Both sides courting disaster over asylum seeker policy

marley says:

07:20am | 05/09/11

I’ve never seen any evidence that the TPVs were successful.  Numbers kept climbing for several years after they were introduced.  It was only when Howard introduced the Pacific Solution that the numbers went down.  And I believe it was the general perception that Rudd was going to go softly. softly on asylum seekers, rather than the elimination of TPVs,  that reinvorgated the smugglers.

Personally, I think TPVs aren’t much of a deterrent.  I think a much higher refusal rate on asylum claims would be.

gobsmack says:

07:51am | 05/09/11

The problem with the Nauru solution - both as applied by Howard and as proposed by Abbott - is that processing is conducted by Australia and that those processed end up in Australia.  In other words, the refugees have been successful in choosing for themselves their country of destination.
Whatever its initial success (certainly its previous introduction correlated with a decline in boat numbers), I think the smugglers could still sell the idea of a boat trip to Australia if the refugees are reasonably certain they will end up in Australia, even if they have to wait a year or so on a tropical island being waited upon by the good people of Nauru.

acotrel says:

08:16am | 05/09/11

@Erick
‘It seems the Opposition would be willing to support changes to immigration law that would immunise the Nauru sol,ution from a High Court challenge. If Gillard has any guts she’ll bite the bullet and take that option’

You have got to be joking, the Pacific solution was a national diisgrace, and Howard should be tried for his abuse of vulnerable peoples’ basic human rights, when he even denied the asylum seekers access to the courts.
It’s not rocket science to find a win-win solution to our current problem.  All we have to do is find a likely candidate amongst the thousands of rural towns needing development around Australia, and repeat what we did at Bonegilla in the fifties.  If all support services were only available through the chosen town to identified asylum seekers, the newcomers could have complete freedom to come and go as they please.  It would provide the incentive to stay in a rural centre and build their lives.  If the only work they ever had was in building the community, it wouldn’t be all bad.
Your approach to handling the asylum seeker problem is exactly the same as giving them a good kicking on arrival, and waiting for the word to get around overseas !

persephone says:

08:32am | 05/09/11

The evidence is that TPVs actually saw more boats set out for Australia and the payload on these boats were women and children.

This is because TPVs ruled out family reunions. The only way your family could join you in Australia was to set off by boat. And hundreds did.

This is why, when the SIEV X went down, the majority of those who drowned were women or children.

That TPVs were ineffective was recognised by the Howard government itself, who intended to abolish them.

marley says:

08:47am | 05/09/11

@actorel - you criticise Howard for violating the rights of asylum seekers, yet you propose to force refugees into regional centers with no access to social support or employment outside that center.  That’s a violation of the fundamental right of any legal resident to freedom of movement, not to mention a violation of our obligations under the Convention.

Danielle says:

08:53am | 05/09/11

@Erick. While I respect your opinion, the preoccupation with ‘stopping the boats’ is entirely misguided; while there is conflict and oppression in the world, asylum seekers will exist.The push factors forcing people to flee their country of origin should be given more political weight. I had a meeting with a refugee earlier in the year who succinctly phrased the precise point, he said that ‘asylum seekers do not take out a map of the world, look at where they think might be a nice place to live, hop on a boat and get there… personally, my priority was to get out of my country where my life was in danger’.
Asylum seekers end up on Australia’s borders because Australia is party to the Refugee Convention and Protocol (the only other country in the region that offers full protection is Cambodia), which is supposed to mean their right to seek asylum will be protected.

Considering push factors does not necessarily mean pushing for a bleeding heart perspective designed to sway voters by appealing to their emotions. No, it is about looking at the practical realities of the asylum seeker situation beyond our national issues.

By judging immigration policy ‘success’ on how many boat arrivals there were at any given time is fundamentally misguided. Lack of boat arrivals means we are celebrating the fact that thousands of Australia- bound asylum seekers are stuck in countries where their rights are not respected, and where there is the risk they will be returned to their country of origin.

Rob G says:

08:58am | 05/09/11

What about sending back the “economic refugees” and “queue jumpers”?
Now that would be guaranteed to work!

Jon says:

09:03am | 05/09/11

acotrel @ “You have got to be joking, the Pacific solution was a national diisgrace” Who are the other nations that you speak of who have been upset by the policy?

acotrel says:

09:22am | 05/09/11

@marley
It’s not about forcing anyone to do anything.  It’s making them an offer they cannot refuse.  You know, like when an employer is negotiating an Australian Workplace Agreement with a worker,  under WorkChoices legislation !

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

09:26am | 05/09/11

The numbers, shamozzles and shocking results of a dreamy government policy change that opened a trickle of “assylum seekers” is proof that softening border protection is a really dumb idea DERRR.
Commence mainland processing, then watch the flood, it will make what’s happening now look like a stroll in the park by comparison.

Dash says:

09:27am | 05/09/11

acotrel - but it’s fine to announce the East Timor Solution on the eve of the last election when it never even existed?

It’s fine to sign Australian taxpayers up to a $200m bill to relocate 4,000 people the Malaysians choose to send to Australia?

It’s OK to tell everyone the UN treaty is fundamental, then sign this agreement with a country that is not a signatory and flogs asylum seekers.

The ALP are a pack of incompetent hypocrites!

Someone needs to turn the lights on Alan, because you and the ALP just don’t get it.

acotrel says:

09:28am | 05/09/11

@Jon
When Americans visit Europe they usually go around in groups for fear of being bashed.  Would you like Australians to be regarded the same way ?  When we go there we are actually popular.  Our cynical treatment of asylum seekers could change that !

Simon says:

09:31am | 05/09/11

@Eric

TPVs were not successful at all. The number of asylum seekers only increased after their introduction.

Abbott’s disingenuous hypocrisy is made plain by his refusal to support amendments which would make the Malaysian option valid. He’s still happy to play politics. Australia should treat his games with the contempt they deserve and just get on with onshore processing.

Mark says:

09:33am | 05/09/11

@jon

Australia

max headroom says:

09:36am | 05/09/11

@actorel and of Course Malcolm you of the left are a disgrace all we hear is silence from the left wing media about the dissapearance of a boat that left Indonesia in Novermber 2010 and all are presumed dead as nothing has been heard by thier relations since. have you ever seen that reported on the front page of the Age. Anything and everything that has worked in the past should be re tried as their were 4 asylum seekers being held when Labor took office and to their eternal shame possibly 200 or more have died at sea since Rudd changed a policy that was working.

RyaN says:

09:37am | 05/09/11

@persephone: I call Julia Gillard on this assertion “The evidence is that TPVs actually saw more boats set out for Australia and the payload on these boats were women and children.” please do post the research paper that proves this.

Ted says:

09:58am | 05/09/11

Rob G, I would send all these queue jumping economic refugees back and in doing so, ID them so we can permanently refuse them access to this country.

PsychoHyena says:

10:02am | 05/09/11

The best solution is to introduce measures and increase Immigration staff so that applications for refugee status can be processed quickly, this means less people in detention centres and those sent back would be unable to afford another trip in a leaky boat.

Couple this with those seeking refugee status being able to seek official passage from Malaysia or Indonesia where the price is low or non-existant and you will remove the business from the people smugglers.

If it was also allowed for refugees to seek assistance in leaving the country from “liberating” military forces then this would also remove a lot of the problems.

Everyone is thinking along the lines of “Don’t even let them in the country” rather than “Get them into the country before the people smugglers get involved”.

Peter says:

10:27am | 05/09/11

Danielle, when this ‘refugee’ you met with said “personally, my priority was to get out of my country where my life was in danger’. ” did you ask why he/she then left Indonesia (or whatever third country he/she passed through before setting sail for Australia) and his/her life was no longer in danger?

Jon says:

10:36am | 05/09/11

I was in Europe recently and they are more worried about being bashed by asylum seekers than bashing Americans.

Danielle says:

11:23am | 05/09/11

@Peter. The refugee in question had arrived directly in Australia by plane, as the majority of asylum seekers do. The individual was granted asylum some years ago and has Australian citizenship. The point I was trying to make was that the circumstances that force people to flee are important and largely not discussed within politics.

In response to your particular comment, I had also mentioned the fact that not all country’s offer refugee protection. If you follow the link below to the UNHCR document that outlines all state parties to the Convention and Protocol, you will see that Indonesia does not appear on that list. Asylum seekers in Indonesia are not granted the right to even seek asylum, let alone receive it. Indonesia is not bound by international or domestic law and asylum seekers run the major risk of being sent back to their country of origin to face persecution. Australia has chosen to sign the Convention and Protocol, and as such should be required to meet the basic obligations afforded towards asylum seekers.

http://www.unhcrrlo.org/BasicFacts/Docs/States parties to the Convention&Protocol;.pdf

Peter says:

11:59am | 05/09/11

Danielle, I accept that Indonsesia is not a signatoriy to the UN refugee convention but to state people cannot claim asylum in Indonesia is crap. Their lives are not at risk there either.  While they may have been genuine refugees when they left their sh*t hole country of origin people who leave the relative safety of Indonsesia are country shopping economic refugees only.

Danielle says:

12:57pm | 05/09/11

@Peter.
Actually, to legally claim asylum in a country, that country needs to be party to the Convention. Individuals cannot claim asylum in Indonesia. So I’m not understanding the basis upon which you can describe that as ‘crap’.

Until an asylum seeker has been granted refugee status by a country that is party to the Convention, there is always the risk they will be returned to their country of origin. For example, an individual that is in a country that is not party to the Convention, such as Indonesia, that individual can be deemed in that country as an illegal immigrant. If a country does not recognise the right to asylum, they have the right to expel unlawful individuals from the country.

In response to your comment regarding the “country shopping economic migrants”, I would argue that if that were the case, those individuals would not be granted refugee status when they arrive in Australia. Given that the vast majority of asylum claims are granted, your argument has very little basis.

Yetanothertom says:

01:32pm | 05/09/11

@Peter, you say: “While they may have been genuine refugees when they left their sh*t hole country of origin people who leave the relative safety of Indonsesia are country shopping economic refugees only.”

It is disingenuous call anyone who is not in immediate danger of being killed an “economic refugee”. The UNHCR defines a refugee as someone who has a well founded fear of “persecution” who are without “freedoms” and “rights”. 

So refugees who are stuck in countries of first destination without “rights” or “freedoms” are entitled to seek asylum in a country that will provide them with freedoms and rights.

By your logic we should not accept any refugees from the UNHCR program.

Brian Taylor says:

01:45pm | 05/09/11

@PsychoHyena,....introduce measures and increase Immigration staff so that applications for refugee status can be processed quickly
tell me truthfully, if these so called refugee’s didn’t throw their ID’s away before landing in Aust to hide who they really are, just maybe things would be processed more quickly, am I right or not PychoHyena??

PTom says:

02:58pm | 05/09/11

Brian Taylor
What about those that never had any issued?

Perhaps they could show a power bill with their address you know the one right in the kitchen draw they did not have time to go home and grab or was it if they carried the ID in their country they would have been arrested on the spot.

I guess those thought never crossed your mind because Jones always tells you the truth.

Peter says:

03:31pm | 05/09/11

Danielle, There is a UNHCR office in Jakarta where people can claim asylum upon arriving in Indonesia that is why your statement that they can’t because Indonesia is not a signatory is crap.

Yetanothertom says:

05:02pm | 05/09/11

@Peter,

You are either deliberately or mistakenly misrepresenting what Daniel said. His point is that refugees cannot apply to stay in Indonesia, they have to apply to a signatory country.

Danielle says:

07:19pm | 05/09/11

@Peter
There are UNHCR offices in non- signatory states all over the world, this does not mean that they are offering asylum in that country.

Thank you, @yetanothertom, I’m glad my argument isn’t lost on everyone.

Peter says:

09:51pm | 05/09/11

I never said they had to request to be settled in Indonesia just that they could lodge their claims there and stay while they are processed. Asylum seekers do not get to specify which country they get resettled in. Of course they want to be settled in Australia, who wouldn’t.

A simple a way to break the people smugglers business model and also stop the country shoppers risking their lives in leaky boats is to change the UN convention so that no asylum seeker ever gets resettled in the country in which their claims are lodged.

acotrel says:

10:42pm | 05/09/11

@Max Headroom
You just don’t get it do you ?  I’m NOT on the left of politics.  I’m about inproving productivity through cooperation, not adversarialism and coercion ! It’s about time the LNP behaved responsibly.

Danielle says:

08:22am | 06/09/11

@Peter

Yes, I can certainly see how re- writing the very core concept of international refugee law as developed over a 60 year period rendering it entirely pointless is the simplest way.

This ‘breaking the business model’ rubbish is not the answer either… In recalling my original point, there should be more attention paid to the root causes of displacement rather than formulating strategies on how to best screw over one of the worlds most vulnerable populations.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, Peter!

James says:

07:54am | 05/09/11

“The way of the future is for the ALP and Coalition to work together and make the Greens irrelevant - not just on Asylum Seekers - on every issue of significance.”

Well that’s certainly one way to bleed more votes to the Greens.

acotrel says:

08:59am | 05/09/11

@SuperD
‘The way of the future is for the ALP and Coalition to work together and make the Greens irrelevant - not just on Asylum Seekers - on every issue of significance’

Offshore processing is out !  Get with the programme !
Why would any sensible person pander to someone as negative as Tony Abbott ?

Fred says:

10:04am | 05/09/11

Get with the programme yourself acotrel. Off shore processing is only out as long as the government is too spineless to correct the law to prevent vial parasitic lawyers from screwing with the security of our country by using the letter of the law to circumvent the spirit of the law.

acotrel says:

10:32am | 05/09/11

@Fred
If the abuse of aylum seekers rights issue isn’t resolved in Australian courts, it probably will be in the International Court of Justice !

Ryan says:

10:44am | 05/09/11

Thanks, Fred. A strong contender for Stupid Comment of the Year.

acotrel says:

11:14am | 05/09/11

@SuperD
The High Court’s decision is flawed.  The judgement said that the Pacific solution was ‘very different’ to the Malaysian option, and Abbott is trying to hang his hat on that !  There are no differences except that now asylum seekers have access to the courts !  If the offshore processing in non UNHCR signatory countries is illegal now under Australian law, it was when John Howard did it, and it would be if we went back to Nauru !  Abbott is simpy trying to scramble back with some dignity !

marley says:

11:29am | 05/09/11

@acotrel - didn’t do your homework again, eh acotrel? The International Court of Justice only has jurisdiction on cases between States.  The best it could do on asylum seekers would be to give an advisory opinion should the UNHCR request one - and that’s entirely unlikely.

marley says:

11:40am | 05/09/11

@acotrel - so the High Court’s decision is flawed.  Hmm.  Didn’t realize that amongst your other accomplishments you had more legal knowledge and judicial experience than Justice French and his colleagues.

Based on your comment that if the High Court says it’s illegal to ship asylum seekers to non-signatory countries, it would therefore be illegal to ship them to Nauru,  I have to wonder about that expertise, though.  First, because that’s not in fact what the High Court said, and second because Nauru has in fact signed the Convention.

acotrel says:

03:09pm | 05/09/11

@marley
Nauru might have signed the UNHCR convention, but it hadn’t when Howard was doing his dirty work!  It must be extremely important to see him vindicated, because Abbott is now crawling to the Labor party, and suggesting cooperation on a change of legislation.  Gillard has answered him.  In effect if he is suggesting a change which doesn’t only concentrate on his narrow interests, he’ll get a go !  So if it’s only all about vindicating John Howard’s cynicism, it’s not on !

marley says:

03:32pm | 05/09/11

@acotrel - umm, you said, “If the offshore processing in non UNHCR signatory countries is illegal now under Australian law, it was when John Howard did it, and it would be if we went back to Nauru !”

So, you’re saying that the Court ruled that offshore processing non signatory countries is illegal.  As I said,the court did not rule that offshore processing in non-signatory countries is illegal - it ruled that standards had to be met, and hadn’t been in the case of Malaysia. 

You then say that it was illegal when John Howard did it. The Court didn’t say that either, and it doesn’t necessarily follow.  The Court cannot rule retrospectively on whether Nauru did or did not meet its standards at the time.

And then you say it would be illegal if we went back to Nauru.  This is a non sequiter because if the court ruled as you think it did, your argument wouldn’t in any case apply to a signatory country like Nauru.

Were I you, I wouldn’t be hanging out my legal shingle just yet.

acotrel says:

09:32am | 05/09/11

@Thatmosis
‘The ALP has no choice but to accept Abott’s help or be seen by one and all as prisoners of the Greens’

The ALP would get more votes by combining with the Greens into one party ! Most people in Australia are christians with a social conscience !

Sam says:

10:32am | 05/09/11

Most Australians may be Christians with a social conscience, but they are not f*cking dumb enough to knowingly vote for a Bob Brown super party. We can already see what it looks like thanks to some traitorous independents. Financial and managerial incompetence rains supreme. Also the final proof of the collective failure is that only one member of this abortion has successfully managed to organise paid sex in a brothel ((allegedly) on poor workers money).

Chris L says:

11:51am | 05/09/11

They are not ciminals Thatmosis, any more than all Australians are racists. We are still signatories in the refugee convention and as long as we are we cannot outlaw any particular method of arrival.

We do, indeed, have citizens without housing or food, but we do have a social security safety net in place for those in need (at least, we still do for now) and it’s up to these individuals to apply for it.

acotrel says:

03:16pm | 05/09/11

@Sam
‘Financial and managerial incompetence rains supreme.’

Contrary to what Hockey,Truss and Joyce said last week, we are in a GFC with a Labor government, and our economy is globally exemplary.  Can you explain why you claim the government is incompetent , apart from your own warped ideologic reasons ? Tell us why ‘Gillard must go’  and be replaced by a negative power seeking idiot?

Ant says:

04:14pm | 05/09/11

No, The Greens stand for Onshore processing which is vastly less expensive, if people are not found to be genuine asylum seekers , they are repatriated - as is the case now, there is no need to be doing this in Nauru,Christmas Island, Malaysia or anywhere else.
There is no “flood of boats” more than 10 times as many asylum seekers arrive by aeroplane - and more people who arrive by boat are genuine asylum seekers. When will the numbskulls who yell and scream “stop the boats” come to realise that we are acting in contravention of UN convention?

Rick says:

04:39pm | 05/09/11

Yeh we wouldn’t want a mob of criminals coming to these’s shore’s ie. the first fleet

acotrel says:

08:19am | 05/09/11

Oh Anthony, STOP with the crocodile tears!  They don’t disguise your own racist phobias.

Wag the Dog says:

08:45am | 05/09/11

Fair question I’d have thought, acotrel. Why is it that the hard Left always seem to bring reasonable debate back to epithets of racism? Is it laziness, or the arrant paucity of their own arguments?

Anthony says:

09:20am | 05/09/11

Thanks for interpreting my motivations I knew some jerk would pull this one. I have no problem with onshore processing, hell I voted for Rudd because I disliked the Pacific solution. But the last Christmass Island tragedy shook me to the core and did challenge my beliefs. It seems to have had the same effect on Bowen as well.
The last thing I enjoy is some smart ass word smith telling me what my motivation is and calling me a racist to boot.
Let me interpret your thought process; if yo do not agree with me you are racist. Seems like a less involved synapse than most two year olds are capable of.

acotrel says:

09:34am | 05/09/11

@Wag the Dog
downwards envy is not a good look !

Ryan says:

09:37am | 05/09/11

@Anthony

Airplanes, provided they don’t crash into the ocean, or a bridge.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

09:49am | 05/09/11

Oh please acotrel - don’t you start accusing someone of racist phobias. Last week you said asylum seekers were the biggest problem in Australia because they all sat on welfare. But I suppose that that was self interest because you’re always bitching on about not getting enough of a pension from us taxpayers.

fml says:

10:10am | 05/09/11

Build a wall in the middle of the ocean.

Pudel says:

10:18am | 05/09/11

Anthony I agree, I had a friend at uni who was a refugee from VIetnam as a child, both her parents died in the journey over.  The boats are a very dangerous way to come to Australia.
Add to this, for every person who makes the journey another waits in a refugee camp somewhere else, for longer, and, we do not know who many of these people are, and they have the means to pay for their trip, at a much greater cost than entering the country via plane with a passport and seeking asylum on arrival.
I think a system where at least 1 in 100 die is flawed and needs to be stopped.

acotrel says:

10:21am | 05/09/11

@MadKat
When I made that remark, I was being facetious.  I have a friend who is into muslim bashing, and he’s always telling me I’m being deprived because the asylum seekers are getting all the money ! Downwards envy is the worst kind of bullshit !

acotrel says:

08:23am | 05/09/11

@Fiddler
As much as you might wish it, John Howard will neever be vindicated for his abuse of asylum seekers rights during the Pacific solution.  It was a national disgrace, and it is to the shame of all of us that he got the bum’s rush because of WorknoChoices, and not his cynical treatment of vulerable newcomers.

michael says:

08:53am | 05/09/11

JH has already been vindicated acotrel, Labor under both Rudd and Gillard have been absolute and complete failures. Every improvement that Labor insisted it could achieve and deliver have failed to come anywhere near the hype, pathetic.

Ignominious ineptitude.

acotrel says:

09:39am | 05/09/11

@michael
The only mistake that Labor has made on asylum seekers came through watching the polls and feeling the need to react to Abbott’s idiocy !

MadKat of Melbourne says:

09:52am | 05/09/11

acrotrel - don’t complain about JH - what has the new lot done that’s been any better - at least his plan wasn’t to send un-occupied children off the Malaysia with their track record of human right abuses -

acotrel says:

10:40am | 05/09/11

@MadKat
‘acrotrel - don’t complain about JH - what has the new lot done that’s been any better ‘

That’s exactly the problem.  Since Whitlam’s time the attitude towards asylum seekers has been one based a toxic border protection phobia.  It’s about time we saw some humane leadership,someone who can actually find win- win answers !! What we are getting now is absolute stupidity, and Abbott and Morrison are right there helping it happen. They are supposed to be christians, but they’ve never heard the parable of the loaves and the fishes !

Michael says:

10:43am | 05/09/11

acotrel,

East Timor, mistake or not?

Malaysian solution, mistake or not?

Julia expecting from a HCJudge what Australians expected from her sticking to your word, or at least being consistant, mistake or not?

Dumping Pacific solution, mistake or not?

Julia thinking her “knowledge” of law maent that the solution was a goer, mistake or not?

MadKat of Melbourne says:

10:54am | 05/09/11

acotrel - you said “What we are getting now is absolute stupidity, and Abbott and Morrison are right there helping it happen. “

You’re ignoring Labor in this debate and blaming it all on the Liberals - it was Labor’s policy to send them to Malaysia - that plan was an international disgrace yet you fail to mention it - it had nothing to do with the Liberals - are you saying that the Labor Party and its leaders are so weak that their policies are only reactions to Tony Abbott because he is so strong - if that is the case then the Labor Party shouldn’t be in office because they can’t govern properly -

Fiddler says:

11:22am | 05/09/11

@ acotrel, yes he has. He the world is not awaiting your blessing for it to occur. As for it being a national disgrace, I think it is a national disgrace that a boat in Indonesian waters towed back to an Indonesian port can be taken over by asylum seekers and be held morally hostage by those refusing to leave unless we cave into their demands despite their country no longer being considered in conflict. The lack of courage of the politicians to me is a national disgrace.
As for Labor making decisions based upon watching the polls, yes how dare they take our opinions into account in how they run the country. If they did so with a little more concern for our opinions and less pride about refusing to accept that the opposition has a better way of dealing with it this issue would have gone away ages ago and we could be concentrating on trouncing the carbon tax instead!!

John the Zombie says:

12:34pm | 05/09/11

acotrel I have worked with and met the ppl who look for the boat ppl. I can tell you without a doubt that under Howard policy the boats did go down in numbers to 1. Now you are about human rights. I am pretty sure if you are fleeing from a land where there are bombings and killings on a daily basis that by been asked to staff in a centre that has food, internet, free phone calls, clothes and you are also getting money from the govt while there it would be a sweet deal. I wonder how many of the ppl who live on the streets at night and struggle for food would not mind living in one of these centres.

If your friend is a racist then have you told him to his face, have you stated to him if he continuous with his actions you will no longer be with his friend.

I’ll tell you a bit about growing up. As I was growing up in WA my family had a very close friendship with a Muslim family. We would every Saturday go to their house and while the mothers would talk us kids, my brother and our two other friends would go down and play basketball and cricket together. Overtime our families went different ways as we moved from that area into a new suburb and the meeting became less and less. A few years later we again met and the family had changed. They had become more fundamental and had started taking a harder line. They would frown on other Muslim women who did not wear the Hijab (minimal), complain the govt did not respect Muslims, call for Muslim to have extra rights, the fact western women should cover up and many other things that they had never said before. Another thing was that they had moved from a suburb that was one of different communities to one that was serrated with Muslim only.

Also not during my schooling years (Yr. 4 - 12) my best friend was a Turkish Muslim who told me once that there is no part of the Koran that tells women they must cover up and it is a manmade thing. My friend also with his dad does not fast on Ramadan.

acotrel I have this one question for you as no one can answer me this. The most at risk community in Afghanistan must be a non-muslim community. In Afghanistan this is the Sikh community who are unable to practice their religion, send their children to school and live in constant fear of been killed by the Taliban. Now I as you this, why are these ppl not choosing to come to Australia as well? You would have to agree that they are at a higher risk then the majority religious community.

I wait you answer.

acotrel says:

03:31pm | 05/09/11

@John the Zombie
‘If your friend is a racist then have you told him to his face, have you stated to him if he continuous with his actions you will no longer be with his friend.’

Yes to the first, no to the second.  I recognise that he is suffering from depression, and I simply point out where his thinking leads !  If you take it to it’s ultimate conclusion we would have our own holocaust.  His rhetoric is all about how much muslims hate us, and how they shouldn’t be allowed into Australia.  They ARE here, and we have to learn to live with them.  I have only one issue with muslims, and it is about making public statements denouncing the western democracy that 100,000 servicemen died for in two world wars. When that happens, as it did one night on Q & A , the muslims should be told that our country will never be dictated to by mullahs. It is the one thing that we Australians will fight over more than anything else !

acotrel says:

03:39pm | 05/09/11

@John the Zombie
’ In Afghanistan this is the Sikh community who are unable to practice their religion, send their children to school and live in constant fear of been killed by the Taliban. Now I as you this, why are these ppl not choosing to come to Australia as well? ‘
Diem ran a catholic police state in South Vietnmam, and we supported him.  I don’t remember many buddhist monks or North Vietnamese fleeing the country and seeking asylum in Australia.

Yetanothertom says:

01:53pm | 05/09/11

@WDB - Politics is about nothing if not compromise. In a way that is the point, no one can every just have their own way, it guards against tyranny. It is certainly imperfect but as someone said (Churchill?) it is the least worst system.

acotrel says:

08:47am | 05/09/11

@ Angry Bullshit Artist
’ his inability to separate his journalism from his personal belief that the ALP is never solely to blame. ‘

What does Tony Abbott ever take responsibility for?  With the asylum seeker issue we’ve had the most begative toxic debate ever in our history.  Finding a win-win solution to the problem was never on the radar !

Bob says:

10:14am | 05/09/11

Stop trying to spin the issue of the ALP’s incompetence back to looking at Abbott. You are no different to the journalist ABA is referring to. Also we had a win-win solution where the economic refugees safety were protected from hazardous boat rides, had the means for applying for citizenship and our boards were upheld. Shame Rudd and Gillard destroyed the solution, creating an immediate avalanche of economic refugees, thus proving the pull factor theory beyond doubt (except to the wilfully ignorant and liars).

Keith Hammersmith says:

10:25am | 05/09/11

you really do look at the world with blinders on Acotrel.  Labor could kill kittens and you would still blame Abott.  Labor stuffed this up,  No one with any intellect doubts this,  see the polls.  My money is on Gillard getting the axe, and of course you will blame Abott for that.

John says:

10:49am | 05/09/11

@Keith

I think you’d find that if the Prime Minister got the axe, Tony Abbott would be the first one claiming it’s his fault.

Keith Hammersmith says:

11:59am | 05/09/11

I dont reckon she needs any help John,  and i sincerely do reckon she has a better chance of being full forward for the Bulldogs than contesting the next election

John says:

02:41pm | 05/09/11

@Keith

None of that would stop Tony Abbott being the first one claiming it’s his fault.

acotrel says:

08:55am | 05/09/11

@Adam Diver
‘Lastly, any info on why a similar high court challenge was never taken up against the pacific solution? Were there changes in the legislation or was everyone to busy protesting to mount a legal challenge? I honestly can’t see how its not an option now, but was fine under howard. ‘

Read Julian Burnside’s book titled ‘Watching Brief’.  The fight for the human rights of the asylum seekers have been going on for years.  Last year the High Court gave them access to the courts, which proved John Howard was acting criminally when he locked then up on Nauru and denied them the rights which every person has in liberal democracies under the rule of law !  His actions constituted ‘false imprisonment’ !  Howard is a solicitor, you cannot claim he didn’t know what he was doing was ILLEGAL !

marley says:

09:14am | 05/09/11

Well, as they say, “once bitten, twice shy”.  I expect the public service lawyers are not game to risk another public humiliation if their advice goes wrong again.  Who can blame them?

As to the why this challenge was never mounted previously - I am going to hazard a bit of a guess here.  With the Malaysian deal, Australia was proposing to ship people who had reached Australian territory to a third country for processing. Opponents got an injunction to prevent that happening, and the issue went to the HIgh Court.  With Nauru, the only court challenge I know of was the one back in 2002, affecting the Tampa people, and it was based on different grounds.  By the time the Court got around to hearing the arguments, the Tampa people were already in Nauru, outside High Court jurisdiction, so the court refused to hear the case.  The subsequent Nauru cases mostly involved people who never reached Australian territory, so again, they weren’t in the jurisdiction of Australian courts.  So, the Court was not asked to address this specific issue back then.  Had it been, who knows how it would have ruled.

Dave says:

10:19am | 05/09/11

Ahh, the continual dribble of the paid Labor blogger acotrel, blah, blah, blah, not dillard fault, blah, blah, Abbott bad, blah, blah, blah, more ALP/Green BS, blah, blah.

acotrel says:

10:47am | 05/09/11

@Dave
‘paid Labor blogger acotrel’

I wish ! I do it as a public service.  Some things are worth doing simply because they are good things to do !  At least I get you guys to get your heads out of your bums, and look around !

Adam Diver says:

11:50am | 05/09/11

@ acotrel, illegal and wrong are 2 different things.

Anyway why did they get access to the courts last year? What was the catalyst for that?

Tator says:

01:50pm | 05/09/11

Alcotrel,
answer this question, if a person who is not an australian citizen, and has never actually set foot in Australia’s migration zone, is denied access to an Australian Court, how is this denying their human rights, considering that prior to setting out on their journey, they did not have the right to access the Australian High Court You cannot that you are denying someone a right when that right previously did not exist.  Especially when they are not in the courts jurisdiction and never had been.
The majority of those detained in Nauru were picked up at sea and did not set foot into Australia’s migration zone prior to being diverted to Nauru.  So Alcotrel, if this was illegal, what Act of law designates this as a criminal act???
The big difference with the High Court decision to give those on Christmas Island access is that they are actually detained on Australian territory, even though it is not currently part of the Australian Migration zone.

acotrel says:

03:46pm | 05/09/11

@Tator
‘answer this question, if a person who is not an australian citizen, and has never actually set foot in Australia’s migration zone, is denied access to an Australian Court, how is this denying their human rights’

The High Court decision was handed down last year stating that they have the same rights as any Australian citizen to access the courts.  Howard knew very well he was being cynical !  Don’t waste your time trying to lionise him ! He’s a nasty little religous prick ! - Fred Nile on steroids ?

Tator says:

05:54pm | 05/09/11

Alcotrel,
having read the High Court Decision, it is clear that they are only referring to those detainees on Christmas Island which is still Australian territory even though it is no longer part of Australia’s migration zone, no mention or inference of Nauru is made. 
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2010/41.html

Michael says:

09:50am | 05/09/11

They don’t vote themselves into power nossy, we the public are the bottom of the barrel and we hold our representatives up high for all the world to see.

nossy says:

11:27am | 05/09/11

@Michael spot on Michael - yes you have nailed it in one - shame on us!

Chris L says:

01:36pm | 05/09/11

To be fair, Michael, voters are left with a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. Personally I try to put my preferences toward smaller parties leaving the majors to come last, but a lot of people just don’t know there are such options.

Yetanothertom says:

01:59pm | 05/09/11

Unfortunately currently we are faced with two leaders making policy by polling. So I guess they are a reflection of us.  :(

That is a bit sad.

fairsfair says:

09:45am | 05/09/11

I agree. That was really difficult to read.

Simonious says:

04:31pm | 05/09/11

But that fact of the matter is, and the labor supporters here keep reminding us, is that Julia Gillard is our Prime Minister and until there is a change of government this problem lies with them to fix and not Tony Abbott.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

05:39am | 07/09/11

The high court cannot and did not rewrite anything.  We have laws and obligations that cannot and must not be waved away on the whim of one minister.

That boys and girls is tyranny and Kelly is flat out wrong.

nossy says:

02:11pm | 05/09/11

Dash of course is a Liberal Party Member , something he “forgets” to state on a regular basis - just go to the Libs website to see what Dash “thinks”  hahahahahhaaaaaaaa Your funny Dash!Say do you receive “Tonys Morning Thoughts” in your inbox?  hahaahahahha

Yetanothertom says:

02:13pm | 05/09/11

Hey Dash, Actually I’m on the get up mailing list and I can tell you they ran very hard against the “Malaysian Solution.” Just saying.

Dash says:

03:25pm | 05/09/11

@nossy - I am not a member of the Liberal party at all nossy. I am not a member of any political party. Please retract your statement.

Libby says:

03:08pm | 05/09/11

I agree that we send them back,if they want to come let them do it through the front door legally instead of jumping the queue & comming through the back door illegally.What happens if they keep comming in droves & take over here what are we going to do?

fml says:

10:15am | 05/09/11

How the hell is it blackmail when we signed up for it!!!???

Jon says:

10:28am | 05/09/11

Yes, its time for a new convention as this one completely out of date with the current situation. Not more dictates from the unelected UN.

fml says:

10:58am | 05/09/11

Actually, i have never asked this, what do you want to change in the convention? and how is it different to what we already do?

Tator says:

02:40pm | 05/09/11

FML,
a few issues for you to chew over

The problem with the Convention is that it was designed in and for a different era. A number of resultant specific problems in its implementation in today’s very different world have been identified by academics and researchers:

the Convention definition of refugee is outdated, as is its notion of exile as a solution to refugee problems

it confers no right of assistance on refugees unless and until they reach a signatory country, it imposes no obligation on countries not to persecute or expel their citizens, and it imposes no requirement for burden sharing between states

the asylum channel is providing an avenue for irregular migration and is linked with people smuggling and criminality

the Convention takes no account of the impact (political, financial, social) of large numbers of asylum seekers on receiving countries

there is inequity of outcomes between ‘camp’ and ‘Convention’ refugees. Priority is given to those present, on the basis of their mobility, rather than to those with the greatest need

there is a gross disparity between what Western countries spend on processing and supporting asylum seekers, and what they contribute to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the world refugee effort

asylum seekers do not elicit public sympathy in the way that ‘obvious’ (as seen on television) refugees do

the Convention has fostered simplistic and unfortunate characterisations of asylum seekers as either political and thus ‘genuine’ and deserving, or economic and thus ‘abusive’ and undeserving.

All this was from a report done in 2000 prior to all the issues with the Pacific Solution and current issues.  I believe that
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm

This report states that
“The 1951 Refugee Convention is a product of the Cold War environment, and it reflects both European experience of Nazi war-time persecutions and Western political interests as these were perceived at the time”

“Since 1980, refugee movements have been more likely to be the result of civil wars, ethnic and communal conflicts and generalised violence, or natural disasters or famine-usually in combinations-than individually targeted persecution by an oppressive regime. The world refugee and internally displaced population has risen dramatically following the end of the Cold War: from 10 million in 1985, to 35 million now according to USCR estimates, and 22 million according to the UNHCR. The plight and need of these people is obvious. However only a minority could demonstrate a personal ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ on a Convention ground. “

So basically we are dealing with a 60 year old convention that was last updated 43 years ago with the 1967 protocols.  Considering that the convention was written in the ashes of WW2 and was aimed at people escaping the totalitarian states of the Iron Curtain and has not changed with the context of modern refugees and does not reflect refugee realities.
This is because the majority of refugees nowadays are not in the form of individual persecution by an oppressive regime, but refugee movements have been more likely to be the result of civil wars, ethnic and communal conflicts and generalised violence, or natural disasters.  So in other words, designed to get persecuted individuals to safety and not to relocate people escaping enmasse from a civil war.

The report also offers a solution in a modernised convention:
“It is unlikely that many governments would sign up to the 1951 Refugee Convention today. It is also fairly obvious what a refugee regime designed for the 21st century would comprise. It would redefine the notion of refugee to encompass contemporary displacements. It would formalise commitment to and strengthen the world response (which has far exceeded the non-refoulement obligations of the Convention) that has developed over the last 20 years to refugee situations, namely emergency assistance in safe havens, temporary protection, repatriation, local integration and resettlement. It would focus on groups, not individuals, and on the provision of humanitarian assistance rather than on definition of the quality of persecution. It would hold countries responsible and accountable for displacements and impose sanctions as well as provide support for reconstruction and reintegration. It would guarantee rights for displaced persons and direct resources to where they are most needed. It would oblige states to contribute and particularly to assist countries of first asylum, while allowing for flexibility of approach to different situations and from different countries. (Canada and Australia might resettle refugees while Japan might contribute more in direct funds.)”

fml says:

04:10pm | 05/09/11

Tator,

The answer to all your statements is that the UN refugee charter was written, and hence is still not out of date because it is based on protecting the basic human rights of refugees. Not the pocket of the countries accepting them.

The monetary issues you suggest is causing a problem for the countries accepting refugees is not an issue for the UN, it is an issue for that country.

We have signed it and are party to its conventions, it is not out of date, you just want to withdraw from it to save your back pocket.

“the Convention definition of refugee is outdated, as is its notion of exile as a solution to refugee problems” That is the basis of being a refugee. If exile is not the answer, you are obviously inferring that they stay. That is unacceptable. If you are not saying that they stay, what are you suggesting they do while they their country is in turmoil, via internal or international conflict or persecution? The current method is the best solution, leave to save your life, anyone would do they same thing, how can you expect them to stay and most likely die, while you twiddle your thumbs and thumb your nose to them in comfort?

“it confers no right of assistance on refugees unless and until they reach a signatory country, it imposes no obligation on countries not to persecute or expel their citizens,”

The first sentence yes, if you dont sign you get no assistance, so what?
Its because its written for refugees, to give people basic human rights, which i would like to think most people would believe is a universal right. Do you think differently?

“the asylum channel is providing an avenue for irregular migration and is linked with people smuggling and criminality” Where is your proof of criminality? its easier to gain the approval of the mob by calling them criminals, instead of what they are, which is refugees.

“there is a gross disparity between what Western countries spend on processing and supporting asylum seekers, and what they contribute to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the world refugee effort” Maybe in costs, but not in numbers, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan take in the largest numbers of refugees, the richer western countries take in considerably less numbers and whinge about it the loudest.

“asylum seekers do not elicit public sympathy in the way that ‘obvious’ (as seen on television) refugees do” Thats because you are led to believe that asylum seekers and refugees are different, they are not, they have the basic human right to flee persecution based on religious or political ideology, not just fleeing from war.

I think its perfectly suited. I think you just need to come out and say that you dont want to take in refugees at all.

I suggest if you outlined what you want out of this, you will find that australia is already doing what you want. Now can you please outline the changes that you want?

John Smythe says:

05:50pm | 05/09/11

fml….why you fail is so very simple. Like Mal Farr, you only see one side.

A true master of debate (no puns intended with that wording) is able to argue BOTH sides.

You keep arguing your argument though, cause I’m sure you like listening to it.

marley says:

08:05pm | 05/09/11

@fml - actually, the Convention does have serious problems, and I don’t think you entirely grasp what they are.

First point:  an Afghan sitting in a refugee village in Pakistan has NO meaningful rights under the Convention.  The UNHCR will do its best to protect him, support him, and intervene with the local government on his behalf, but the refugee has no legal right under the Convention to resettlement in Pakistan or anywhere else. 

That’s a huge problem.  We have hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who will never be able to return home, and the Convention provides no mechanism for them.

Second, the definition of refugee in the Convention is quite narrow.  It does not cover people fleeing poverty, natural disaster or civil war.  That’s why a lot of refugee advocates are asking for countries to adopt complementary provisions to cover people who do not meet the strict definition but are in refugee-like situations.  That would include people fleeing gender-related persecution, people who’ve simply been displaced by massive civil disorder, or by extreme economic distress. None of these are covered in the Convention. So, you’re under a bit of a misapprehension about who is actually protected by the Convention - it’s nowhere near as broad as you seem to believe.

Yes, countries like Pakistan take in large numbers of people - which donor countries like Australia pay for, by the way - but Pakistan doesn’t give them residence rights or any other rights.  The UNHCR has managed to persuade the Pakistanis to give these people temporary stay and work permits, but nothing beyond that.  That’s another issue.  The non-signatories basically wash their hands of the problem and leave it to the UNHCR, NGOs and donors to deal with.

Third, there’s a serious management issue with asylum seekers skipping through signatory countries to get to their country of choice.  The Convention requires that asylum seekers apply at the first country that is a signatory. That doesn’t affect us much, because for a lot of people, we are the first signatory country.  But it does affect the Europeans and North Americans, who have people transiting genuine signatory countries to get to their country of choice.  That’s simple wrong, but hard to enforce, especially in the air age. 

And we also have the reality that people who have in fact obtained protection in one country then move on to seek asylum in another.  Eurotamils are a group that comes to mind, but they’re not unique.  The Convention doesn’t really deal with that particular problem (and yes, to forestall you, it is a very significant problem).

The Convention was written for a time when people walked or drove across one border, not for a time when they could fly across a dozen countries and an ocean, get protection in one country, then move on to another.

It was also written in a time when things like gender discrimination, forced female circumcision, on-going civil war, and natural disaster, simply weren’t thought of as refugee issues. 

So, what I’m saying is that, whether you’re a left winger or a right winger, the Convention is outdated.  And precisely because both the left and the right have issues with it, no one’s game to reopen it and try to modernize it.

As for people smuggling, asylum seekers aren’t part of any organized criminal conspiracy - but many of the smugglers are.  That’s why the UN also has a Convention on Transnational Organized Crime which includes a pair of Protocols on people trafficking and people smuggling.  Oh yes there’s criminality involved, big time, in all of this.

The reality is, the Convention doesn’t meet the situation of today, but no one is going to open it up for negotiation because if it is opened up, it will die.  So we deal with a document written for a different age.

john Smythe says:

08:49pm | 05/09/11

Now that both Tator and Marley have done your work for you, as is typical of your expectation on these forums, what do you have to say fml?

At the very least, I hope “thank you” to them is forthcoming.

DB says:

10:37am | 05/09/11

Some people will sell their soul for money. ALP staffers have now integrity, much like their red headed welsh git of a leader.

acotrel says:

05:53pm | 05/09/11

@Brian Taylor
There is not much to like about Tony Abbott !

@ Adam Diver
http://consciencevote.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/high-court-win-for-asylum-seekers/

The most disgraceful era in our history !

SD says:

10:24am | 05/09/11

Yofussen, setting up tent towns won’t work, they burn to easily and the UN and Greens expect us to build 5-Star holiday resorts for them, but look at the centres the UN run and you would call a tent town a 20-Star resort.

fml says:

10:56am | 05/09/11

I agree, i feel the same around white people.
I feel unsafe around them, with all their burglaries, terrible driving, irrational fears and one hit deaths. I say ban them too. This isn’t a racist rant but i just fear white people, i mean i have never been in trouble with the law, i pay my taxes, i just dont see why i keep having to see white people on the news breaking the law, if they cant live by our laws they shouldnt come here. I mean i am sure there are some nice ones around somewhere i just dont feel safe with all these white people around.

Sick of this says:

11:51am | 05/09/11

@onlooker. I agree. Islamic immigration should be an incredible cause for concern to each and every Australian and to our government.

Out of control lefty political correctness has clouded us all. Where will the left brigade and the GetUp idiots be, when we start seeing significant population % within this culture, inside of Australia who will then have the clout to demand the new changes and laws that they want, in order to continue their mad-hat religion and culture here in Australia???

Islamic Immigration is the scariest section of this whole mess and we’re too busy worrying about processing them offshore or onshore.

Simple. Strictly reduce Islamic Immigration numbers and any refugee who rocks up without papers can go back to one of the several countries that they travelled through in order to get to Australia to begin with. If we cannot identify them immediately upon arrival, then they should wander on back to the ‘oh-so-wonderful’ UN camps dotted around the countries in strife that they are leaving until such times that they can provide us with full proof of identity, for Australia to then make the decision, at our leisure - as to whether these are individuals who are a good fit for our nation..

John the Zombie says:

01:15pm | 05/09/11

Fml lets looks at your fears.

Burglaries - Increase in all communities and most if it done by indigenous ppl. Want to talk more let’s examine the attacks on Indian students. There is a part that the newspapers and even the govt forgot to mention. In Melbourne many of these robberies were done by Sudanese ppl. In Sydney the robberies were done by Licenses Muslims. Maybe you should chat to some of the students and they will tell you this as well. (Note I am Indian so this is from the ppl I talk to)

Terrible driving - Increase in high powered cars by all youth not just white youth.

One hit deaths - Just like the recent attack at the Ivy were the young man was punched in the groin. Wonder what religion the bouncer is from. Shall we go back to before the Cronulla riots and look at the attacks that were occurring on life guards or shall we look at the one that resulted in young life saver been put in a coma. Shall I send you a link to news article of a Muslim gang in Adelaide attacking another gang member with a weapon in a Myer store?

I like your line the white ppl are always on TV. Most the cases that are reported on TV are ones in regards to new worthy story. Maybe you should go and sit at the court and see the number and should this also then also be based on a population percentage. I can make you a bet that the number of non-white ppl and the number of white ppl in courts you will find that the non-whites is the larger amount based on the population.

I have a fear of mass Muslim immigration but mine is based on what I have been told and read by my friends in the UK who are Sikhs. I have been told about youth who are offered 5000 pounds for every Hindu and Sikhs girl they convert, I have read about how many have used tactics such as changing their names via deed poll to Sikh names, wearing turbans and growing beards to trick Sikh girls into marrying them then telling them after they are Muslim (before you say a thing about the Koran. This is actually allowed in it.), using date rape drugs to drug girls and take them home and sleep with them, after the girls pictures are taken and then they are threatened to convert or the pictures will be released in the community (Hindu and Sikh), kidnapping of girls and intimidation of girls and boys of both Hindu and Sikh faith at universities and high schools and attacks on Sikhs youth. In the last case a young boy was attacked and had his hair that he had grown since he was young cut by a Muslim youth. This also happened in Malaysia where a youth was doing his National Service and while asleep his hair was cut.

http://forum.powweb.com/archive/index.php/t-25304.html

Even recently in the riots Sikhs and Muslims worked together to protect Southall. This was a surprise to many as both groups never get on well. When this occurred as I joined a Facebook group called Sikhs stood watching over mosques while Muslims were praying thinking hey things must be changing for the better and was a site talking about unity and all. Within 24 hrs. of this page been created complaints started coming in the threads about Muslim men spamming Sikh and Hindu girls who joined the site stating “you look nice want to go out”, “i like you pic and would like to meet you” and etc etc. Allot of the girls on this site complained about this.

My last question to you FML is this? Do you know who Balbir Singh Sodhi is?

If you are unsure here it is. He was the first person killed after 9/11 as a revenge attack and he was a Sikh. Many Muslims like to point out how badly 9/114 has affected them but they forget to mention that the Sikh community around the world has been affected as well. Did you know Sikh men are required to remove their turbans at Europe airports, temples in Australia have been attacked with pigs heads thrown on the grounds and fire been set. In WA it was lucky an off duty officer saw a fire been lit that he was able to call the fire brigade and put it out yet do you hear the Sikh community on every channel complaining about this.

fml says:

04:27pm | 05/09/11

Sick of this,

“Simple. Strictly reduce Islamic Immigration numbers and any refugee who rocks up without papers can go back to one of the several countries that they travelled through in order to get to Australia to begin with.” Wasnt this just declared illegal by the High court of Australia?

Zombie,

Its funny when people have irrational fears and justify those fears by focusing on just one group isnt it?

So what has your rant proven?? That crimes are committed by all races and that they should all be thrown out of the country? or, that we have an australian law which is equal for all and people who break the law go to jail irrespective of nationality or creed?

You conveniently didnt include any crimes by whites? can i add a bit of balance? Why is onlooker only mentions being afraid of muslim immigration when you clearly state that people of all nationalities break the law? Is that rational? If it is, my purposeful depiction of the nationality i chose to be afraid of is perfectly valid. I understand onlooker said it is ONLY their view, but i think its an irrational thought process, that can be applied with equal ease to any nationality, and that they chose muslims for some underlying reasoning which i am not privy too.

Not that it matters btw, but i am Caucasian.

Anna C says:

11:56am | 05/09/11

“Process asylum seekers here FFS. It’s the right, honourable and humane thing to do.”

CJ, I’m interested in hearing what you think the government should do if processing asylum seekers here led to a flood of asylum seekers arriving here by boat? Humour me here but what would you do if hundreds of asylum seekers starting arriving here each week like in Lampedusa in Italy? Would this scenario be okay with you? How about the associated costs of detaining them and providing them with legal aid, welfare benefits, housing etc? Still fine with you?

Knemon says:

01:03pm | 05/09/11

Well said CJ, I fully agree with your sentiments. Anna C has proved your point - selfish xenophobic rednecks abound.

CJ says:

01:13pm | 05/09/11

Sure, I’ll humour you Anna ....
What would I “do if hundreds of asylum seekers starting (sic) arriving here each week like in Lampedusa in Italy?”
Errr, help them, just like we’ve promised we will. And you realise, don’t you Anna, that boat arrivals - the truly desperate refugees - account for about 5 per cent of asylum seeker arrivals in Australia every year? So, we already get the numbers you seem so fearful of.
“Would this scenario be okay with you?”
Yep, and it already is.
“How about the associated costs of detaining them and providing them with legal aid, welfare benefits, housing etc? Still fine with you?”
Yep. We’ve signed international conventions that rightly demand this of us. Would you prefer to live in an Australia that doesn’t believe in the fair and humane treatment of refugees? As for these costs you seem to fear, you realise shipping these poor people off to Bird Shit Island while we process them is the more expensive option?
Now, humour me Anna, why are you so frightened of helping your fellow human beings in their time of greatest need?

fml says:

01:17pm | 05/09/11

Yep fine by me, use my taxes i dont mind one bit.

marley says:

02:41pm | 05/09/11

@CJ - minor cavil - boat arrivals these days account for about half our asylum seekers, not 5%.  That’s an old figure.

Anna C says:

03:00pm | 05/09/11

“Now, humour me Anna, why are you so frightened of helping your fellow human beings in their time of greatest need?”

CJ, believe it or not I actually do this for a living every single day unlike some of you who are all talk and no action. I work for a charity which helps families in need. 

What exactly do you do CJ to help your fellow human beings in their time of greatest need? Nothing ... apart from posting useless comments on this website. I’m sure the asylum seekers are really grateful for all your efforts typing.

Anna C says:

03:26pm | 05/09/11

“Now, humour me Anna, why are you so frightened of helping your fellow human beings in their time of greatest need?”

CJ, believe it or not I actually do this for a living every single day unlike some of you who are all talk and no action. I work for a charity which helps families in need. 

What exactly do you do CJ to help your fellow human beings in their time of greatest need? Nothing I’m sure apart from posting useless comments on this website. I’m sure the asylum seekers are really grateful for all your efforts typing.

CJ says:

09:56am | 06/09/11

I note you didn’t answer my questions, Anna (I answered yours, eh?), and opted to attack me personally instead.
And I’m a paramedic ...

Anna C says:

12:37pm | 05/09/11

“I thought Australia was supposed to be a Christian nation with a belief in a fair go.”

Mick,

Point number 1: Australia is a secular country nation with Christian/Judeo roots but that’s besides the point. It won’t stay ‘Christian’ very long if we do what you suggest and allow on-site processing of asylum seekers and open the flood gates to all the those Muslim asylum seekers.

Point number 2: Your point about Australia being a nation of a ‘fair go.’ Sorry but I think you got the words ‘fair go” and ‘becoming a doormat’ mixed up. It has been reported countless times that 80% of asylum seekers remain unemployed and living on welfare even after 5 years of arriving here. If this is your interpretation of a ‘fair go’ for asylum seekers then we (the taxpayers) are screwed?

egg says:

01:36pm | 05/09/11

@anna c, i don’t come across many people gullible enough to believe the scare mongering that goes on regarding muslim immigrants, so thanks for showing me it’s still alive and well.

firstly, i’d gladly cut all ties with this christian past you refer to, if it gets religion out of the argument. because at this stage, that’s a pointless argument and has nothing to do with people seeking asylum.

the point you make about 80% of asylum seekers still being on government assistance after 5 years is correct, if you completely disregard the part about “welfare” and “unemployment”... you see, the assistance they are receiving after 5 years are things like childcare payments, you know, like anyone who lives in australia is entitled to.

this isn’t an “us vs them” argument, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. the more you make it about fear, religion and politics, the less point there is to any arguments made.

TomZ says:

01:56pm | 05/09/11

egg “i don’t come across many people gullible enough to believe the scare mongering that goes on regarding muslim immigrants, so thanks for showing me it’s still alive and well.”

Try Denmark and Holland. You should get out more.

I don’t come across many people who are too stupid to worry about the issue, so thanks for showing me that ignorant pollyannas dancing around the maypole still believe they have some moral ascendancy on the debate.

Anna C says:

02:27pm | 05/09/11

Okay Egg, firstly I do love stirring you guys and thanks for biting. I’m a little bored with my work at the moment.  Getting you bleeding hearts all hot under the collar helps pass the time.

Secondly the welfare benefits that I am talking about are income support payments such as the unemployment benefit, pensions etc. They are not income supplement payments such as childcare assistance and Family Tax Benefits. There is a difference. 

Personally I have nothing against refugees (including Muslim ones) and would welcome them with open arms provided that they intend to work and pay taxes just like everyone else and don’t expect us to introduce laws specifically for them i.e. Sharia Law. I would gladly support an increase in refugee numbers provided that they agreed to take to either study/work or take part in infrastructure building projects as suggested by Haggis.   

I’m well aware that the numbers of asylum seekers arriving here by boat are small when compared to other countries like Italy, France etc but I don’t think you guys are helping your cause by discounting the genuine fears that some hold within our community about having porous borders. As an island we have always been concerned about the prospect of invasion by sea, whether it is by China, Indonesia or boat people is besides the point. People want to see our borders protected.

Knemon says:

02:40pm | 05/09/11

@ Anna C – “I’m a little bored with my work at the moment” – Oh you poor thing, life is so hard sometimes!

If you had seen for yourself what these people have been through then your attitude may be different (I have). I would much prefer an asylum seeker from any country for a neighbour than having someone of your ilk living next door to me. I would even welcome them to live with me until their applications were processed, therefore by-passing mandatory detention, sadly the current law doesn’t allow for such needed compassion. If Australians were less selfish and showed slightly more empathy for their fellow beings then the better off we would all be, in spirituality and emotionally.

The ALP & LNP have much to answer for; their immigration policies are a disgrace and an embarrassment for our country. I never thought I would feel ashamed to call myself an Australian but on this issue I do.

Anna C says:

03:33pm | 05/09/11

“I would much prefer an asylum seeker from any country for a neighbour than having someone of your ilk living next door to me.”

That’s not a problem Knemon, because I very much doubt you can afford to live in my area anyway. So you problably are much more likely to have an asylum seeker living next to you.

I know that if I had a choice between living next to me (a dedicated charity worker who helps families in need) or a free loading asylum seeker who lives off the welfare teat, I know which one I would choose. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Anna C says:

03:43pm | 05/09/11

“I would even welcome them (asylum seekers) to live with me until their applications were processed, therefore by-passing mandatory detention, sadly the current law doesn’t allow for such needed compassion.”

How convenient for you Knemon that they don’t allow this. Why don’t you lobby your local MP so that you and all the other misguided bleeding hearts can open their homes to aslyum seekers and take the burden off taxpayers? Put your money where your mouth is.

Yetanothertom says:

06:22pm | 05/09/11

@ Anna_ C,

So when your board of your charity work, you like to get your kicks by scaremongering about refugees? Noice…

If you can actually link to the figures you are talking about I will be very surprised.

PS: If you are board at work solitaire is a much less destructive time waster than right wing punditry.

Knemon says:

07:39pm | 05/09/11

@ Anna C - I’ve sent numerous emails to my local member (ALP) regarding their immigration policies and shock horror I’m yet to receive a response.

Is your work for charity voluntary or are you paid? If the former then I apologise for my comments - If the latter then you should be spending more time helping the needy and less time trolling on The Punch annoying so called bleeding hearts!

Anna C says:

01:02pm | 05/09/11

This sounds good to me Haggis. I’m concerned that we are becoming a laughing stock and being seen as a soft touch by some of these asylum seekers. I want people coming to this country who intend on making a positive contribution by studying/working and paying taxes, not sitting on their arses and claiming welfare benefits. Christ we have enough of our own home-grown welfare bludgers so do we really need to import anymore?

Your proposal would enable these asylum seekers to demonstrate to us that they are contributing positively to our society just like the post WW2 refugees did with the old Snowy Mountains Scheme.

John the Zombie says:

01:39pm | 05/09/11

haggis I call on NS for all people just like Singapore. Youth in Singapore an not poorer for it so why not here.

Anna C says:

02:34pm | 05/09/11

Joe, the reason why the Labor Party is running an open borders policy is because they know that come the next elction most of these new migrants will be voting for them as a sign of their gratitude for letting them in.

fml says:

02:48pm | 05/09/11

But they are not running a de facto open border policy.

australia and new zealand have an open border agreement, but not with anyone else, how can you in good conscious claim something to be true, which obviously isnt?

neil says:

03:13pm | 05/09/11

fml, do you know what de facto means?

marley says:

03:40pm | 05/09/11

@neil - well, whether fml knows the meaning of “de facto” or not, I know the meaning.  And if I can’t tell my friends and relatives in Canada to just pick up stakes and move to Australia without bothering with the niceties of immigration visas, then we do not have open borders, de facto or de jure.

fml says:

04:14pm | 05/09/11

My mistake, was concentrating on something else at the time.

But as marley said, there is no open door policy.

Ant says:

04:44pm | 05/09/11

Anna C, are you serious? 10K extra people is going to swing the vote? get real. And its not an open border policy, the same checking is done for people arriving from all sources.

AdamC says:

05:15pm | 05/09/11

Do we actually have figures on how many boatpeople have been repatriated since 2008? Unless boatpeople are actually sent home, claims that we aren’t running an ‘open door’ policy seem a little intellectually sneaky.

Mike says:

10:46pm | 05/09/11

I have no argument against women or children, but why the hell are we fighting a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and our troops from UK, USA, Australia are dying, when there are fit, young men who are coming here for asylum ?! 

If they want to be considered for asylum, go back and fight for your own bloody country !  If they want “freedom” and an end to tyranny, go and fight with the rebels against your own leaders instead of expecting someone else to do the dirty work.

When Ghurkas cannot get UK residency but illegal immigrants can in the UK, there is something very wrong with that system.  (take a look at Justice4Ghurkas.org)

If you want asylum as a man (18-35), you should first prove that you fought for your country or an allied power.  Women and kids, I got no problems with, but men - do military service or community service (Peace Corps) and then get considered.  Fight alongside our people who are dying to liberate your own bloody country.  Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for it, like Kennedy said.

These queue jumpers make me sick, especially when I had to fight for five years to even get considered for PR (which is not even citizenship) and prove that as a migrant from the UK, I had something to offer this country.  They just rock up and get citizenship !

marley says:

07:06pm | 06/09/11

Marilyn is in fact the best friend the anti-asylum seeker lobby has.  Her vitriol, aggression and very imperfect understanding of the issues combine to alienate moderate people.  She pushes people into the other camp.  And that’s a shame.  There are plenty of valid discussions that could take place on this issue - and her interjections prevent that happening.  Pity, really.