Prev
Next

Australia really has a tiny number of asylum-seekers

Graham Thom

by Graham Thom

25 Mar 05:45am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

42

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

156

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

71

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Boat People, Immigration, Unhcr

124 comments

On Tuesday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees released the statistics on global asylum trends for 2009.

We can't even imagine what floods of asylum-seekers is like. Picture: AP

Somewhat predictably, a lot of fuss has been made about the increase in asylum applications received by Australia.  While numbers of asylum seekers globally have remained steady, Australia has seen a 30 per cent increase. A crude reading of this statistic may seem to support the “pull factor” argument, namely that Australian domestic legislation, not international situations, is to blame for seemingly large increases in the number of asylum applications.

But statistics, and percentages in particular, can be misleading. Australia receives so few applications for asylum that a 30 per cent increase means only 1400 additional people sought asylum here last year, as compared to 2008.

To put this number into perspective, in 2009 the USA, France and the UK, were among the countries that received over 30,000 applications for asylum. Hypothetically, a 30 percent increase in those countries would have meant an additional 14,868, 10,620 and 9,396 asylum applications respectively.

Clearly it is far less likely that these countries will experience a 30 per cent increase year-on-year, because the numbers are so high.

In contrast, it is purely because the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia was so small in 2008, that the percentage increase appears so large. In the global context, an increase of 1400 people over a one year period is negligible. Unless observed over a number of years, it also cannot be said to constitute a trend.

Highlighting this 30 per cent figure takes the Australian section of the UNHCR report completely out of context. It also ignores the overall message of the report which is that in global and regional terms, Australia continues to receive a very small number of asylum applications.

A more meaningful statistic provided in the UNHCR report is that in 2009, out of 377,200 people who sought asylum throughout the industrialised world, only 6170 did so in Australia. For anyone still fixated on percentages, that’s a mere 1.6 per cent.

Despite the small numbers of people seeking asylum in Australia, the issue continues to generate heated debate – particularly in this, an election year. Overwhelmingly, the debate focuses on how best to deter persecuted people around the world from seeking protection in Australia.

This focus on preventing asylum seekers from coming to Australia ignores a simple reality - as long as there are people facing severe persecution, there will be people who flee to safety; and as long as Australia remains a safe, stable country, and a signatory to the Refugee Convention, some people are going to come here.

The reasons people flee their homelands, the “push factors”, have not changed. Instability, conflict, persecution and political oppression remain rife in many countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and China.

Most asylum seekers coming to Australia are from the Asia Pacific region. Asylum seekers from countries such as Colombia, Mali and Ghana rarely, if ever, attempt to travel to Australia to seek asylum. These countries were among those that generated dramatically less asylum seekers in 2009.

Despite the decrease in some countries, the overall number of asylum applications remained steady because several other countries produced significantly larger numbers. Afghanistan was one of those countries. The ongoing violence and conflict there in 2009 resulted in 45 per cent more Afghans seeking asylum in the industrialised world - an additional 8,300 people.

Desperate people seeking to exercise their fundamental human right to asylum take whatever options are available to them.  For some people that option is Australia.  Only a handful of countries in the Asia Pacific region have signed the Refugee Convention, and of those countries, only Australia and New Zealand properly respect the rights of refugees, and offer long term protection and resettlement.

Australia, as a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, has made a commitment to assess all asylum applications, and to protect those found to be genuine refugees. Australia has an international obligation to honour this commitment.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

418Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
311Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
260Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
230South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

124 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      05:54am | 25/03/10

      I think that should measure our economic and social performance in terms of how well we are doing compared to other nations.  If we are not the best, we should then strive to perform better.  Labor has turned this approach upside down, using the argument that we are not as bad as others so that’s OK. So far, the Australian public seem satisfied with that approach.  Well I’m not.
      Arguing that our national debt is not as big as other countries, who met the GFC in a much worse financial position than Australia, is not a reasonable KPI and nor is Dr Thom’s argument. We are blessed to some extent by geographic isolation making it harder for illegal immigrants to travel here, indeed some travel through several other countries legally before throwing their papers overboard making identification a challenge for Australian authorities.
      Australia has always been a land of opportunity and that is why it’s a destination of choice for people looking for a new start and a better life for their children but measuring Australia’s performance on controlling people movement by suggesting that we are not as bad as others is just part of the drive for mediocrity that is the hallmark of this Labor government. 
      In my view, Australia’s intake of refugees should increase to reflect the surge in globally displaced people but that should be by increasing immigration from UN run refugee camps around the world not by allowing people smugglers to determine our immigration policy by shipping people here on unsafe boats.  Policies that encourage risk taking by individuals should not be part of the immigration mix that Australia relies upon to play its role in humanitarian relief.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      08:36am | 25/03/10

      Well said Nigel.

      I also think, in addition to any obligations to the world’s refugees, the Government has a moral obligation to the Australian people to maintain and improve our current standard of living especially for disadvantaged groups, indigenous Australians being an obvious starting point.

      We already have newly arrived refugees struggling to adjust to our society. We need to ensure the support services are available and not take more people than we can actually help. The more the better, but not more than we can fund and support in adjusting.

      The decision to accept any refugees should take into account the impact on society and be properly managed for everybody’s sake. It’s should not be a game of one-up-manship on the number accepted.

    • Ex Teacher says:

      10:56am | 25/03/10

      Well said Nigel

      The simple fact that France takes more refugees does not in itself prove any point.  The real question that needs to be answered is when does an asylum seeker reach a place of refuge? Is it when they reach a place of obvious safety from alleged persecution or is it when the individual decides that a place looks like a nice place to live?

    • Eric says:

      06:35am | 25/03/10

      As predicted, the “trickle” is growing into a flood. See this graph http://bit.ly/aevntw for the trend.

      Of course Australia is only the target of relatively few “asylum seekers” - just now. Everyone knows this.

      What we are rightfully worried about is the likelihood that present slack practices will lead to an increase - one that has already started. A country of only 20 million people cannot take a huge influx of people over a short time without losing its living standards.

      This article is deceptive - it talks about the present, when the real concern is the future.

      Reply

    • Joe Stephens says:

      08:01am | 25/03/10

      We need more people like you Eric, people who are willing to protect out standard of living by instilling fear using graphs that don’t really show anything! Thank you Eric, thank you!

    • Jane says:

      08:04am | 25/03/10

      How exactly is an extra 1400 asylum seekers a year a flood, when other countries around the world would take in more than that in a week? We are a large country with a great mass of resources, and should be doing our share to help and protect those fleeing persecution in their country of origin.

      The articel is not deceptive - it simply puts into a context the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia as opposed to what is happening around the world.

    • Sherlock says:

      08:46am | 25/03/10

      I’ve never understood the left’s position on boat people. For a group that’s seems to want to punish the perceived rich living in Australia they appear to be happy to gleefully accept people who have the financial resources to pay a substantial amount to a people smuggler while those that don’t have the resources continue to live in squalor.

      This has never been about refugees. There’s only a small percentage of Australians who believe we shouldn’t accept refugees. What Australians don’t like is seeing people pay their way into the country over those that can’t afford to.

      I like an idea that Andrew Bolt suggested. Settle the boat people in the camps already overseas and as compensation to those countries, for each person they agree to accept we will take two people who have gone through the correct processes.

      This results in Australia taking more refugees (and isn’t that what we want) , it equalises the playing field for those who want to come here and sends a message to the people smugglers.

      It may not be a perfect plan but I have yet to hear a better one.

    • Eric says:

      08:52am | 25/03/10

      Joe, the fact that you cannot understand a simple graph does not make it invalid. Intelligent readers will grasp its meaning quite easily.

      Jane, you miss my entire point. The numbers of unwanted immigrants are increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing. Today there may be 1400, but in ten years there may be 1400000.

      That is the whole point of the argument, and that is exactly what you and your ilk ignore.

    • Joe Stephens says:

      09:50am | 25/03/10

      Dear Eric,

      I’ll help you out a little bit. Your graph reinforces the point of this article. 2,200 immigrants in detention (in total), is actually a small number.

      But please continue on and educate those who do not wish for our country to be overrun by people coming in tiny boats! I mean when you look at the hard facts you have presented.. 140,000 in ten years time .. THAT JUST CANNOT BE IGNORED!

    • bruce says:

      11:26am | 25/03/10

      Eric’s hard facts are actually forecasting 1,400,000 unwanted immigrants in 10 years time….holy s_ _ t !!!

    • Martin G says:

      11:33am | 25/03/10

      @Joe Stephens. Those 2200 illegal immigrants currently have their food and accommodation paid by the Australian taxpayer. Many are held at the Christmas Island detention centre, which the Rudd Labor Government referred to as a ‘white elephant’.

      This ‘white elephant’ is now running at capacity, due to the Rudd Government’s softening of laws. There has been a spike of boats and arrivals, costing millions of dollars to process, and wasting the Australian Navy’s time and money.

      You may call it a drop in the ocean, but how can you logically disagree that the laws should be changed back to how they were? The graph clearly shows (and I can also dig up quotes from illegals) that the boat people know about Rudd’s law changes, and are taking advantage of the fact. People smugglers have been put back into business by the law changes.

      We let in immigrants (including refugees) at 6-figure levels per year. So I advise you before you start - don’t preach to all of us that we are avoiding our so-called ‘obligations’.

    • Eric says:

      11:54am | 25/03/10

      Joe, first you said the graph didn’t really show anything. Then you said it did show something. Which of these is true? You seem confused.

      I’ll try to help you understand. The graph shows the number of unwanted arrivals steadily decreasing through the Howard years, as sensible policies were in place. Then, after Rudd changed the policies, it shows a steep increase.

      This increase shows no signs of slowing. If the trend continues into the future, as seems likely, we will indeed be swamped.

      Please try to think.

    • Joe Stephens says:

      12:37pm | 25/03/10

      @Martin G: harden up. We pay much more than 2,200 people’s food and accomodation. Refer to your nearest housing commission neighbourhood.

      @Eric: are you talking about abortions? What’s your definition of an unwanted arrival? I can see that if that trend increases we will have 140,000 “unwanted arrivals” in 10 years. But many trends do not continue at the same rates over a period of time.  In a very basic example, if a movie makes $100m in the first week, in twenty weeks will it make $2b?

    • Martin G says:

      12:57pm | 25/03/10

      @Joe Stephens “harden up. We pay much more than 2,200 people’s food and accomodation. Refer to your nearest housing commission neighbourhood. “

      Try sticking to the topic at hand, Joe. Australia should not be paying to accommodate people who have attempted to enter Australia by illegal means. You have yet to explain (to myself of Eric) how our side of the argument is unreasonable.

    • James1 says:

      01:14pm | 25/03/10

      MArtin G, the fact of the matter is if a person claims asylum upon entering Australian territory, they are not an illegal immigrant unless found to not be a genuine refugee.  Thus, saying they enter illegally is false.

    • Sam says:

      01:24pm | 25/03/10

      So the population was 1000 in Jan ‘05 and it grew to 2000 in Jan ‘10. That’s 1000 people over 5 years. That graph clearly illustrates that there is nothing to be concerned about (except maybe the amount of xenophobia that surfaces in an election year).

    • Martin G says:

      01:28pm | 25/03/10

      You can argue technicalities over terms all you like, James1, but they are still queue jumpers.

      Say you were a genuine refugee waiting to be resettled by the UN. You then found out you would have to continue waiting because someone, not a proven refugee, who has the money to hop on a boat to Australia, how would you feel? Would you feel sorry for the people at Christmas Island receiving treatment better than an Australian citizen on welfare?

      You are Joe Stephens are avoiding the heart of the issue. Tell me why the laws and the boats should not be turned back?

    • James1 says:

      01:41pm | 25/03/10

      I would feel pretty upset, MartinG.  But the fact of the matter is, under Australian and international law, and also under the Howard Government, they are not illegal immigrants.

      The laws should not be turned back, because Australia is a different place to what it was in 1952 (when I believe the domestic enabling legislation was passed, but I could be wrong).  The boats, well that should be taken on a case by case basis, although I see nothing wrong with turning boats back so as to allow for offshore processing through the regular channels.  I just argue for definitional clarity here - if you use emotive terms and arguments, all you do is make it an emotional debate, rather than a debate about policy.  And emotion does not make good policy.  Case in point: the White Australia Policy.

    • Craig says:

      06:10pm | 08/08/10

      oh my god eric! the temperature increased by 5 DEGREES this morning, by wednesday it’ll be so hot we’ll all be dead!!

    • Yomumas says:

      07:10am | 18/11/10

      Considering that Howard had adjusted the Australian boundries which put the Seeker’s out of offical number for his glorious crusade is by the way and as for the highly educated well informed Seeker’s knowing first hand knowledge of Australian policy is to funny

    • Charles says:

      06:53am | 25/03/10

      Your tome misses the point that allowing these illegal immigrants in at the moment, will ensure a small number rapidly becomes a large number.

      In addition, we outsource the classification of these illegal immigrants out to the UNHCR.  Why?  They have no incentive to find out the true motives of these people, all they want to do is move them off their books, and if they just call them genuine refugees without really testing their claims, it makes their headache go away.

      On the other hand, if they were to do true justice to their role and provide a clinical investigation of these people amd find them not refugees, then they have to find a way to send them back and it becomes their problem and not Australia’s.  Ergo, they have no incentive whatsoever to describe them as what they really are; illegal immigrants.

      Once we get a bit of honesty into this debate we will be troubled by these cashed up illegal immigrants for as long, long time

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      08:30am | 25/03/10

      And what are you basing this on Charles? Have you got actual data about all these ‘illegal immigrants’? Have you even spoken to a single one of them to see what caused them to flee their country of origin? This scaremongering is getting old.

      I know if my family was put in danger, I would get them out of that situation no matter what.

    • Eric says:

      08:49am | 25/03/10

      AliceC, the boat people are already out of danger. They come to Australia not from their country of origin, but from a safe ‘middleman’ country like Indonesia.

      They are not refugees, but invaders.

    • AliceC says:

      09:41am | 25/03/10

      And Indonesia has such a fantastic history of upholding human rights!

      Australia still has a legal obligation to accept people seeking asylum, no matter how they entre the country. This is international law and I still cannot believe how ill informed people choose to be. Again, ahve one of you spoken to a single assylum seeker and asked their side of the story? Or are we just going to continue to breed fear through mis information? (gee, sounds familiar, WW2 anyone?)

      If we’re going to attack ‘illegals’, what about the tens of thousands of Brits and Americans, who are here illegally by overstaying their Visas? they are offically illegal immigrants, are higher in numbers, but no one kicks up a fuss about them?

    • Muttley says:

      11:07am | 25/03/10

      Alice, Eric raises a valid point. Surely once you go past the first available point you are not a refugee but an immigrant? And as for human rights, Australia has been accused of human rights abuses as well. And we are legally obligated to accept whoever crosses our borders? I dont think so.

    • Al says:

      11:34am | 25/03/10

      Eric,

      Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention and as such is not a safe “middleman” country. Australia (it’s closest neighbor) on the other hand is. As such, Refugees and asylum seekers are given rights here that they may not automatically get in Indonesia.

      To liken these refugee to invaders is offensive on so many levels and smacks of your underlying racist beliefs and does nothing to add to the conversation or further your point. Invaders, by definition are made up of large parts or complete armed forces of one country seeking to either conquer, liberate or reestablish control in the invaded country. I fail to see how a little over 6000 people from all different countries, looking to escape from their homelands, could bond against different cultural divisions and seriously be considered as a armed force, let alone an invading force.

    • Greg says:

      11:51am | 25/03/10

      AliceC,

      A desire to improve your economic situation is no justification to break the law. If your family was short of money, does that make it OK for you to rob a bank?

    • Ben says:

      01:04pm | 25/03/10

      AliceC -
      “If we’re going to attack ‘illegals’, what about the tens of thousands of Brits and Americans, who are here illegally by overstaying their Visas? they are offically illegal immigrants, are higher in numbers, but no one kicks up a fuss about them? “

      How many of them are trying to claim refugee status?

    • James1 says:

      01:12pm | 25/03/10

      We are not talking about boat people - at least the article isn’t.  It is talking mostly about offshore asylum seekers, who apply for asylum in Australia from refugee camps in countries that are not signatories to the relevant international agreements (such as Iran).  I thought that offshore applicants were the good refugees…

      And Ben, how many of them are fleeing persecution?

    • Ben says:

      01:25pm | 25/03/10

      James1, uh, almost none of them?  I was merely pointing out the obvious answer to the question of why we’re not “kicking up such a fuss” about them.  And it’s not like the dept of Immigration is just ignoring them, quite the opposite.  It has nothing to do with the Aus government encouraging people smuggling anyway.

    • James1 says:

      01:42pm | 25/03/10

      And why exactly do you have a problem with asylum seekers?  I must have missed your point on that.

    • Ben says:

      01:50pm | 25/03/10

      James1 if that last comment was for me i have a problem with irresponsibly encouraging people smuggling, not asylum seekers.  If you want my views on it scroll down to my comment posted at 1:55pm or i’ll just be repeating myself.

    • James1 says:

      01:51pm | 25/03/10

      Thanks Ben, I get it now.

    • Charles says:

      06:08pm | 25/03/10

      Interesting AliceC that you would remove your family from danger, because these illegal immigrants aren’t.  They are sending the fathers and brothers and husbands out, and leaving their most vulnerable; the wives daughters and mothers, in the danger they apparently have just left.

      They are without a doubt illegal immigrants for a variety of reasons too tedious to explain one more time to you.  However, this is one indisputable factor that proves they fit this description and are happy to leave their families in ‘danger’ to achieve their objective.

    • Formersnag The Child Protector. says:

      06:55am | 25/03/10

      Australia is the skin cancer capital of the world. There is only one cheap easy way to solve this problem. That is for all single Australians to marry a black person. Won’t protect you, but will protect your children.

      Perhaps a tax cut to any Aussies who do their bit, to save Australia from the scourge of skin cancer.

      Get all “Polly” staff stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

      Reply

    • AFR says:

      09:55am | 25/03/10

      Attempt at Humour? FAIL

    • Seano says:

      07:01am | 25/03/10

      This is what gets me about the hysteria on this issue. The numbers are still so small.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      11:43am | 25/03/10

      So we should ignore growing problems just because some countries have bigger problems at the moment?

    • Seano says:

      12:08pm | 25/03/10

      Is that what I said? No.

      We should not let the hysterical in our society build this into a major issue when clearly the numbers involved are so small.

    • Greg says:

      03:50pm | 25/03/10

      Hysterical? Oh, you mean like when people claim that Christmas Island is a concentration camp or that all Australians must be genocidal racists if they don’t immediately open their borders and pay welfare to anybody who demands it?

      The number of children attacked by pedophiles is also relatively small . Are you suggesting that we just ignore them too?

    • Seano says:

      06:48pm | 25/03/10

      You must really have an important point worthy of serious consideration for you to have linked it to pedophilla.

    • Dingo says:

      10:19pm | 25/03/10

      Seano, let me explain Greg’s point for you.

      If something is wrong, it is wrong, no matter how many or how few people are doing the wrong thing.

      This is a response to your assertion that people’s objection to this illegal activity, which disadvantages other people in worse situations is hysteria simply because ” The numbers are still so small.”  It’s irrelevant if it’s 1 person or 100,000 people, it is wrong. A developed civilised society should not ignore injustice simply because the numbers are small. If you ignore wrong doing of course more people will do the wrong thing, because everybody else got away with it.

      As Julia Gillard said, every single boat is a failure of policy.

    • Seano says:

      08:06am | 26/03/10

      Dingo, I’m not particularly interested in the point of anyone whose argument is so weak they have to bring in pedophilla into the conversation.

      As to your assertion, I’m sorry but the vast majority of refugees are accepted as being genuine refugees after being processed. With that fact and the small numbers the hysteria is manufactured and completely unwaranted.

    • Greg says:

      12:56pm | 26/03/10

      Oh dear, I seem to have upset Seano’s delicate and sensitive sensibilities. However, you cannot address any distasteful criminal activities if you refuse to discuss them, for fear of upsetting people with touchy dispositions.

      If my argument really is “weak”, it should be easy for Seano to effectively counter it, instead of spitting the dummy and sulking.

      The fact is that Seano’s “argument” about ignoring growing problems because other countries have let them grow relatively larger has already been demolished in this thread.

      As for the “genuine refugees” issue, as I have said elsewhere, I am not aware of anybody else who has suggested that the UN definition of a refugee should be replaced by “anybody that the Australian Refugee Tribunal has decided that it can’t deport”.

    • Seano says:

      03:29pm | 26/03/10

      Not delicate sensibilities at all. The fact is you felt you needed to link my argument to pedophillia. Which means you have a weak argument not worthy of further consideration. It also says volumes about you.

    • Greg says:

      06:08pm | 26/03/10

      Seano, I did not link your argument to pedophilia. I made an analogy to illustrate my point. Are you always this precious when you lose an argument?

    • Jon says:

      07:45am | 25/03/10

      Beware, refugees are now a big industry for better or worse. The main problem is that NGOs have agendas that can be counter productive for the current population of this country. They shield themselves from accountability; they provide ways for unqualified and self-serving people to acquire money, influence, and power; and their income depends upon manipulating public opinion, which means garnering support from politicians, other bureaucracies, and the elite.

      Reply

    • A Bob says:

      08:37am | 25/03/10

      Phwoar! These people sound like progressives! Can it be? How did it come to this?

    • Louis McLennan says:

      08:37am | 25/03/10

      It’s still more than most would like!

      Reply

    • Evan Findlay says:

      06:35pm | 25/03/10

      You mean some Louis.

    • Greg says:

      09:39am | 26/03/10

      No, I think that Louis was correct the first time. But why don’t we have a referendum to find out for sure?

    • Aitch says:

      09:14am | 25/03/10

      Beware of people like Charles who call refugees “illegal immigrants”.
      Seeking asylum from persecution is perfectly legal, hard-head! People like you, who seek to demonise refugees as criminals, strike me as particularly mean-spirited.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      11:57am | 25/03/10

      Beware of people like Aitch who call illegal immigrants “refugees”. The UN convention provides for genuinely persecuted people to seek asylum in the nearest safe country.
      People who “asylum shop” for economic advantage are illegal immigrants.
      People like you, who seek to defend criminals as refugees, strike me as particularly stupid.

    • Seano says:

      12:25pm | 25/03/10

      That would be a stunning comeback Greg if it weren’t for the fact that the vast majority of people who come here seeking refugee status are granted it.

    • Greg says:

      04:07pm | 25/03/10

      I have no doubt that the majority of the people who come here seeking refugee status are granted it, but unless they are persecuted New Zealanders, Timorese or Papuans they do not meet the UN criteria.

      Clearly, the refugee tribunal has been stacked with “Refugee Advocates”, who apply their own political ideology instead of the rule of law when making decisions.

    • Seano says:

      06:54pm | 25/03/10

      Sorry mate, swing and a miss, I’m only interested in facts.

    • Greg says:

      09:28am | 26/03/10

      Seano, apology accepted this time, but do try and keep up with the rest of us in future, and you might not make so many swings that miss.

      As for the facts, I am not aware of anybody else who has suggested that the UN definition of a refugee should be replaced by “anybody that the Australian Refugee Tribunal has decided that it can’t deport”.

    • Seano says:

      10:07am | 26/03/10

      Greg, not particularly surprising to see you claim an apology I haven’t made since you’re making the rest of your argument up as you go along.

    • Greg says:

      06:41pm | 26/03/10

      Seano, if you can’t provide an adequate rebuttal to an argument that I am allegedly “making up as I go along”, then your arguments must be particularly insipid.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:33am | 29/03/10

      “Seano says:07:54pm | 25/03/10

      Sorry mate,”

      Seano says:11:07am | 26/03/10

      Greg, not particularly surprising to see you claim an apology I haven’t made since you’re making the rest of your argument up as you go along. “

      TKO on that one. Enjoying the battle though.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:37am | 29/03/10

      @ Aitch - I love these type of arguments. Its within the law than its OK. I would assume most people who are inclined to side with the “boat people” for a lcak of a better term would also advocate gay marriage. Wait gay marriage is against the law so it must be wrong. Laws are perfect and not created by politicians after all.

    • Bitten says:

      09:38am | 25/03/10

      But what is being done about the ‘push factors’? Or is that the elephant in the room?

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      11:53am | 25/03/10

      Ther are no “push factors”, as proven by the UN report. This is just a poor attempt by an apologist for illegal immigration to spin the facts.

    • James1 says:

      01:15pm | 25/03/10

      Wow - quite a claim Greg.  Do you really think that wars are all made up?  Or perhaps you think that the refugee apologists (I didn’t realise that refugees - or migrants - had anything to apologise for) have invented to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan to further their evil agenda to get more black people into Australia?

    • Greg says:

      04:22pm | 25/03/10

      James1, If you have been following this debate to any degree, you would understand that the Rudd government has been using “push factors” as an excuse to explain the increase in illegal immigrant arrivals since the ALP government abandoned our functional border protection legislation.

      However, this UN report confirms that there has been no increase in the “push factors”. Illegal immigrant arrivals have not increased for any other country except Australia over the past two years.

      It is obvious that the illegals understand that the government policy has been changed, and they have been taking full advantage of it.

      You have run out of excuses in your feeble attempt to defend illegal immigration, which is why you have been forced into the “well there is not many of them so don’t worry about it” line of defence.

      When nobody accepts this latest nonsense, you will once again abandon any attempt (pathetic as it is) at making an argument, and be forced back to calling people names and shouting them down.

    • James1 says:

      08:54am | 26/03/10

      Greg,

      There is a world of difference between saying (like your first post) “there are no push factors”, and (like your second post) “there has been no increase in push factors”.

    • Greg says:

      09:37am | 26/03/10

      The point is that there are no push factors which have caused an increase in illegal immigration into Australia in the past two years. The “pull factors” are the cause of the problem.

      You must really be getting desperate to sustain any sort of argument if you have to resort to semantics as a distraction.

    • James1 says:

      02:59pm | 26/03/10

      I’m not desperate at all.  My opinions on this matter are amply represented by both major political parties.  Yours are not.  Neither the Liberals nor the ALP call asylum seekers illegal immigrants, nor does either party oppose taking in refugees.  I am quite comfortable, and was just pointing out your errant rubbish to the more discerning of the readers of this site.

    • Greg says:

      06:31pm | 26/03/10

      James1, if you had a valid argument you would not need to make vague references to “errant rubbish” instead of responding specifically to points that I have made. Obviously you have no rebuttal to what I have written, which is why you have tried to imply that I have said things that I have not said, so that you can argue against them instead.

      The trouble is, everybody can go back and read exactly what I wrote, so it just leaves you looking pretty silly.

      I am quite comfortable that my opinions on this matter are represented by the vast majority of my fellow citizens. Yours are not, but then that’s probably the point isn’t it? You can’t have an elitist opinion if ordinary Australians also agree with it. You can’t pretend to be morally superior to the plebs if they agree with your opinions.

      So you can associate yourself with the ethics and morality of the politicians if that’s what you want. I’ll stay on the side of the Australian people.

    • AdamC says:

      09:53am | 25/03/10

      Graham, this rhetoric is tired and fallacious. You argue that informal arrival asylum-seeking isn’t a problem because we don’t get all that many applicants, only a few thousand. Well, I say a few thousand is too many. How many is too many for you, Graham?

      And, on the matter of providing asylum itself, Australians are overwhelmingly supportive. The issue is not the seeking of asylum per se, it is the informal boat arrival channel that people object to. I regard informal migration channels as undesirable.  The controlled humanitarian resettlement programme is a separate matter entirely to the informal boat arrival problem.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:53am | 25/03/10

      Oh, and a PS. That we receive 1.6% of onshore asylum applications would suggest we receive an amount proportional to our population, not a disproportionately small amount. Which, given our relative geographical isolation, suggests that we are regarded as a desirable target for people smugglers.

      Reply

    • Brian says:

      10:27am | 25/03/10

      Based on the figures in the article for number of applications and Wikipedia for population data, the number of ‘people per refugee’ comes out as below:

      USA:6233
      Australia: 4723 (3633 after the ‘jump’)
      UK:1981
      France:1848

      Thus, effectively you have a situation where a country which has no land border with any other nation takes roughly half again as many refugees per capita than the US, and half as many as the UK and France (which are in the passport free zone including a great deal of Europe - getting there from Africa/Eastern Europe is easy).

      Interpret the figures how you will (I tend to interpret them as the USA not doing it’s bit, and France and the UK being close to the major sources of refugees), but remember - increased numbers mean that they are less susceptible to random variations, but don’t in any way diminish the likelihood of a percentage increase.

      Reply

    • Carnegie says:

      10:57am | 25/03/10

      I find this issue extremely frustrating, it would be a lot less so if the Rudd government would “own” their policy. What is wrong with admitting they disagreed with the Howard policy and changed it and there is a resulting cause and effect? If they did that they could then outline the policy settings in terms of numbers and process.
      •  It is arguable whether or not 6000 is a big number, as is an increase of 1400 but what if the increase is another 30% each year for the next 5 years. In that scenario by 2015 the annual number of asylum seekers will be 17,000, is 17,000 per year acceptable? Or will there be a change of policy somewhere in between 6,000 per year and 17,000per year?
      •  The next issue is at what number does the current policy of offshore processing become impossible? It appears that we have reached that number and offshore processing will be replaced with onshore processing (in Darwin or wherever); if that is the case Mr Rudd & Minister Evans need to “own” that also!
      •  If we are going to move to onshore processing what is the full cost (in terms of benefits & rights) associated with that change of policy?

      It is not a matter of right and wrong, it is a matter of choice between two clearly different policy approaches. Mr Rudd and Mr Evans owe it to the Australian people to be honest about these issues so the voters can form their own fully informed view of these policy changes.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      12:00pm | 25/03/10

      The Rudd government will not “own” their policy because they know that most Australians are opposed to it.
      They changed the Howard goverments successful border protection policies to satisfy their own morally supremacist party activists. They didn’t say much about this before the last election, and they don’t want to bring attention to their failed policies now, especially in an election year.

    • Henry Akroyd says:

      11:22am | 25/03/10

      How about these people show some guts and national pride and try and fix up their own basket case countries?  We are expected to take on the queue jumpers ‘culture’ etc when there are from inherently backward and failed states.

      How about the UN helps these nations set up proper government etc?  Just moving to where there is more welfare is not helping a thing.  It’s just sweeping the problems under the carpet.

      The old Colonial days were much much better than what is happening now.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:26pm | 25/03/10

      No one expects you to change your culture Henry.  If you had any guts, or national or cultural pride, you would have no problem (like most of us) in practicing your own culture despite the existence of different cultural practices.  Is anyone coming to your house telling you not to eat meat and three veg at dinner time?

      And in the old colonial days, the English said the same things about Irish migrants.  There is always a scapegoat for supremacists and racists - just over time the goalposts have shifted.

    • Martin G says:

      01:44pm | 25/03/10

      @James1

      You tell that to hard-line Muslims trying to push their Sharia Law on Australians and Europeans.

      You make it sound so simple, that we can all just get along. The real world has never worked that way. In fact, your idealism comes of as just plain naive.

    • James1 says:

      01:49pm | 25/03/10

      They are a fringe minority.  Like the hard-line Christians trying to push biblical law on regular Australians, Europeans, and Americans.  Your black and white view of the world is what is naive, my friend.

    • Martin G says:

      02:56pm | 25/03/10

      Yes, those nasty hard-line Christians have been blowing up all the non-believers based on their faith, haven’t they?

      Apples and Oranges, mate.

    • Henry Akroyd says:

      02:58pm | 25/03/10

      James1 you are a goose.

      Most of the African people would take their colonial governments back if they could.  In those days there was actually net migration to these colonies from Europeans!

      What the hell are you talking about the Irish for?  Did I mention England?  I’m talking about colonies you fool.  Read some history before you smear others with your bigoted PC hate.

    • James1 says:

      03:34pm | 25/03/10

      I have two words which demolish any longing for colonialism.  Belgian Congo.  Look that up.

      MartinG, I do believe that shooting doctors counts.

    • Greg says:

      05:01pm | 25/03/10

      Our culture is already under attack. The Republican agenda is intended to destroy links to British heritage, and our flag has been attacked for the same reason. Our legal system has been compromised by demands for Sharia Law. Santa Claus is not allowed in Kindergartens anymore. It is politically incorrect to say “Merry Christmas”, with “Happy Holidays” now being the authorised replacement.

      Councils have even been criticised for providing ham sandwiches at meetings, given the potential to upset Muslims and Jews.

      Non-European culture is always described as “enriching, vibrant, diverse and multi-cultural”, while European culture is “contaminating, vanilla, pale and stale”.

      All this is “justified” on the basis that we have allowed our country to become invaded and overrun with incompatible foreign cultures, which dilute and will eventually destroy Australian culture if Australians do not protect it.

      Borders define a country, and competant border protection defends the nation, its culture and its identity.

      As for the Belgian Congo, it is just another example of a failed multi-cultural nation.

    • Timmo says:

      05:33am | 26/03/10

      Hey Henry, It’s so easy to make statements such as you have mentioned here as,” fixing up your own basket case countries.” Well you do have a point, but the people seeking asylum don’t have a voice. They have in many cases become victims of Cultural and Race hatreds even in their own traditional lands. They fear for their lives and that of their kids as well. Maybe if we put ourselves in their situation we would jump on a boat as well and escape persecution, but in doing so I don’t think that being persecuted by us was included in the plan. The refugees come here because they see our people having freedoms that they don’t have and freedoms that they would like for themselves and it is their right as is ours to have freedom and peace.

      But as soon as they get here they are treated by some of the populace as scum of the earth, bludgers etc as is obviously the aussie way. They want to live in the land of a fair go, mateship, where we never kick someone when the’re down, where they can embibe the good qualities that we express ourselves proudly to the world as having. Have a look at the photo that was put above on the caption of this article and you will see a young child and a Mother. Don’t you think that they could do with a fair go. After all, that could be our grandchild or child there looking for support. I think that we should give them a home and a good life and that will make them greater and us as well. How miserable do we have to be not to give a young child a chance to have some freedom and happiness.

    • James1 says:

      08:46am | 26/03/10

      I guess the solution is to stop Jews and Muslims coming to Australia then Greg.  Is that what you mean to say?  If not, please elaborate.

    • Greg says:

      10:42am | 26/03/10

      James1, I mean to say the words that I wrote, and not the ones that you try to put into my mouth.

      The solution is to ensure that Australia regains control of her borders and immigration criteria, so that immigrants are selected by us to benefit the country, and not to benefit self-selected, culturally incompatible, welfare-seeking parasites who have no regard for our laws and customs.

      It also requires the abolition of the failed multicultural doctrine, so that all migrants accept and assimilate into Australian culture. If they don’t want to accept Australian culture, then they should remain in their existing country where they can continue to practise their existing culture without compromising ours.

      So if any potential migrant has issues with Australians eating ham sandwiches or wishing each other “Merry Christmas”, then yes, they should be stopped from migrating to Australia.

    • James1 says:

      02:56pm | 26/03/10

      Greg,
      In other words, if their culture and religion happens to be Jewish, they should not be allowed in.  Interesting.

    • Greg says:

      06:45pm | 26/03/10

      James1, so you are suggesting that all Jews have issues with Australians eating ham sandwiches or wishing each other “Merry Christmas”. I would not have expected that. Your opinion seems to be a bit anti-Semitic, doesn’t it? Interesting.

    • Greg says:

      12:13pm | 25/03/10

      Th UN Refugee Convention was written in 1951 and expanded in 1967. It is completely out of date with the current situation.

      Furthermore, Australian voters have never been asked if they endorse this convention, which is why most of us feel no obligation to honour it.

      The justification for a democracy is that the governed give their consent to their elected government. Nobody ever gets to vote for a UN representative, yet we are expected to obey all their decrees.

      If you really want to test Australia’s support for the refugee convention, then support a referendum on the issue, but since we all know what the result would be, I won’t be holding my breath for this.

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      12:24pm | 25/03/10

      Greg, I agree totally, but our so called democratic leaders would rather eat bowl of *!*# then give us any say on this issue.

    • biff says:

      12:29pm | 25/03/10

      Why exactly do those who are granted a visa have to be flown to the mainland? Why can’t they live on Christmas Island? We are forced to find our way onto overcrowded trains, buses and roads and we are seeing more cluster dwellings being erected. If we have to live cheek by jowl it should be good enough for those on Christmas Island to life the same lifestyle.

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      12:55pm | 25/03/10

      The issue isn’t that we’re taking in too many refugees, because it seems we’re still taking in a sustainable number for now.  The problem is that this government seems hell bent on turning over our entire intake to people smugglers, and that’s just an unacceptable and irresponsible way to manage our refugee intake for so many reasons.  Remember back when the world’s intense media attention was on big bad John Howard and his TPV laws and tough stance on immigration, and boat arrivals pretty much stopped in their tracks? And then we had a change of government, Rudd didn’t back up his words with action, got rid of TPV’s, and the number of boat arrivals grew exponentially, undoing all the hard work done previously.  Rudd could have just kept the status quo and wouldn’t even have to look like the ‘bad guy’ in the eyes of the worlds bleeding hearts and we’d still be taking in just as many refugees without also contributing to the people smugglers trade.  I tell you what, there’s not much difference in the total amount of refugees we’re taking in under each government but I know who at least did it responsibly.

      Reply

    • Carnegie says:

      01:21pm | 25/03/10

      Ben,
      Chris Evans admitted, in an answer to a question he received following a speech he made at Sydney Institute, that the number of maritime arrivals has reach a level where it is compromising the number of UNHCR referrals we can accept.
      I’ll paraphrase his statement “currently we take 13,000 refugees a year and clearly the number of maritime arrivals and the family reunion programme is reducing our ability to accept referrals from UNHCR camps.”

      Based on that statement it appears you are correct, the people smugglers are becoming an outsourced refugee selection agency!

    • Justan Oz says:

      01:14pm | 25/03/10

      This is a very divisive topic,but i would ask the people that think like Greg—-did your ancestors come by boat or by plane??

      Reply

    • Carnegie says:

      01:23pm | 25/03/10

      Justan OZ,

      The issue is not one of not accepting immigration; it is one of orderly process.
      As Minister Evans states, globally there are 40 million refugees seeking asylum/resettlement, so we simply cannot accept everyone. There has to be a sensible method of processing/selecting the refugees we accept as residents/citizens and currently the people smugglers are making a mockery of the system!

    • Greg says:

      05:22pm | 25/03/10

      My ancestors arrived in an uncivilised land, sparsely populated by disparate stone age tribes who had not even invented the wheel.

      They were not immigrants, they were pioneers. They created and built a nation where none had previously existed.

      There is absolutely no comparison with modern day welfare parasites who will weaken and eventually destroy the nation that my ancestors built.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      06:33pm | 25/03/10

      Yes but Carnegie, England sent out muderers, thieves and all sorts of criminals. Was that Ok. So should we only accept those who have been convicted of a crime?

    • Katie says:

      11:40pm | 25/03/10

      Greg, your ancestors arrived in a land where the ‘stone age tribes’ had lived in harmony with the environment for at least 40,000 years—longer than any other recorded society. Your ancestors ‘pioneered’ an unsustainable society based on farming and mining, one which ultimately cannot continue doing what it currently does if it wants to even see out the next few hundred years, let alone tens of thousands.

    • Greg says:

      10:58am | 26/03/10

      Katie, the fact that the stone-age tribes had managed to exist for 40,000 years without making any technological or social advancements is not particularly admirable. Nor is it admirable that so many non-achievers get so much pleasure from destroying the achievements of others.

      As for farming and mining, those activities have already been sustained for thousands of years, and have been responsible for major improvements in living standards. If you don’t agree, maybe you ought to get off the internet and go scavenging for nuts and berries. You might get lonely though, because everybody else (including the descendents of the more recent stone-age tribes) seems to enjoy the benefits of white man’s advancements.

    • Ben says:

      12:35pm | 27/03/10

      Katie, I can understand that some mining might be considered ‘unsustainable’ when you look at it only very locally, in the sense that any particular mine has an expected lifespan worked out before it’s started (and is certainly sustainable when you look at the big picture), but farming?  Really?

    • Martin G says:

      01:40pm | 25/03/10

      Time to stop pushing that barrow, Graham. Even the UN disagrees with the current Australian Government policy of letting them all in:

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/oceanic-viking-deal-will-encourage-other-queue-jumpers-un/story-e6frgczf-1225844978206

      Regarding your precious United Nations:
      “A high-ranking official aware of the February UNHCR meeting told The Australian yesterday the organisation had reviewed the decision in light of concerns over possible pull factors that might encourage further unregulated migration to Australia.

      “‘It was discussed whether this was a form of queue-jumping,’ the official said yesterday.”

      Reply

    • Adam MacLeod says:

      02:09pm | 25/03/10

      We should probably start by having a population policy in this country. 

      Does anybody really know how many people we should have, what age demographic we should target, which regions can support population growth and which regions are already over-populated.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      05:07pm | 25/03/10

      We won’t have a population policy debate, because the country is already over populated, as evidenced by the increasingly draconian water restictions that we are subjected to.

    • S.L says:

      06:35pm | 25/03/10

      Conservative shock jocks on Sydney talkback radio have been raving on about the increase in boats arriving since Labor came into office. I must agree we have to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. I worked with an English guy who came out here with a temporary work visa in the mid 80s. That’s when I met him. He liked Oz so much he applied to stay through the proper chanels. Over 10 years later he was arrested at home by the immigration guys and thrown into Villawood until his boss (the same one he worked with since arriving here) got his legal guys to get him out and sort out all the mess. After it was all over he was granted a permanent residents visa. Even the immigration guy said the only people who get the particular visa he got were Asian! Then to make matters worse he met a Korean lady on a work trip to NZ and had to jump through more hoops to marry her and get her out to Australia!
      Are we over populated? I think so but we have to tread a fine line. If we only allow in one or two nationalities we will cop the racist tag.
      I grew up in Bankstown, no racial troubles there!

      Reply

    • colleen says:

      08:03pm | 25/03/10

      How would we Australians feel if the boot was on the other foot and we were trying to escape desparate situations and find assylum in safe stable countries _I hope that day never comes for us -our lack of generosity now would make it very difficult for us to be confident of support from any other country

      Reply

    • Carnegie says:

      09:09am | 26/03/10

      Colleen,

      Given that there are 40 million people in the unfortunate circumstances you describe, how generous would you like Australia to be?

      You might feel all warm and fuzzy making a motherhood statement about how ungenerous some Australians are but in the real world the debate has to be out numbers and process! Unless you are willing to accept all 40 million asylum seekers!

    • Captain Col says:

      11:15pm | 25/03/10

      All the talk of whether our problem is greater or smaller than other countries simply ignores the fact that we are an island and harder to get to easily.  You can’t walk here and sea journeys are reasonably long.  So we can control our borders more effectively than others.  We can and we should exercise strict control over boat arrivals whether they are refugees or not.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      10:12am | 26/03/10

      When these boats arrive in our waters they and the people on board become the responsibility of our government. If they are genuine refugees they should be allowed to stay, it not sent back and I think this is the policy which is applied with these cases. There is a movement of people in the world at the moment and it is their world as well as ours. They have a right to a life. It doesn’t matter where people come from, many of the people from asia are gentle people and do add something to our culture after settling and then there are some who don’t. I don’t know what we should do to do the right thing but turning people back out into the ocean on rickerty boats is not a very human thing to do. Where can they go, is there anywhere for them. We must follow this with some compassion otherwise we will just lose our humanness that we claim loudly that we have. We will have to decide at sometime whether we have human compassion or not. With the way the nature is going at the moment, earthquakes, volcanoes erupting, ocean warming and rising we may oneday find ourselves on the wrong end of the stick as well. If the nature re adjusts itself in this world and this will happen suddenly we may all have cause to look for some refuge ourselves at some time. Let’s hope that if that happens, and its happened before, that some country will lend us a helping hand if we are in dire straits, not reject us because of colour, race or creed. It is not a good way to go.!

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      09:23pm | 28/03/10

      Timmo, I don’t know how you can bear to even communicate with us lessor mortals who do not meet your exalted ethical standards.

      Could it be that it is really all about you, and your need to engage in competitive altruism and exhibit your sanctimonious moral supremacism? Isn’t there any other way that can enable you to feel good about yourself?

      It is people like you who put skirts on table legs in Victorian times, in order to conspicuously display their holier-than-thou self-righteousness. It’s all a bit pathetic really.

      There are plenty of compassionate Australians, who support properly targetted foreign aid programs and emergency foreign relief initiatives, yet still have enough intelligence to know when others attempt to take advantage of their compassion and rip them off.

      I know of some less-than-reputable gypsy children who frequent European tourist destinations who would be eager to meet you, and test your compassion.

    • BobM says:

      10:42am | 26/03/10

      True,  Australia has a tiny number of ‘asylum seekers’ - but we sure have boatloads of county-shopping illegal immigrants.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      02:11pm | 26/03/10

      If people are not genuine then the Government sends them home and if genuine they are allowed to stay and settle. The Government has to give them housing and financial support as we all know it costs a fair bit of money to set up a family in Australia and many of them have not had a home for some time. Australia is quite an expensive country to live and exist in as we know ourselves. We have plenty of money to share and help displaced peoples. Australia prides itself on its charity to others and is one of the main countries where charity is practiced in daily life. Charity in Australia has saved many people from hardship and it is a good thing for us to persue. I don’t mind my few small dollars going there at all.

      Reply

    • henry says:

      04:12pm | 26/03/10

      Small number of asylum seekers.

      Huge number of illegal, queue jumping crims on boats.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      08:17am | 28/03/10

      Why don’t we stop telling people how great it is here and how wonderful we are. Then they may stop coming here. We tell the world that we are the greatest in the world. No other country is as great as ours, no other country can do anything as well as we can. We are so wonderfully compassionate to all and do come over anytime and we will skim a few of those dollars off you, because that’s what we are really about. Around the world everywhere you will hear that old fave chanted, you know the one, Ozzy, Ozzy, Ozzy, oi, oi, oi.

      Now on the other hand we could tell them the truth. Lovely country, the land mass that is, nice beaches and ocean, countryside, most people good, racism running well, ruled over by corruption, lies and cheaters. Policed by very well established corrupted stasi and a legal system that supports the more financially favoured. You won’t get any rights here because we don’t have a bill of rights for our people. You won’t be able to take a Piss unless you feed a meter somewhere. But, if you are on a boat and are white and are for example, escaping from Robert Mugabes Regime to find a new home, then, we will send out a Naval Escort to bring you in, and,” welcome white people, welcome will be the cry”. Those evil people trying to kill our wonderful white people, how dare they!!. An example of how wonderful we are towards whites here, there was a man some years ago from the old England who rolled his Boat in the Southern ocean while on a round the world race to big note himself, and guess what, we sent down half the navy to save him, only cost us a squillion to do so but he was white and English, but if he had a suntan as all of you do then guess what, we wouldn’t have bothered. And guess what!?, he didn’t even have to pay any of the money back, and we never bothered chasing that boat person debt up because he was one of us. And good for him, he even sold the story and cashed up on it for himself, nor how’s that.

      Now the best way for you all is, if you have a good suntan go the the pacific islands as they have many suntanned people there and that would be probably better for you and you’ll probably get a fair go. Then after a few years and becoming citizens of their countries then you will get a passport and be able to enter Australia on a Work Visa and she’ll be right mate. Food for thought anyway. And it won’t cost you a squillion to do it and you’ll probably get a better welcome. Gee, I already know that I will get a good battering over this blog. And I’m ready, cause I’m a real White Aussie, yes I am, so I am the greatest, not my fault, the told me so.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      08:55pm | 28/03/10

      Timmo, I think that you might need a cup of tea, a bex, and a nice lie down until you feel better.

      As for white Zimbabweans, I have never seen a single example of one accepted as a refugee in Australia, despite the fact that Mugabe openly admits that he is persecuting them because of their race.

      On the contrary, I remember the case of a white woman who did apply for refugee status, after most of her family had been murdered and / or raped in Zimbabwe, and her claim was rejected. The government said that her family were only victims of crime, not persecution. It was a decision from Minister Ruddock, from the allegedly evil white racist Howard government too.

      For some strange reason, there was no protest or outrage from any of our refugee advocates or human rights activists over that case.

      Of course, they could never be racist against white people could they?

      I challenge you to post any evidence to prove that a single white Zimbabwean has ever been accepted as a refugee in Australia.

      In fact, I am not aware of a single white person from any country that has arrived illegally on a boat and has been accepted as a refugee.

      This explains why you need to make up ficticious stories, or bring up irrelevant issues about rescuing people involved in boat races, who never applied for refugee status or asylum.

      Maybe you just need to ask yourself why you became a self-hating white person, and what made you the way that you are.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      07:53am | 29/03/10

      Well Greg, thanks for the reply. No, you are wrong. I am not a self hating white person as you implied. If you go back and read what I put you will see that I was just making a point, not inferring anything negative about white zimbabweins. I was writing to say, ‘What if it was that way”, not that it had happened. And I am not happy that anyones family whether white or other were murdered by some regime. It’s easy to read things into things, but we have to read between the lines. And you will not a bit of humour there as well. Many people will agree with me on this and some will disagree and that is their right. I have suntanned people in my family and also white but I know that when Asians and other races come into australia even by plane they are usually not treated well by customs, they are treated many times in a suspicious way, they even have a special queue for them and my family have been victimised also by them. But on the other hand the white people go through relatively unscathed. There is a difference in how people are treated, I know from first hand experience. So there!. However I can see the point you made and accept that. No, sorry, you’ve got it wrong re me there. Anyway I’ll go now and have my Bex and a good lie down as you suggested and wish you a good day.

    • Greg says:

      12:31pm | 29/03/10

      Well Timmo, I hope that I am wrong about you being a self-hating white person, but judging from your posts you do seem to exhibiting many of the symptoms of this endemic disease, so you might need to think again.

      You definitely were making negative inferences about white Australians in your first post, and have continued to do so in your most recent post. The ability to read between the lines is not required.

      You may have some personal anecdotes which, given your mindset, you have interpreted as white racism at customs control. But in my first-hand experience, certainly at Melbourne and Sydney international airports, half of the customs and immigrations people are non-white, and they can be just as unfriendly towards white people.

      I suspect that being suspicious of travellers is just part of the job.

      If non-white people are unfriendly towards you, do you automatically suspect them of being racist, or is that prejudice something that you only apply to white people?

      Do you have any statistical rather than anecdotal evidence that “Asians and other races” are not well treated by Australian customs? If not, how do you “know” that they are?

      I can also guarantee you that there is no “special queue” at immigration or customs for “Asians and other races”. Everybody goes through the same queues, even though other countries do have separate queues for their own citizens of all races who hold passports of that particular country (or region in the case of the EU).
      In all likelihood Timmo, you have succumbed to the pervasive white guilt programming that is continuously broadcast by Big Media, as well as most of our government, educational and religious institutions. This makes you feel bad, and you need to find ways of restoring some self-esteem.

      But you don’t get self-esteem by denigrating other white people, despite the fact that a lot of people try.

    • rohan says:

      06:01pm | 29/03/10

      Greg,

      You are just showing your ignorance by challenging to show any evidence of white Zimbabwean refugees….

      You obviously dont know that the so called white farmers owned 90% of the best land while holding the passport of a small island up north. This is why it is ridiculous to even think that there is any sort of prosecution. They have made enough money for two or three generations. So your challenge does not prove anything.

      Perhaps you should be challenged to find any of those farmers with only Zimbabwean nationality.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      11:57pm | 01/04/10

      Rohan,

      So you couldn’t find a single example of a white Zimbabwean refugee, could you? Are you upset that you spent so many hours searching for something that is an urban myth?

      What exactly is a “so-called” white farmer? Is is a black one? Is that how you reached your 90% figure, or did you just make that up?

      You might also like to define what “best land” is. Is it the most agriculturally productive? Because if it once was, it isn’t anymore. I wonder why that is?

      “Any sort of prosecution (sic)”??? Are you displaying even more ignorance? Did you mean persecution? And did you happen to miss all of the video evidence of white farmers being terrorised by racist mobs? Were you too bust weaving baskets to watch the news for 2 or 3 years?

      Are you also too ignorant to know that Zimbabwean money is not worth anything? If so, then I have some 100 trillion dollar Zimbabwean banknotes that I would like to sell to you.

      As for finding any farmers with only Zimbabwean nationality, that’s easy. ALL of them. Zimbabwe outlawed dual nationality in 1985. But you didn’t know that either, did you?

    • acotrel says:

      06:52pm | 29/03/10

      The Howard governments border protection policies were nothing of which to be proud.  The ‘Pacific solution’ was the equivalent of giving needy people a good kicking when they arrived here, in the hope that they’d send a message back to their country of origin!  The Rudd government seems to have some compassion, it is acting with propriety.  Even if there are difficulties the answer is better, and doesn’t bring Australia into disrepute!  The Liberal party would just love Rudd to stuff up, and copy their miserable approach

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:02pm | 29/03/10

      Who are those people the muslims call ‘crusaders’?

      Reply

    • Tara says:

      02:37pm | 03/04/10

      I would really like to set a few things straight here: Australia is not being “swamped” by asylum seekers.  Last year Australia actually took less than average numbers of asylum seekers compared to previous years and global intakes. The amount of asylum seekers we receive by boat is insignificant compared to the number of people who over-stay their visa in Australia each year, particularly those on travelling visas, the majority of whom are English-speaking tourists (estimated at around 50,000 of them stay in Australia without the proper documentation each year).

      Australia has signed the Refugee Convention, and therefore it is not illegal to seek asylum. Terms like “illegal immigrant” and “queue jumper” are simply designed to make asylum seekers seem alien and unworthy of sympathy. They are just nasty catch phrases to appeal to the uneducated. The Government’s changes to the policy regarding asylum seekers has had minimal impact on the number of people arriving. Check the figures. The number of people seeking asylum is directly related to global conflict.

      The statements about asylum seekers being some kind of a ‘burden’ on tax payers is simply not true. Previous claims in the media about asylum seekers costing tax payers $628 million were found to be completely unsubstantiated (Centrelink). There is no data to support this. Only 3% of Centrelink clients are asylum seekers. Immigration currently provides 60% of our population growth, but within the next few years it will be the only source of net labour force growth in Australia (The Department for Immigration and Citizenship).

      Have a bit of compassion for these people - the majority of them face persecution, imprisonment or harm in their home countries and have no other option. There is evidence that between 90-98% of “boat-people” are genuine asylum seekers. The Government isn’t just ‘opening the flood gates’. Asylum seekers have to prove their need for asylum before they are granted a visa. I can back up all of the claims I have made here with sources. I am very sure that you cannot back up any of your untenable statements to the contrary.

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      01:46am | 07/04/10

      So Tara, when all else fails you just resort to lots of outright lies.

      Every claim you have made is completely incorrect. The number of illegal aliens has risen dramatically since the Rudd government watered doen the border protection laws, despite the fact that there has been no increase in global conflicts over the same period. Check your figures.

      You haven’t even bothered to read any of the other posts have you?

      Have you even bothered to read the article itself, which cannot deny the increase in illegal aliens, so it has to try to argue that the absolute numbers are relatively low compared to a few other other selected countries?

      Comparing illegal aliens with visa-overstayers is not relevant, because the vast majority of visa overstayers do not apply for asylum,

      The term “asylum seeker” has been designed to generate sympathy for illegal aliens. It is just a nasty catch phrases to appeal to the uneducated and dim-witted.

      Not even the most radical refugee advocates have attempted to argue that refugees are not a financial burden on the Australian taxpayer! You have lost any credibility you ever may have had. If 3% of all Centrelink clients are refugees, then that is an enormous proportion.

      It is the percentage of refugees that are welfare dependants that is the relevant statistic, not the percentage of welfare dependant people that are refugees.

      I don’t know why I even bothered to type this much of a response to your nonsense. Maybe you should try to understand something about a topic before you post again.

    • Antonios Symeonakis says:

      11:44am | 07/04/10

      Reading the comments I fount that :
      1. There is confusion between refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants. We do not speak for illegal migrants,  we speak only for refugees and asylum seekers.
      At begin there are two basics questions about refugees and asylum seekers.
      a. Do we give priority to asylum seekers or to refugees from the UN run refugee camps? What really means if we give priority to refugees and underestimate the asylum seekers in conjunction with our international obligations and their urgent needs? If we bring in Australia refugees from UN refugee camps and ignore asylum seekers then we violate the international law for refugees and we put in high risk the health and lives of asylum seekers, especially for their children. It is the asylum seekers who are in argent need and not the refugees from UN camps.
      b. Is it easy to separate the asylum seekers from illegal migrants and what we will do with asylum seekers   until to be sure they are genuine asylum seekers ?  How many of Asylum seekers are genuine ?  For how long we can keep them in detention centers, what is the cost for asylum seekers, especially for the children and our society from living for long time in detention centers? We know from statistics that more than 90% of asylum seekers are genuine and there are studies about the cost, the mental cost on asylum seekers of cause the detention centers, especially on the children. If we know that they are genuine asylum seekers and soon or later we will give them visa to stay in Australia then why we create so many problems to them with high cost not only on them but on the whole Australian society? 
      Let’s see   the number of refugees in various countries and what it means.
      There are countries with huge land, huge natural resources and countries with very small land with very little natural resources, there are countries   developed and other countries undeveloped , there are countries with strong economies and other very weak, there are countries which need many working hands and other countries with high unemployment, there are countries which import hundreds of thousands of migrants every year, as Australia, number one or two on the world,  and other countries which export migrants,  there are countries which have no relation with refugees or asylum seekers and other countries which have some kind of relations with them and these relations could not be ignored without cost, there are many other factors we should consider when we speak for the number of refuges in a country.
      Australia is a large country with huge natural resources, Australia is a developed country with strong economy and less problems from the international financial crisis, Australia needs more hands and import thousands of migrants every year, Australia has special relations with all countries as it is migrant’s country, a country from people of all countries of the world and rejection or bad behave on asylum seekers and refugees has a bad impact on relations between Australians.
      I know there is a small number of White Australians who do not like to understand the Australian reality, who do not like to accept that the synthesis of Australian population does not allow us to follow policies of the past.
      We should use our brain when we speak for refugees, we should not forget that we are co responsible with American and Britons for the number of Iraqi refugees as we created them with an illegal war . I remind you the lies against Iraq.
      Antonis Symeonakis
      Adelaide.

      Reply

    • Henry says:

      02:02pm | 07/04/10

      “Australia is a large country with huge natural resources…”

      Totally incorrect.  Most of the land is uninhabitable and we are the driest continent on Earth with major water problems in almost every major settlement in the nation.  There is no way we can sustain a much larger population.

      Other nations with much greater fertility and water need to get their acts in order.  If Australia was run by Africans etc we would be a 3rd world dust bowl.

      Its all about accountability of national leaders who cannot provide stability for their people in much more naturally hospitable lands than ours.

    • Shania says:

      05:00pm | 17/08/10

      Well I’m doing an assignment on Asylum Seekers and very interesting facts.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 24 May 12 08:08AM

@christoforpaine sorry! Actually thought I already was... Weird?

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 24 May 12 08:08AM

@dreshubby you wont know until you try!

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 24 May 12 08:06AM

Carbon tax?RT @danielsutton10: Terrifying number: Hewlett-Packard cutting 27,000 jobs worldwide to save $3 billion. #tennews#tenbreakfast

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 24 May 12 07:58AM

@IanHanke That was indeed him.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

by Helen Marston

19

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Lying on a cold table in an unfamiliar place and undergoing a core biopsy was probably one of the most…

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

by Kate Southam

14

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

Red alert, ladies. Making jokes about your ability at work is not funny particularly at board level.…

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

by Tory Shepherd

13

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Punishing the baddies is only fun in the movies. In real life it’s messy, expensive, and fraught…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed