detention came in. Fortunately, Australia has a very small number of people arriving here and asking for asylum - a couple of thousand a year, as opposed to hundreds of thousands who arrive in Europe.

We are nowhere near being “full” and it’s unlikely to get out of control when it’s so difficult to get to this island nation. so stop freaking out. relax man.

ideally, if we want less refugees in the world we can start by not starting wars all ‘round the joint. how does that sound for a solution?

Elei says:

04:38pm | 21/10/09

Thank you soooooooooo much for this article - it reflects what I feel about the performance of both parties on this issue.  I just wish that someone in either party would step up and advocate for the refugees and stop all this nonsense talk that encourages racism and NIMBY attitudes in the community.  I would love to see the 7.30 report or Four Corners take up this story from the refugee point of view - those already at Christmas Island and those that have arrived via refugee camps.  I’d also like to know more about the current processing outcomes and how long it does take for people to get off the island, or, out of refugee camps.  The general community need to be confronted with these details and more information about the state of refugee camps that those that don’t come by boat have to endure. Maybe then they would find a little more compassion in themselves.

John A Neve says:

04:40pm | 21/10/09

Tim,
Annala won’t respond, as I have pointed out earlier, she only sees what she wants to see. All supporters of the boat people have a blind spot, they only see the boat people and bugger those in squalid camps.

It’s classic case of the old squeaky wheel,

papachango says:

04:42pm | 21/10/09

Ms Hanson Young, the Greens policy on open door immigration seems pretty inconsistent with their stance on no new water or baseload electricity supplies. Just how do you expect these new arrivals to eat, drink and have power. There’s barely enough water for us already, entirely thanks to Greens policies and lobbying over the years.

I actually would be OK with letting more economic as well as political refugees in, provided we are far less generous with welfare and we don’t give them taxpayer funded interpreters so that have to learn English and work, and we allow the free market to create as much new water and electricity as we need, regardless of the method.

Deal?

ralph says:

04:52pm | 21/10/09

Can we deport the fear-mongering racists to make room for some of these refugees please? I know who I would prefer in this country.

Dalma Smithy says:

05:31pm | 21/10/09

My-o-my . What a lot of rabid, frothing in the mouth, redneck,feckless, ,xenophobic racist KK Klansman, we turn out to be ! Reminds me of an obsequous politician on the Gold Coast who wrote, we should bar those lousy Mexican’s from NSW, Vic & SA from crossing the Tweed border ? He reckoned because of our imaginative life style, and Surfer’s Paradise, the inflow would corrupt our magical life style, debase our standards ?? and pollute the scenery. Not to mention, our water problem, which he urged citizens, not to share - specially the beach taps which should be turned off to save for better times. The Bulletin ran his story for weeks. It didn’t create a furore because 93.5 % agreed with his premise. If this is any indication of our Political masters, we might just as well put razor wire barriers around our homes to prevent the Abo’s, druggies, welfare mums,unemployed, renters, and down-an-outers from sharing our beautiful Sunshine, beaches and splendid way of Life. Presumably the envy of Aust & the Planet ?? Ugh

Voxpop says:

05:36pm | 21/10/09

Ditto Ralph @ 4:52pm ;-]

Em says:

06:00pm | 21/10/09

Thank God for people like Sarah Hanson-Young in politics. Thank you for not only giving asylum-seekers a voice, but for representing the views of millions of Australians who believe that we should offer these people protection. The fear, ignorance and xenophobia of some of my fellow Australians makes me truly sick and ashamed. It is only by the grace of God (or fate) that you are not in exactly the same position as these poor people. Wake up and feel some empathy for your fellow human beings.

Stephen Henry says:

06:13pm | 21/10/09

Hey Warb, you’re not thinking this out right. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but about 23% of money is in the hands of 1$ of hands and 90% in 10 % of hands.
It’s a bit sad warb that you think people with the arse of their pants and running from war are after some of your sad little pile.There was a story about Wall Street exec’s about to give out US$180,000,000,00 in bonuses.
What iss the cost of these refugee’s Warb?
It’s a shame we are so predictably stupid, it’s makes us so easily manipulated.

Eric says:

06:19pm | 21/10/09

Can we deport the bleeding-heart loonies to make room for some of these refugees please? I know who I would prefer in this country.

Mick says:

06:20pm | 21/10/09

Yep, I’m with Ralph too on this.

How bizarre to think that people having been exposed to all sorts of life-threatening hardship should somehow queue up in an orderly fashion and ‘wait their turn’ to come here.

Open up your minds some of you, start trying to imagine life from another point of view, get some compassion going and GROW UP!

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:31pm | 21/10/09

If I was to pay someone to commit a crime, I would be considered as legally responsible as the person who commited the crime. However if I was a refugee playing a people smuggler to commit the crime of people smuggling, then apparently I’d get off scott free. I have yet to see an asylum seeker charged with an offence.

annala says:

06:33pm | 21/10/09

Tim: “But if you could provide me with the number of refugees who were murdered or deported, while waiting to get to Australia by boat i might be better informed. There must be thousands if they are so afraid.”

I can’t get you those numbers but read the Edmund Rice Centre’s report on those deported to danger from Australia, a country which accepts refugees: http://bit.ly/3NCxOw

Now, I think your being purposefully dense but try to get your mind around the number which have been killed or currently still live in fear after being deported from countries which aren’t signatories to the refugee convention, such as Indonesia, before they could get to Australia. The numbers would be huge.

The Tamils in Indonesia will most likely be deported to Sri Lanka, where they will be swiftly transferred to a concentration camp, where they will be subject to disappearances, squalor, no freedom of movement, extrajudicial killings and rape.

and we can proudly hold up our heads and say, well, we didn’t let them come to australia, yay for us and our great border protection. pats on backs all ‘round. congratulations xenophobes.

Scribbler says:

06:44pm | 21/10/09

I’m with Em. Good piece, Senator Hanson-Young.

Someone suggested a solution here the other day, bit like this. Reduce current immigrant numbers (now at very high levels). Keep some large number of places within the new limit, for genuine asylum cases. Open up an overseas reception system, within their reach, to match the numbers on offer.

If these poor buggers have the wits and enterprise to scrape up a smuggler’s fees, *we* should be clever enough to find them first, and make a way to get them & their families here on our own transport, for a reasonable fare. Then they can be an economic asset to us - and themselves -  from the moment they set foot in Oz.

And what about the flat broke ones? Simple. Make ‘em 10 pound Tamils, if you like. Bring ‘em through the system on a subsidised fare and then take it out of their pay, like a HECS.

Then they won’t be refugees or asylum seekers. They’ll be paying residents, and soon citizens.

Just requires a bit of wit and effort to set up efficient reception desks somewhere they *can* get to, with their families (and their funds, if they have ‘em)  intact. We’ve done it before, for goodness sake.

Kia says:

07:16pm | 21/10/09

...and there is that word again!  People believing that those who follow the correct processes should take precedence over those who come to Australia illegally are not xenophobes!  If they were, they would be claiming that NO ONE should be allowed into Australia AT ALL.  Sheesh!

Funny it’s all the bleeding hearts who have resorted to the name calling (xenephobes, racists K K Klansman(!!) etc).  Goodness me…

Bob says:

07:26pm | 21/10/09

Xenophobes, racists, whatever. Please quote someone who has made a remark in response to this article which matches these allegations. A direct quote, copied and pasted. Thanks

Tim says:

07:30pm | 21/10/09

Annala,
I think you’re the one being dense. You do realise it is against international law to deport someone back to a country in which they will be persecuted. Completely apart from the refugee convention, countries who do this are breaking international law. Maybe your indignation is misplaced?

bernadette says:

07:31pm | 21/10/09

Good debate - obviously, people have very different perspectives and sources of information.

I thought Sarah made some very good points - well worth further consideration. I personally hope we find a better way to respect the rights of refugeed and practice a “fair go”.

annala says:

07:50pm | 21/10/09

Come on, we all know what’s going on here. “Xenophobia: An exaggerated or abnormal fear of strangers or foreigners.” It’s amazing that you think by locking up or turning back boat people (aka refugees) you are doing a great service to their country people stuck in camps. The ideological backflips one would have to jump to get to there. All of you people who hate boat people, it’s just because they came by boat? Come off it. That is so very illogical, irrational, abnormal, one might say. Ask yourself the real reason you don’t want these people here. Like the last decade of demonisation by the government perhaps? You think you came to the conclusion that boat people are evil all by yourselves? Amazing.

All countries have a refugee intake that is part those who arrive on shore and part those in UN camps. The vast majority come from camps. Some come by boat. All are refugees. The end.

Also, these are the people we are discussing on this forum from the comfort and safety of our homes and workplaces. People, not ideas… some have been waiting in those UN camps in Indonesia for a decade.

Please watch: http://vimeo.com/6328019

Andrew says:

08:09pm | 21/10/09

Yeah, refugees are clearly selfish opportunistic criminals, who deserve to be locked away. Of course there’s a transparent and fair international system where any persecuted individual can apply for refugee status, and wait patiently in a “queue” without fear of risk to personal life of fair opportunities to one’s family.

Therefore, if we simply “let the refugees in”, we are undermining the legitimacy of this TOTALLY fair bureaucratic process that exists internationally.

We’re much better off sending these boat people back to their last port of call, and letting them wait in the queue like they should. It’s not like anything THAT bad could happen to them.

I mean, if, god forbid, I found myself living in a future where I had to leave Australia, due to political persecution, I would have absolute faith in the international system of gaining refugee status. In no way would I ever be in a situation where another country would treat me with such hostility that I’d feel compelled and desperate enough to try to make my own way to my desired country of destination.

I mean, what kind of world would we be living in, if our international neighbours didn’t give us a fair chance to exercise our basic human liberties?

Dean says:

08:23pm | 21/10/09

The reason rudd will fail in this issue is the same reason he has failed in all other issues. He tries to please everyone in a vote grabbing mentality rather than whats best for this country. A robot PM with no sense of logic.

BB says:

08:25pm | 21/10/09

“BB @ 3:59pm that’s a wild allegation to make and one that only serves to perversely attack the victims.’

Amanda Hodge of ‘The Australia’  wrote about this today after speaking to people smugglers in Sri Lanka. These people are not victims they are economic migrants.

“And it just doesn’t hold true - India is now the third largest source of immigrants to Australia, after UK and New Zealand - I’d say that Indians already have a far better chance than to risk their lives to do what you have suggested. “

You are incredibly naive.  None of these people would have a hope of getting into Australia as legitimate migrants.

Most of the Indian migrants to Britain are in the family reunion category. NZ has much lower immigration requirements than Australia and is widely considered to be a backdoor to Australia for Indian and Chinese people. Most of the Indian migrants to Australia are former students at Australian universities who effectively bought Permanent Residency.

BB says:

08:31pm | 21/10/09

VI Lenin had a name for people like Sarah Hanson-Young -“useful idiots”. They were the naive and gullible foreigners who believed the blatant propaganda of the Soviets. Likewise the modern useful idiots now believe the blatant lies of economic migrants, cheats and criminals who pay a fortune to organised gangs to transport them half way around the world.

Bob says:

09:15pm | 21/10/09

Still waiting for a direct quote copied and pasted of someone being Racist or Xenophobic. I’m looking at you Annala, as you like to use the word Xenophobia, even gave a description. So please, the direct quote thank you.

annala says:

09:19pm | 21/10/09

Tim, the report I linked to details many cases where Australia, yes failed in our obligations to the refugee convention and international law and deported people who had a legitimate fear of persecution and many died as a result. You must be more than a little naive to think this never happens.

I’m glad you agree with me that it is a travesty and that the Australian Government which did so are criminal.

And then there is this: http://bit.ly/A7r0

“The Thai military has been accused of seizing hundreds of refugees, towing them out to sea and “leaving them to die” in boats without engines and barely any food or water.

Aid groups said hundreds of water-borne refugees from the Burma-Bangladesh border were arrested and held on an island in the Andaman Sea then forced out into the ocean. About 500 are being treated for severe dehydration after being rescued by Indian coastguards. Survivors said scores of others are still missing.

The refugees who were allegedly abandoned belong to the Rohingya group, a stateless Muslim minority who live on the border between Burma and Bangladesh, in particular in the west of Burma in Rakhine state. The Rohingya have long been persecuted by the Burmese authorities, which have banned them from either marrying or travelling without permission and from owning property. They are even denied citizenship.”

Killing them is easier than deporting them I guess.

This: http://bit.ly/4zVR7o

“Immigration officials in Indonesia say they plan to deport 70 Afghan asylum seekers who were detained last week before they could set sail for Australia.

But the ethnic Hazaras say they would rather die than be sent back to Afghanistan or to refugee camps in Pakistan - because their lives are in danger there too. They say they are being increasingly targeted by an emboldened Taliban in Pakistan which is attempting to extend its control beyond the areas in the North West Frontier Province where it has already been granted legal authority by Islamabad.”

“Immigration officials in Indonesia say they plan to deport 70 Afghan asylum seekers who were detained last week before they could set sail for Australia.

But the ethnic Hazaras say they would rather die than be sent back to Afghanistan or to refugee camps in Pakistan - because their lives are in danger there too. They say they are being increasingly targeted by an emboldened Taliban in Pakistan which is attempting to extend its control beyond the areas in the North West Frontier Province where it has already been granted legal authority by Islamabad.”

This: http://bit.ly/3WqhxC

“Iran has resumed deporting Afghan refugees despite pledging to stop doing so, RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan reports.

Afghan Refugee Affairs Ministry spokesman Shams-u-Din Hamid said that 9,000 Afghans have already been expelled from Iran this year.”

I could go on but I think you get the picture.

Harlequinsgo says:

09:32pm | 21/10/09

I propose a new policy.  Have a referendum on whether we have an open borders policy on refugees.  And all those that vote yes, have to swap places with the incoming.  Any takers?

That way we let the bleeding earts feel warm and fuzzy, whilst not going down the awful awful route followed by the UK of unsustainable population growth via immigration/asylum abuse

Bruce says:

09:53pm | 21/10/09

If these people can afford to pay, they are NOT refugees. If these people can go past other countries, they are NOT refugees. They are looking for a country which is a soft touch. I hate queue jumpers.

Andrew says:

10:39pm | 21/10/09

Bruce: So you’re telling me that the Jews living in Germany and Poland in the 1940s were NOT refugees? Especially not the lucky ones who managed to survive because they were able to buy their way out?

Paul Souisa says:

01:40am | 22/10/09

I am a refugee in January of 24 years in 2000, and I come from the Moluccas, Indonesia, but I have a strong reason why I should come to Australia in Darwin.
Darwin is very close to the Moluccas the distance only 100 miles, in Darwin’s northern portion. As refugees, we should have a background of life / real story as the basis of authentic evidence which has and is happening right now, so can be protected and in trust by the country concerned to help the country’s own beliefs when the refugees are correct.
Australian Government action today to give responsibility to Indonesia is the right thing when viewed in terms of politics, all the refugees who arrive do not have the exact status of their home countries, and backgrounds to strengthen their reasons as refugees are not sure and strong, why Australia should pay attention to them!
If we see with the eyes and hearts of Human Rights case, then this is normal for the refugees in each country in which he approved, because it is the right of every human being created by God to enjoy the grace that God made to man, and as countries concerned are obliged to deal with problems in accordance with international law that have been applied in accordance with the Law of Human Rights.
Every nation in this world has a legitimate entity that an organization that we all know as the State Government in which the people entrusted to manage within and outside the country as a ground of nationality, so it is in the mean here is: The Australian Government sees all aspects which we all know will change the system / setting conditions in the Australian state where the refugees be given the right to settle, because the Australian economy will be burdened with a large enough where the new Australian economy to improve Australia a few months before the economic crisis.
Refugees who do not have a clear background can result in impacts that we know can lead to disruption of public order and safety conditions of Australia as a continent large enough where if there is a very serious thing there is chaos as neighboring countries are already experiencing riots, the Australian more its to ease such problems already faced by these countries. This is one example of why the Australian Government saw the problems that can happen to a future period, because as an Australian children and grandchildren in their lives will be not good.
Australia is now the target of attention of the world as seen from the problem of refugees, because refugees who had entered Australia and always had the support of humanity which the bodies of their status is always easier to be able to live in Australia, this has become a weakness in using by refugees who will come from a country where we see clearly that there is no one to strengthen the legal basis for their humanitarian problems as the refugees the right and true.
As a state agency, we all know that the government will always take country setting policies in accordance with the state system and always receive all the information coming from within the country and outside the country for the capacity as an ingredient in a wise decision.
Indonesia has a military force large enough when compared with Australia, and has many war ships operating in Indonesian waters for the security and territorial order Indonesia, so in this case when refugees from Sri Lanka who tried to go to Australia, then the Sri Lankan refugees are actually in the physical to the island of Sumatra where the part of Indonesian territory, so it’s natural direct responsibility of the Government of Indonesia as the first country in question to solve problems in accordance with applicable international law despite what the reason.
The Indonesian government does not have a sense of shame for Australia, aka the face of the wall for Australia, why do I say this?
As good neighbors in state relations, before the Government of Indonesia include migration to Australia, the Indonesian… Government could deal directly with the Australian Government to help people where quite large in Indonesia, so that Australia can assist and accept the refugees who came from Indonesia with good and regularly and this is the way of working as a relationship of good neighbors.
A chaotic state and are not valid, such as Indonesia, nature must always break the law, never say sorry, and always scheming in their game.
The Indonesian government never grateful for Australia’s aid to natural disasters in Indonesia, but Indonesia is always doing things that are disturbing the stability of the Australian economy.

andy says:

02:23am | 22/10/09

The “Queue” involves up to 10 years in a refugee camp run by corrupt authorities who will rape,  torture and kill your family.  But you’re right,  the honourable thing to to would be to put up with it,  wait the 10 years and hope all of your family are still alive and have all of their limbs.  That’s what i would do.  I wouldn’t spend our life savings desperately risking our lives to escape the persecution.  No,  there is a RIGHT way to get into Australia.

You morons.

The “other countries”  asylum seekers “pass through” are NOT signatories to the UN Refugee convention.  So they WON’T TAKE ASYLUM SEEKERS.  so they have to keep going to one of the four countries in our region who WILL:-  Australia,  New Zealand,  Cambodia and Papua New Guinea.  Where would YOU try to get to,  with your malnourished and persecuted family?  They are all more or less equidistant from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.  Have an ounce of compassion.

You know,  since we take about a thousand asylum seekers a year into australia (by the way,  of those who arrive on boats,  80 - 95 % are assessed as being genuine refugeees),  and in the last 20 years we have accepted 15,000 people,  (it’s a flood of people!  They’re coming in hordes! the unstoppable boatloads!!!  Panic! Panic!),  If we keep accepting people at this rate,  in only another 100 years,  there will be more than 90,000 perfectly legal asylum seeking refugees living in the whole of Australia!  My god!  If you got them all into one place,  they would ALMOST FILL UP THE MCG!  Except that half or more of them would have died of old age by then and there will probably be about 60 - 100 Million people in Australia,  meaning they will make up NEARLY 0.1 % OF THE POPULATION!!  yes,  within only a hundred years,  if we continue taking in less than 0.0001 % of the world’s refugees,  (considerably less per capita than most other developed countries) ONE IN A THOUSAND AUSTRALIANS COULD BE A LEGAL ASYLUM SEEKER!!  In only another hundred years!  Stop this madness before it’s too late!!

I realise that compassion is too much to ask for,  but try to keep some perspective,  you rabid,  ignorant xenophobes.

Thank you Sarah Hanson Young for being a beacon of humanity in a bipartisan political world of racist fearmongering.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:21am | 22/10/09

The only place people can apply for asylum in Australia is in Australia.

The queue you are whining on and on about is fucking Canberra DIAC office and not one other place on the planet.

I said it before.  Learn the law or shut up and stop vilifiying innocent human beings - they are just people after all and the last lot of Afghans and Iraqis save the economies of many small towns like Young, Albury and Shepparton.

The real crime is that you cretins still don’t understand and have not moved on one jot from 8 years ago.

So tell us all how you feel about foreign students who make bogus education claims just to get residence ahead of everyone else.  Or pretty white Russian girls who get fast track citizenship ahead of others who had to wait 4 years?

How do you feel about the 25% of asylum seekers who fly from China, make bogus claims and tie up the legal system for years on end and then refuse to go home.  They only have a 14% success rate but they jump to the same queue as the refugees on boats.

People have to be here to claim protection.  That is the law of the land and if we say people should do it from overseas we are breaking our own laws.

Surely do cretin people don’t want that?

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:32am | 22/10/09

Jesus weeping.  Is there a brain among most of the people here?

Or a heart?  I hope to christ you get caught in a disaster one day you vicious scum and no-one will help you.

M Cooke says:

03:36am | 22/10/09

Marilyn, you want illegal country shoppers you and that dopey Sarah Hanson -Young bloody well pay for them , you are both a pair of numbnuts. I don’t want my country turned into a third world s*** - hole . People are bloody ANGRY out here and RUDD THE MANIC will be gone at the next election , BLOODY DO GOODERS , Get it through your thick heads 95% of Australians DO NOT WANT THEM, and all there problems and the PC sh-t that goes with it, and if you think I am hard stiff bickies.

Lonald says:

04:39am | 22/10/09

Bruce if you hate queue jumpers than you must hate rich people right? Because there ain’t no bigger freeloaders and queue jumpers in society than the wealthy. Food for thought.

Flossie says:

07:38am | 22/10/09

SHY, the illegals might be real people but it’s time you greens got into the real world. Your herbal paradise is a figment of your imagination. Get real girl and look after Australia’s interests. After all that is what you were elected to do.

Daniel says:

08:30am | 22/10/09

I could not agree more with the Greens position on this issue. These are people and the Refugee issue is a global issue. If right wing political leaders want to join in on wars that will have tragic effects this is one of the things that will happen as a result. These right wingers cant have it both ways. I think the Greens position is very good. Australia isa big country and we can take some extra people in comparison to the rest of the developed world. We should also be putting pressure on other nations leaders to clamp down on these people that trade in the transport of these people on unsafe boats though at the same time.

Tim says:

09:01am | 22/10/09

Marilyn,
From the Australian Human Rights Commission website:
“Asylum seekers can apply for the protection of Australia either offshore (in another country) or onshore (from within Australia). Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive onshore without a valid visa must be detained while their claims for protection are being processed.”
What were you saying about knowing the law?
Andy,
i’ll put the map on again:
http://www.unhcr.org/4848f6072.html
Are you trying to tell me Afghanistan and Iraq are equidistant from Australia and all the other countries which are signatory to the convention. Please learn to read a map, even Sri Lanka is pushing it. There are many other signatory countries much closer. And can you PLEASE stop yelling.
Annala,
i applaud you for noticing and caring about all the other tradgedies occuring around the world. But once again, we can only help a certain number of people.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:02am | 22/10/09

Strange mixture of hypocrisy, SHY. Each refugee or immigrant that comes to australia increases the human footprint on one of the most marginal environments in the world. A true environmentalist would be saying that the only correct position is zero immigration. So when are we going to see your resignation from the greens party?

Kia says:

09:44am | 22/10/09

@Bob 9:15 pm

Don’t hold your breath.  Annala is still yet to recognise the fact that we can only accept a certain number of people into the country despite numerous requests from Tim to acknowledge this fact.  You have got buckley’s of her providing anything to support her claims of xenophobia.

@ Marylin Shepherd.  There is certainly no need for the name calling (another one of those bleeding hearts I alluded to last night) and for someone who is trying to come across as somewhat “humane” regarding the plight of the refugees, wishing ill upon others seems quite hypoctritical to me.

John says:

09:49am | 22/10/09

I agree with dean, KRudd has no idea on how to manage this issue, There are a lot of good points being raised and the fact is there is no easy solution. You may not end up pleasing everyone. A smart politician would have a flexible solution.

annala says:

09:54am | 22/10/09

Tim are you saying the Afghani refugees fleeing Afghanistan should seek refuge in Afghanistan? Iran may be a signatory but they aren’t doing a very good job of their obligations when they deport, detain and brutalise the Afghani refugees in the camps on their borders. Obviously refugees would like to seek asylum in a country where they don’t face daily harassment and brutality. Which, for a decade, Australia was inflicting on them too. We need to move on from this.

And what does that sentence you quoted prove except it is perfectly legal to arrive onshore in Australia and ask for asylum? All it says is Australia has a system of mandatory detention in place while the claims are processed. We didn’t used to mind you. Nowhere in that sentence does it say it’s illegal to claim refuge once arriving onshore. 

Okay, I’m only adding one more thing to this conversation. The reason this argument is so ridiculous (i.e. that boat people aren’t worthy refugees) is because before they got on the boats they were the people waiting in Indonesian UN camps. For years! So what you are saying is that before they hopped on the boats = worthy, but rotting away in limbo; after they got on the boats = UNWORTHY! ILLEGALS! FRAUDS!

What makes a refugee isn’t their freakin’ mode of arrival! The ones in camps and the ones in boats are one and the freakin’ same. sheesh.

I’m banging my head against a brick wall here. I’m going to go scrub my brains out with pictures of baby zoo animals at zooborns.com. Feel free to join me if you want.

annala says:

09:59am | 22/10/09

Seriously, that rhino over there is so cute!

(also Kia see my answer @04:33pm | 21/10/09)

That is all.

Bob says:

10:10am | 22/10/09

I would also assume that Annala and Marylin Shepard are for Australia sending out resuce teams to go and collect all the refugees in Countries where it is too difficult to reach Australia, regardless of the cost. Thats being truly compassionate. I mean we can’t just help the people who make it here, why are they so much more worthy? Surely they’re not the only ones suffering.

Tim says:

10:22am | 22/10/09

Annala,
Marilyn claimed that you could only claim protection from inside Australia, the Human Rights commission says otherwise.
Once again its all about the numbers Annala. we can only take so many.
If you accept that we can only take a certain amount your argument says: Person who leaves their country, doesn’t go to the camps and pays people smugglers to get to Australia by boat: Worthy.
Person who can’t afford to pay people smugglers and so goes to the camps for years: Unworthy.
I feel that brick wall too.

annala says:

10:43am | 22/10/09

ok, one more thing,

as a more detailed response to the question of can we accept a finite amount of people - also look at my answer up there somewhere that Australia needs more people to sustain our economy into the future, not less. Our birthrate is too low to take care of all you baby boomers heading in to old age.

However, the question itself is stupid. It’s talking hypotheticals. So what do you want me to say? Okay, if six billion people wanted to migrate to Australia, wooee, that’d be a bit of a struggle. But that’s not what we;re talking about here. We’re talking about a couple of thousand people a year. And yes, fer crying out loud, we can take the people who come here by boat, no f’in problems and guess what, it will even help us in the future.

That argument is like saying, ‘we should cut off welfare payments to all the unemployed people because what if EVERYONE was unemployed, we couldn’t do it!’ Well, yes, that would be impossible but it’s not the freakin case. The point here is responding to reality. The reality of this situation is that a couple of thousand people come to Australia by boats and we can absolutely allow them to stay without any strain on our economy - they even contribute to it just as you and I.

That really is all- back to the baby rhinos.

stephen henry says:

10:45am | 22/10/09

Kia ,how come you take the high ground with name calling and then want to derisively call those who disagree with you “bleeding hearts”? Both sides are guilty of emotive language.
BTW didyou notice the story yestrday about W#all St exec’s paying themselves $180,000,000,000 in bonuses for their efforts last year that saw a trillion dollars of taxpayer money spent propping them up? Have you blogged about that? Do you really think we don’t have enough to share with the poor, when the rich are so rich? I’m self employed and believe in making a profit, but the system is so skewed and unfair.
It’s that way because people are so easily inflamed by prejudice, we get carried away wih red herrings, instead of thinking about what’s really happening.

Kia says:

12:08pm | 22/10/09

@Stephen Henry…“bleeding hearts” is hardly comparable to “xenophobics”, “KK Klansman” and “racists”. 

Annala what happens when that “couple of thousand people a year” then doubles, triples and so on?  We already have a housing shortage, too many unemployed, massive pressure on our health care system.  But it would be better if Australia where seen to open their arms to all and sundry right? There has to be a line somewhere.

stephen Henry says:

12:19pm | 22/10/09

Kia you’d have to agree both sides are insulting eachother. Can I ask again if you saw the Wall Street story?

Freddo says:

12:25pm | 22/10/09

Stephen,
What do Wall St bonus payments have to do with Refugees in Australia?
I think your bow is ruined from drawing it too long.

pete says:

12:43pm | 22/10/09

“All these are responses are typical of xenophobic rants by a lot of Australians who think they deserve this country’s wealth because they were born here”

You should not generalise, I was’nt born here I copped the same as you, but I bet your father followed a process the same as mine did.

Jennifer Nash says:

12:58pm | 22/10/09

Open letter to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young

Dear Ms Hanson-Young

I note that you are former Amnesty International Australia (AIA) Campaign Manager and a strong defender of human rights and believe justice and fairness must be the linchpin for Australia’s domestic and foreign policy.

Given these believes, perhaps you might care to advocate on the human rights abuses against my Australian born teenage son as Queensland Parliament and the government are totally unaccountable? 

However, (exception added) - I am very grateful to Dorothy Pratt (Independent – wouldn’t you know it!) for raising our issue in Parliament, even though it was not reported in the media and Attorney General Cameron Dick continues to ignore my new information and all my phone calls and letters, despite his promises in Parliament.
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/tableOffice/documents/questions/2009/090820-QON.pdf 

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/tableOffice/documents/questionsAnswers/2009/1020-2009.pdf 
Click to listen to my 4BC radio call with Chuck Brooks: https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/media/2009/08/435571.mp3

My teenage son is innocent and the victim of severe school bullying, education discrimination and neglect, and has been denied any advocacy and publicity in this country due to lack of press freedom on the harrowing abuse, obstruction of justice and judicial misconduct he endured in the Queensland Anti Discrimination Tribunal and the Queensland Supreme Court, where he was repeatedly denied legal youth advocacy in breach of the Rights of the Child, the ICCPR and the Anti Discrimination Act like many others.
When we could no longer tolerate the harrowing abuse without legal presentation or any protection, the poisonous Tribunal President, Jean Dalton QC dismissed my son’s complaint and ordered him to pay Education Queensland more than $ 28,000 based on the 1851 (eighteen fifty-one) Infants Law Act which is an error in law!

He was also discriminated against by the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (hreoNOT) and the Federal Court of Australia, who treated my son very differently to ‘Alex’ the gender dysphoric boy as I explained in my many citizen journalist articles, which have been published by The Wall Street Journal, Daylife USA, The Huffington Post, Interceder and many others and by Mathaba, who has given us actual coverage several times:

Ted Kennedy’s letter to me http://www.ctjnet.co.uk/CTJ Temporary Images/US Senator Letter.gif
Breakdown of the rule law http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/425273.html
Speaker Of Queensland Parliament Denies Bullied Schoolboy Electoral Representation http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=96654
Bullied schoolboy wants Anna Bligh to address judicial corruption   http://www.ctjnet.co.uk/cajc.htm
How the Federal Court of Australia selectively denies The Rights Of The Child https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/05/430998.html
Human Rights Commission defends regime – not youth http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=141714
The Misery and Fairytale Commission where complaining is simply illegal http://indymedia.org.au/2009/09/15/the-misery-and-fairytale-commission-where-complaining-is-simply-illegal
QLD Governor Wensley Silent On Judicial Abuse http://mathaba.net/news/?x=620047
QLD Governor Silent on Judicial Corruption Claims Against Brother   http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=621126
Armed Police Eject Mother From Queensland Parliament http://mathaba.net/news/?x=620379
Australia’s lone stance against civil rights bill: how juristocracy enables this and blocks debate http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=616222
Australia Day advertisement an insult to our intelligence http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=554768 Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee a disgrace   http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/05/429716.html
Governor of Queensland’s charade and judicial corruption denial continues
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/21/770060/-Governor-of-Queenslands-charade-and-judicial-corruption-denial-continues- 

AIA is sadly highly politicised, just like United Nations Australia, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Australia and Transparency International Australia etc, who are all unable to intervene in domestic human rights abuses, miscarriages of justice and judicial corruption. 

SC Judge Roslyn Atkinson, (Qld President of the ICJ) is one of the 4 judges mentioned in my documented and corroborated gross judicial misconduct complaint. The others are Robert Wensley QC (Qld Governor Penelope Wensley’s brother) and SC Judge Ann Lyons.

Would you consider advocating for my son also as the late Senator Ted Kennedy (brother of JKF) did?  And perhaps also posing in front of the Tribunal, hreoNOT or courts like you did in front of the detention centre in the photo above?  My son and I would be so very grateful.  Thank you.

Sincerely yours
Jennifer Nash

Kia says:

01:08pm | 22/10/09

@Stephen - Wall Street has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, hence why I have not blogged about it nor responded previously to your earlier enquiry…I fail to understand what point you are trying to make?  Unless, of course, you were simply providing an example of the red herring you were referring to.

Stephen Henry says:

01:16pm | 22/10/09

Fair enough Freddo, but I reckon there is a connection. Refugees come here because they haven’t got enough ( that can be they haven’t got personal safety or money, because those two things go hand in hand too).

Those who don’t want them here, feel there isn’t enough to go around.
My point is, if this is a discussion about how things are divided up and shared, we need to recognise that something like 23% of money is in the hands of 1% of people and 90% is in the hands of 10%. Wealth remains concentrated at the top and stays that way, because we are bickering over scraps, that’s got to be relevant
I’m not saying revolution brother, but maybe we could have a look at the big picture.and agree that a bit more equity would be a good thing, and that a couple of thousands desperate people aren’t costing us as much as the profit gouging juggernauts of which Wall street is just one.
Freddo a lot of our most dire issues are related.

Freddo says:

01:53pm | 22/10/09

@Jennifer Nash
I think turning up to your own hearing might have been a good idea. You have linked 20 items but not the most pertinent to your case:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QADT/2007/12.html?query=wensley
Wonder why? hmmm.
Anyway this blog is about asylum seekers.
@Stephen,
Fair enough. You are correct that wealth should probably be more evenly spread.

Jennifer Nash says:

04:03pm | 22/10/09

Freddo 01:53pm | 22/10/09 – Good on you for trying to use the straw man fallacy to attempt to completely discredit, misrepresent and distort my post and the lack of advocacy, equality, human rights abuse and gross judicial misconduct issues I raised here!

Excerpt from my post pre-answered and totally negates your pathetic attack: “When we could no longer tolerate the harrowing abuse without legal presentation or any protection, the poisonous Tribunal President, Jean Dalton QC dismissed my son’s complaint and ordered him to pay Education Queensland more than $ 28,000 based on the 1851 (eighteen fifty-one) Infants Law Act which is an error in law!”

I am also detailing how we were not heard in court and how our courtroom audiotapes and transcripts were repeatedly severely edited to pervert the course of justice in the following link to my 4½ minutes talk on Radio 4BC https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/media/2009/08/435571.mp3

Judge Robert Wensley QC (our Governor’s brother) decision is mendacious, defamatory and an error in law as I have stated in my articles, which have been published by The Wall Street Journal and many others on several occasions. 

Robert Wensley QC systematically abused and terrorised us in front of retired journalists for a staggering 7½ hours (seven and half) and colluded with the Education Queensland’s Barrister. 

What part of that do you have such trouble with Freddo?

And I am NOT off topic here, as I am merely pointing out that we, as Australian citizens in our country, are entitled to access to public service (including advocacy) on equal terms and I am appealing to Sarah Hanson-Young, who has a special interest in “human rights, fairness and justice”  not to overlook that my son is a person too, an Australian citizen and entitled to the protection of the state under the ICCPR and The Rights Of The Child.

Freddo, are you not one and the same internet troll, who has attacked me previously raising precisely that same question, including attaching a link to the defamatory published decision?

My widely published citizen journalist articles, my interview with 4BC’s Chuck Brooks, published letters to the Editor and the very long and very dogged silence of the government, parliament and the judges involved speak for themselves. 

Blind Freddy can see that Freddo!

You are pathetic Freddo or whatever your name is!

stephen henry says:

04:25pm | 22/10/09

Hey Freddo, just to get back on track read this,

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/programme.php

Any one open to the facts about probability, will see all our children are most likely going to be refugees within their lifetime.
Again inequity is the root cause behind the inaction on carbon emissions.
Vested interests are desperate to prevent the status quo changing, and they are rich enough to keep it that way. We on the other hand are silly enough to think our threat is from refugees or greenies. Oh dear!

Paul Souisa says:

10:24pm | 22/10/09

Indonesia also has the institutions of human rights organizations of which the Government of Indonesia can overcome the problems of humanity in accordance with applicable law in the Indonesian state law or the UN, but if the Indonesian Government can not afford even the Indonesian government can take the best solution is:
a). Worldwide assistance through UN organizations which the UN can help in a condition that one example is the food and clothing, the clothes and the others are useful in everyday life.
b). Creating a document in accordance with the actual events which attracted worldwide attention for pressing the relevant country / cause of refugees so that there is no longer a negative impact resulting in a turbulent political atmosphere in the refugee recipient countries such as Australia.
Almost all countries in the world participated in human rights where every refugee who came to Australaia too far for them to go to Australia, why? back again to read the map of the world, is very close as to refugees could have gone to their neighbors or nearby countries.
Where 100 people in one boat may be 10 out of a hundred such an honest or genuine refugees, but as refugees who are not genuine refugees that have permanent residence, it is a problem that must be viewed in the future, in the sense that the Australian Government to be careful because in a year 3 or 4 times refugees arriving in Australia, so if you think about the logic for 100 of the refugees and displaced 90 people is not true, then Australia in large errors. More than any explanation that the brothers tried to speak, then the advice needs to see is to be careful to select every citizen who came as an escape from their home countries, so long in the history of Australia is a country that never experienced such problems other countries, eg Indonesia, USA, UK and other countries we have heard through the news event, because Australia sheltered from the Pacific countries where Australia is part of the Pacific countries. Strong evidence for the Australian protected in such cases the views of the world war against Japan, before the Japanese entered the war to Australia to help the Australians are a nation of Maluku, East Timor, West Papua and Papua New Guinea.
Australia is a huge continent that became the main target for the refugees who are not properly stow away with genuine refugees, and the involvement of one country in their dirty political game as a goal a long step in the Australian state in the future, sometimes general all the refugees in one good thing that can bring new things in life that led to the negative.
  God bless Australia for the future of Australia.

Bard says:

10:34pm | 22/10/09

Politics always intrigues me, reading these and other posts all over I see that most posters seem to follow politics like they do footy teams and just look through the real issues.

I see lots of comments regarding the Greens and how principled and compassionate they are.

I saw / heard / read once (I think on the death of the late Don Chipp) a comment from Gough Whitlam concerning Chipp and his Democrats.  (Sorry I have looked but can’t nail down a link to the quote so its just going to have to be hearsay).

It went something like “Its easy to have principals when you’re never going to be in Govt” and it basically just means that political parties such as the Democrats back then and the Greens now can afford to have high principles regarding emotional issues because they will never have to live up to them.

Yes, these asylum seekers / refugees / suspected illegal immigrants are real people motivated to leave where ever they came from by violent, economic, religious, political, racist or judicial pressures and there are a whole lot more of them than the 30 odd boats intercepted by Aust. to date.

Aust has an Immigration policy to protect its own citizens from the drug traffickers, violent felons, possible contagious pathogens, damage to agriculture, terrorists etc etc and the Govt of the day has a responsibility to its constituents (all of them) to uphold the law.

As with all law it should apply equally to all and entering the country by dodging the process is against this law.  Looking the other way is sending the message to everyone else that its ok to break the law and totally unfair for those that have gone through the legal channels.

Kevin Rudd and his party are finding out that living up to their Opposition principles is not so easy now they’re in Govt.  It is principles versus condoning the blatant breaking of the nation’s immigration laws and as a Govt the laws have to be upheld.

ralph says:

09:46am | 23/10/09

holy threadjack batman.

stephen henry says:

02:22pm | 23/10/09

With respect Bard, I think you confuse people with the idea they allegedly believe in, and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If you’re invalidating any idea or principle because of the hypocrites who believe in it , everything becomes a bit unworkable.
I support the Greens because they are the only party that have consistently played the ball (i’e'wanting our laws to deal objectively with asylum seekers).
You mention emotive issues, well it has been promoted emotively by both majors. You can’t really suggest Howards “pacific Solution” was a rational response can you?
I understand the need for immigration laws in the current world, but Bard do you have any ideas about addressing the systemic geo-socio-political/ global problems affecting them?

James McDonald says:

05:01am | 25/10/09

I agree with Bard about the Greens and how easy it is like heroes when you have the luxury of cherrypicking issues.

Bob Brown is almost living proof that Turing machines are possible; I could program a device considerably less complex than a pocket calculator which could give his view on any issue he is likely to take up. (Except the one about sending toy koalas to the Beslan children while poorer countries were offering things like free holidays, I never would have guessed that one.)

In contrast, when you’re really in government it’s very hard yakka to keep remembering that due process, obligations under UN conventions that have been signed, and basic human rights such as not to be arbitrarily detained for political reasons as opposed to criminal ones, must be adhered to. Especially when the electorate forgets about these things and says, “Can’t you just sort it out?”.

Nevertheless, that is what I expect of my government and I will settle for no less.

Danny says:

11:22am | 25/10/09

Dan, it’s the carrying capacity of the _planet_ that matters for humans as a species.  And accepting refugees doesn’t change the population of the planet.

Barbara Johnstone says:

11:01am | 06/02/10

On of the comments here is why not stay in one of the countries that they passed through to get here. Also, my children (15&18;) say to me that they are worried that there are too many refugees here and what is going to happen to them in the years to come. We will end up being a minority, not a majority, and they will have enough of their own people, to vote in someone.
That is my worry, and I worry about my children s future.
We don’t also have the right to an opinion in this country anymore. If we make a comment about the refugees, we are called racist, but they can say what they like about us.  Also, Mr Rudd should look after his own first. Like myself who has been waiting for 8 months for surgery which i need, and a house which i have been waiting through housing for 7 years.
So please, i feel sorry for them, but they should apply for immigration like everyone else. 
I have done a lot of research with this over the past 2 years and no one is telling the public what is really going on. Please let everyone know all the facts. I am not a racist by any means, but I want the right to make a comment about this.

Jess says:

03:51pm | 17/03/10

the fact here is that these asylum seekers pass through many different countries before they reach Australian waters. My question is: why do they not stop off in these other countries where they are able to gain refuge?.... I believe that they pick australia purely because of economical purposes, we are more likely to provide greater wealths to these people if they are granted ‘temporary protection visa’s’. Other countries that they stop off at are adequete enough for them to seek refuge. I believe that if we don’t continue a strong stance against these Q jumpers then we will not be taken seriously on the international scale and “asylum seekers” will surely take advantage of that. We let more migrants in than most demorcratic nations, as long as they respect our governmental procedures and policies, they are more than welcome to reside here, However, if they choose to jump the que, fair consequences will occur. We should disengage ourselves from the UN and protect our countries soverienty!

Channa says:

03:22pm | 10/04/10

This land of my birth is not my country.

PJR says:

04:38pm | 11/04/10

I like many Aussies are sick of the influx of these people coming in here to wreck our country. This will no longer be the lucky country in 50 years time.
Easy way to fix the problem. start blowing a few out of the water. Problem solved…
We do not want them.

lzzi says:

11:40pm | 19/04/10

I think it’s sad that people refer to australia as ‘our country’ unless your aboriginal you have about as much of a right to call it ‘our country’ as the asylum seekers! This is a beautuful country which we are lucky to live in but does that really give us the right to shut innocent people out? i’m only 17years old and already i’m so saddened by the way the politicians run our country. Are we really that blinded by our own selfishness that we cant even help people in desperate situations? heres a few statistics for you…
Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people.
Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people. And
Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Australian people
Now heres a question, which country out of those three is the biggest?
Why cant humans just help humans for the safe of it?

tyler says:

10:55am | 17/05/10

i am in year 12 and i too am studying the asylum seekers. Is there more good then bad with asylum seekers coming to australia, should they be partcially punished for coming to a country that they think will give them a better life that they deserve, escaping from a country that could have gotten them killed, raped or tortured, i think that if i were in their position i would give anything a go if i had the slightest chance of getting a better life for myself

KellerGILDA says:

12:26pm | 19/07/10

It is understandable that cash makes people disembarrass. But what to do when someone does not have money? The only one way is to try to get the mortgage loans or just sba loan.

Shayla says:

08:34pm | 19/07/10

i believe these people should be welcomed into this country! i mean why shouldnt they, we have a country thats perfect, it wont hurt to have a few extra people would it? and how would we like it if we had a horrible country and couldnt live there any more and travelled hundreds of miles just to go on a crappy island. im saying this to everyone i beleive sarah is right about everything, this article made me feel alot of sympathy for these people but thats not enough to get them off that island is it?!

Jenny_dreapevahpype says:

05:59am | 11/11/10

Nice day

Want some news?
<a >website</a>

see you
Jenny_dreapevahpype

cheap affordable car insurance says:

04:25pm | 17/05/11

naturally like your website however you need to test the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to inform the reality nevertheless I’ll definitely come again again. <a >affordable car insurance companies</a>

Paul Souisa says:

07:37am | 21/07/11

My explanation:
You all must ask why until the bloody incident occurred in the Moluccas?
Check the speech over the mind of terrorists, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as President of Indonesia, he previously served as Minister for Politics and Security, and he himself supported the Jihad as well as coordination for physical assault in the military and political strategy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L-9HcTb1es
This is one example of a terrorist government, strange but true. There are several things to keep in mind that:
1). Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim country, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is a former Minister for Political and Security Affairs, before serving as President of Indonesia, so the logic of reality is that held by Defense Minister of Politics and Security, therefore the design of military strategy and political unrest in the country program in Indonesia is an act of the Islamic Java / Indonesia, which plans to the state of Indonesia into an Islamic state of Indonesia.
2). Why should there be military and police involvement in the unrest in the country of Indonesia, and as an example in Maluku, Poso, West Papua, and other places? Because there is attachment to the Government’s program of Islamic Java / Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which is a regulatory program under the auspices of the Defense, because of the position he was at that time as Minister for Politics and Security.
Now why there is involvement of the Government of Indonesia with international terrorist links? There are several reasons for this below in accordance with the reality of life that occurred:
a). Because Indonesia is a former president of Major-General and Minister for Politics and Security in the Military Institute of the Organization auspices of the Indonesian state, which is known as the name of Defense, thereby changing the settings in the program for the country’s political system into an Islamic state by force, as evidenced when the reality of life events that are held Jihad in Maluku and in other places, and the involvement of refugees which came from the Middle East to Indonesia before they enter the country to Australia as refugees, they have been fighting jihad in Ambon, Maluku. At that time me and my colleagues are still in Ambon, Moluccas in 1999-2000.
Links below are links mail photos of Justine Lee as a director at the Courant issues of international relations with Indonesia, but the letter is an intermediary for Mr. Alexander Downald to me, where he is as Australian Foreign Minister at that time.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1666849601731&set=a.1665694932865.2089361.1552033107&type=1&theater;

Paul Souisa says:

07:39am | 21/07/11

b). Delivery of refugees from the Middle East come to Australia to give a reason that the actions of the people of Indonesia, which dared to be paid with large amounts of money in the dark human smuggling / illegal to the country of the continent of Australia. Do not forget that this has to do with an explanation on a.

Now the question, why should there be refugees come to Australia?
The answer is to have links with explanations in a, where the program Lemhanas not only made in the state of Java / Indonesia but throughout the world, the fact that themilitary strategy is designed as such by virtue of the Arab ideology (Islam), and a circular territory, in the sense that, Islam has always housed like a besieged Christianor live in areas surrounding the area that is not Muslim. If the force is strong enough toIslam, then they held a war.
So Australia is a target country as the nation’s largest continent in the Pacific portion to the power of militant Islam in power, and it is concerned with the explanation of a, where the game from the political Islam of Java / Indonesia and other Islamic countries.
Do not forget that the Moluccas is the gateway portion of the world in the Pacific, so all international shipping or aviation world is through the Moluccas. See on a map of the world.
This domination by the Arab ideology (Islam) running concurrently in the state portion of Europe, the reason other explanation can be found on the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=213606111985807
Examples of circular political position of the state of the Christian is always under siege by outsiders or the transmigration of Islam, where this situation occurred in Maluku, West Papua, East Timor and others in the country of Indonesia at the time, but in overseas countries such example is in Israel, and South Sudan and others countries.
c). Where the incident is getting warmer in Islamic countries as examples of the problems concerned the Middle East, that is where the Government of Indonesia present to intervene, because that state of Indonesia as the country’s number 3 is the largest in the world as a country based on democracy, but the reality is not so, but a delusion to the world community , and also fraud against the government of the world, and particularly to non-Muslims. It can be seen in the example further explanation on the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=247997558546662
d). Surely not forget that the explanation of a to c is the portion of all Defense programs which have involvement with international terrorist links, so that the WTC was destroyed by the Jihad, because Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim country.Another example is:
1). I once gave a letter to George W. Bush touched on the Government of the Islamic Javanese / Indonesia with Defense program, and can be seen on the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1665717373426&set=a.1665694932865.2089361.1552033107&type=1&theater;
2). Umar Patek who actually died because of suicide bombing incidents in Bali on Saturday night, 11:15 pm, October 12, 2002, was found in the country of Pakistan. Given that, entering the international airport as an Indonesian citizen to go abroad must follow the rule of law state / country concerned to follow the legal process. (Political game the government is involved in the logic of reality). Can see the news on the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1864262816938

Who from the former Dutch colony of each country wishing to join the state government in Java / Indonesia is based on the nature of Islam and terrorist ideology?Of course not exist for the whole nation in the former Dutch colony, even much of it is freedom of every nation in the former Dutch colony that wants to secede from the colonial Javanese Islam / Indonesia.

Paul Souisa says:

07:40am | 21/07/11

So the need for awareness internationally, both the world community, and also all state agencies in the world is concerned, so that peace and justice can be created for the truth of life take precedence in the relations between nations in the civilized humanity, as the United Nations should have a role in the duties and responsibilitiesfor a world order based on international law applicable wisely.
Why can I say like a paragraph before the paragraph above this question?
For views of the photo links and an explanation letter from Kofi Annan said that; UN Secretary General (Kofi Annan) can not do it without the consent of all members of the UN, before the UN General Guild, but in this case the load is contained within the UN member states Islamic nations, which see the problem with Indonesia Maluku on religious matters, so the basis of international law against the Moluccas, even the history of Maluku not be left off the truth.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1665717253423&set=a.1665694932865.2089361.1552033107&type=1&theater;
So do not forget that this explanation has links with explanation on a to d and thereafter.
Hope the people of Maluku and West Papua as well as all the nations of the former Dutch colony to gain independence for the rights of Indonesian illegal regardless of the country, which became members of the UN is also illegal, because it is not in accordance with international regulations (Decree of the Round Table Conference in The Hague on 2 November 1949).
See the continuation of Karen Parker JD explanation as witnesses on Round Table Conference for the Moluccas on the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=200121963334222
Thank you for taking the time to read and have a sense on the issue, God bless you and your family all in favor of truth for the sake of justice to peace in the end.