Cold-hearted approach to asylum seekers

Brad of Bentleigh says:

07:03am | 20/12/10

Dead right, Eric. Another lazy moralistic piece that copy & pastes comments from the web to demonstrate how nasty we all are.

Blame on the Gillard- Rudd government is inescapable.

Adam Diver says:

07:22am | 20/12/10

Again I fully agree with you Eric. One point I would like to add, is the attack conservatives recieve, “cold-hearted”, “crocodile tears” and “lack compassion”.

The problem is, even if this was the case, there is not tangible benefit of compassion for these people, it is just an emotion, nor will they be scouring opinion sites reading such comments.

So let the debate continue, read the comments from the Tin-Men and ask yourself one simple question “Does our heartless approach save lives and help the same number of people?”

Super D says:

08:12am | 20/12/10

I wonder if SIEV 221 which was smashed on the rocks at Christmas island under a Labor Government will generate as many “fan sites” as SIEV 10 or SIEVX did when it sank in international waters while Howard was in power.

I think its also worth noting that the boat hat exploded on Ashmore reef in April 2009 was SIEV 36 indicating that since this time there have been almost 200 more boats.

With that much more unseaworthy traffic it can hardly be surprising to anyone that not everyone makes it.  In supporting the right of maratime arrivals to claim asylum there is implied acceptance that not everyone will make it. 

The only differences between SIEV 221 and all the other sinkings is that there is TV footage which forces people who accept the right of maritime arrivals to claim asylum to also accept that this position involves people dying.

It’s not fair to blame opponents of unauthorise maritime arrivals for the fact that “progressive” types have not thought through the ramifications of their positions.

Just another reminder that the greatest enemy of most popular progressive causes are facts and logic.

KH says:

08:17am | 20/12/10

Brad - do the Labor party run people smuggling operations out of Indonesia now?  Wow - I must have missed that article…...where was it?

Brad of Bentleigh says:

08:23am | 20/12/10

KH, no, but the Labor party are the ones who softened the laws, which has encouraged people to again, take to the seas in search of a better life. Given that even the UNHCR have now said that our detention centers are clogged with rejected asylum seekers, one can only conclude that people smugglers got their product back when Julia (who herself claimed credit for the changes back in 2007/2008) changed the laws to what they are today. She is at least, indirectly responsible, if not directly.

Ryan says:

09:16am | 20/12/10

100% agree, what these supposedly compassionate people fail to see is that there is someone without a wad of cash in his pocket somewhere int he world being pushed out of the queue by these queue jumpers. I guess these supposed “compassionate” people think that “out of sight, out of mind” is just fine by them.

Scot says:

10:39am | 20/12/10

So what is the Gillard Labor government has blood on its hands and doing about the four Indian boat snake head families in Malaysia that have made over US$97 Million dollars out of this tragedy and have cost the Australian tax payer $1.6B in 2010. Gillard has also given $600M to Indonesia to build Muslim schools and plant trees. These economic refugees have come through Malaysia to Indonesia and the Indonesians are living off these people that have gone to their deaths on Christmas Island. These people in Malaysia should be rounded up and charged with Murder. Yes we have all had enough of this, no other country in Asia will allow these people to enter or stay in their country and yet we are being played for fools and suckers. We have many in Australia living on the street and in poverty and waste over $2B on these economic refugees.

Scot says:

10:43am | 20/12/10

UNHCR regional representative Richard Towle said large numbers of people now coming through the asylum system in Australia were not refugees and ‘‘the challenge is how to find fair and humane and effective ways of allowing them to leave this country to go home’

Scot says:

10:44am | 20/12/10

This from Skynews:
“Other concerns were raised about food and air conditioning,’ he said.
‘It was a peaceful protest, the facility remained calm at all times. There was no damage, there was definitely no riot, there was no breakout as such, they simply came out and said their piece simply because the media were there.’
He said a power outage was responsible for the lack of air-conditioning on the tropical island, and their unhappiness at the discomfort was not surprising.”
How many Australians have the luxury of complaining about food and air conditioning, many of us cannot even afford it any more and our pensions are less than what these refugees get in Labor Government support of free hotels for six months. Many cannot afford a holiday or luxuries yet we waste $1.6B on refugees. What conditions did these economic refugees have in Indonesia before they came to Christmas Island. Unbelievable rubbish.

Scot says:

12:15pm | 20/12/10

In Sydney today the supporters of the economic refugees who are in the electorate of the Labor Minister responsible for immigration where demanding to know what had happened to all their relatives. These are the people that have blood on their hands as they have added and abetted the snake heads in Malaysian and Indonesia to short cut and support this illegal trade of trafficking. What is Gillard and the Minister going to do about this illegal trade from Australia.

acotrel says:

02:35pm | 20/12/10

A minute ago there was a slogan being bandied about -  ‘POPULATE OR PERISH!’  The theory being that if we didn’t populate Australia, other people would come and take Australia from us.  The Japanese had a go, how long before some other group has a try?  The world population growth is increasing the pressure on Australia to grow it’s cities.  What we are seeing now is just the beginning.

Fred says:

07:49am | 20/12/10

The simple fact is by international law, you are only an “Asylum Seeker” in the first country you step foot in after leaving your own. After that you are an “Economic Refugee”. BUT, the truth will never get in the way of liars.

Scarneck says:

09:10am | 20/12/10

You could be correct Mel…perhaps they’re just ‘tight’ tourists saving money on air-fares!!  The lack of empathy shown on this thread is appalling.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

09:26am | 20/12/10

Scarneck, so by your logic, anyone who has a negative comment about this latest tragedy, lacks empathy.
Great line to take, thou shalt not criticise those of the left, for doing so, makes you a heartless pr!ck.
Let’s leave the emotive side of this out, and look at the issue. Since Julia drafted the “Protecting Australia” policy paper, the number of illegal boat arrivals has exploded to record numbers - FACT.
At least 200 we know have drowned at sea - FACT.
Only when the drowings happen on our shores, do the leftist types in the Media even acknowledge this… which side a heartless in this debate?

The left - because they continue to encourage people (by way of incentive) to get on boats to come here… that’s the “sugar on the table” as accurately described by our Indonesian neighbours.

Scarneck says:

09:57am | 20/12/10

Brad @ 09:26am…you forgot another FACT - Since Julia drafted the “Protecting Australia” policy paper…more illegal immigrants (visa violations) have arrived through our airports than what have arrived by boat. As for your comment about the left offering incentives and encouraging people to come here by boat - one word - pathetic.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

10:26am | 20/12/10

@Scarneck - 2009–10 -  118 (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm)

Highest number since records began. I think it is you who needs to look at the facts.

marley says:

11:40am | 20/12/10

@Fred - no, the truth it not that you’re only an asylum seeker in the first country you set foot in.  The truth is that you’re an asylum seeker until you have had your claim for refugee status assessed and determined by a country which is a signatory to the UN Convention.  That does not include Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, etc etc. So, you’re still an asylum seeker if you transit any of these countries.  And that IS international law.

n_dude says:

01:10pm | 20/12/10

@ Brad - how many asylum seekers died in SIEV X? Itis unfortunate there are polarised views on this. I am not sure you can completely blame Labor policy and it is not that there were significantly lower numbers under Howard, only those stats were not captured as they were sent off to Nauru.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

01:39pm | 20/12/10

Ndude, if you recall, the left were screaming about SIEV X, blaming Howard for those deaths (this happened in international waters remember). What about the other 170 deaths we know about since labor softened the laws? No outrage from the left now eh?
Howard removed the incentive to land here by boat, in doing so, the boats stopped coming until eventually there were none. It doesn’t matter that most of them gained asylum, the fact is the flow was stopped completely.

By allowing asylum seekers access to the courts, family reunion etc, the gates were opened, this is beyond despute.

Fred says:

02:33pm | 20/12/10

Marley, why do you think the term economic refugee was written into IS International Law. Try again with the next twist to manipulate the law.

marley says:

07:00pm | 20/12/10

@ Fred - show me where it’s written into international law that you’re an economic migrant if you go past the first country.  Show me.  Because I know that is not the truth.

Adam Diver says:

07:25am | 20/12/10

In more breaking news, the labor government has released its new slogan “We make our country so great people literally die to come here”

Christian Real says:

08:39am | 20/12/10

Adam Diver
I pity unfortunate,uneducated imbeciles like you that is bent on making a mockery out of the deaths of other human beings.
You and others in these blogs have clearly shown why none of you should be recognised as Australians,you are all a blight on and a disgrace to our great country.

Bitten says:

09:33am | 20/12/10

Now now Christian Real - that’s the tricky thing about truly being tolerant. You have to be tolerant of everyone, not just the people who have the same opinions as you do.

Adam Diver says:

10:17am | 20/12/10

Don’t blame me Christian, I have been advocating and warning against such tragedy for a while now, feel free to check back at old punch pieces.

The real mockery comes from the ardent left, who continue to spin away, deflect criticism and do nothing for the welfare of the people they say they support.

It seems bitten has already pointed out your illogical stance and hypocrisy as well.

Chris Topher says:

07:41am | 20/12/10

AMEN! I’m sick of people saying we need a more compassionate approach then not bothering to clarify what that compassionate approach should be.

Rossco says:

08:15am | 20/12/10

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. ” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Joan says:

08:32am | 20/12/10

Rossco: you went to a lot of trouble to find that passage, have you read the rest of the Bible? Your selection says a lot about you and your mind…nothing about the Christmas spirit

Chris L says:

07:58pm | 20/12/10

Are you saying that part of the bible is not true Joan?

Peter Davis says:

10:49am | 21/12/10

Jesus himself said (totally Paraphrased) celebrate my death rather than my birth.
What is xmas but a hodgepodge of beliefs mixed up and a darn good excuse to spend freneticaly, gorge oneself silly, drink till we drop and sing jolly little tunes.
I like xmas but I think of those that are lonely broke sick and in too much despair to even notice.
Lets just divorce xmas from Jesus and kid ourselves no longer but enjoy what we are able when we are able and have a thought for those less fortunate.
Maybe a minutes silence should become a tradition during this period just to remember those all over the world that are less fortunate.

Luke says:

06:58am | 20/12/10

UNHCR regional representative Richard Towle said large numbers of people now coming through the asylum system in Australia were not refugees and ‘‘the challenge is how to find fair and humane and effective ways of allowing them to leave this country to go home’
An interview with a refugee waiting in Indonesia recently aired on TV told the story of him and others who have been waiting 2 years and longer while they watch people constantly arriving by plane and within days are on boats to Australia. No queue? really?

Paul says:

07:19am | 20/12/10

It is not a race issue for the majority of Australians! If it were New Zealanders jumping on boats to get into Australia it would be no different you unhappy sad fool.

Adam Diver says:

07:30am | 20/12/10

Do progressives really think, that anyone coming here by boat, don’t pay a large fee for the privilage, and if accepted that someone in a refugee camp is denied of a spot in our refugee intake???

George says:

07:33am | 20/12/10

@progressivesunite - you are the only one who is thinking that these ‘alleged’ asylum seekers are rich queue jumpers. Perhaps you know something we don’t.

Certainly most of these people ‘paid’ the people smugglers money to secure their passage which is anything but safe.  So to begin with these people have already put their lives and those of their families at risk, we didn’t.

The people smugglers they paid couldn’t care less because putting their passengers at ‘risk’ is part of the their plan because they know for a fact that Australian resources shall be committed to give them safe passage, we didn’t.

Why are those who perished in the last SIEV our responsibility?  Why do you label those that reject unlawful migrants in SIEVs as shameful? Our stance didn’t kill all those that perished.

If you have to bark at anyone bark at those politicians who changed the laws of this country which encouraged more SIEVs to arrive, whoever you think that maybe.

Finally, I am one of those “stop the boats” proponents, unashamedly.  I am not Anglo, I am of Asian extraction.  I migrated here under an Independent skilled migration visa which I had to wait for around 3 years at that time. I now call myself a proud Aussie, my kids were all born here and they are Aussies as well.

Make sure you are barking at the right tree…

Olga says:

07:50am | 20/12/10

“A huge proportion of them turn out to be genuine”
That may have been the case, but not since Labor took the reigns.

Ben says:

08:10am | 20/12/10

@progressivesunite LOL, 100% lose their papers, whereas they don’t seem to lose their mobile phones. Australians are generally decent people, look at the tsunami appeal. However, they are now sick of being taken for a ride by your ilk.

BTW: you are not progressive, stop deluding yourself. You are either gullible, living on another planet or you are profiting from the welfare bleeding heart industry.

grumpy old man says:

08:50am | 20/12/10

I think there is a serious problem when people ,our navy has just saved from a sinking boat ,stage a protest because the air conditioning in their Australian state provided dwelling is not working. presumably they had air conditioning in their home in Iran/Irag etc, and on the boat? says a bit about their expectations. Do you think that if I staged a protest, the Govt would install air con in my place?
Could you tell me where they got the money to pay for their travel ? What route did the Iranians take to get here? what countries did they pass through? How long did it take them? Unless you can answer these practical questions, you are living on a different planet from the rest of us!

notsurprised says:

10:39am | 20/12/10

Well said George.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:11pm | 20/12/10

Richard Towle did not mean that refugees arriving here by boat were being rejected because it is simply not true.

their claims have not been assessed yet while we squander hundreds of millions illegally locking them up without process.

Table 43: Number of final protection visa grants by citizenship of top 10 countries
in 2009–101 compared to 2007–08 and 2008–09
Country of
citizenship
2007–08r Final
grant rate
2008–09r Final
grant rate
2009–10 Final
grant rate
1. Afghanistan   -  31 96.9%  224 98.7%  1514 99.7%
2. Sri Lanka     - 434 90.8%  364 90.1%  505 87.8%
3. People’s Republic
of China
                    415 37.8%  426 31.5%  492 42.0%
4. Iraq             220 96.9%  172 96.1%  321 97.3%
5. Iran               98 92.5%  146 89.0%  282 98.3%
6. Zimbabwe         87 79.8%  215 90.3%  255 85.3%
7. Pakistan         117 73.6%  158 76.7%  218 84.2%
8. Stateless         2 5 62.5%  19 86.4%    192 98.5%
9. Egypt             37 62.7%  45 56.3%      79 71.2%
10. Burma           56 91.8%  78 94.0%      78 96.3%
Other 432 25.4% 535 26.1% 579 29.4%
Total 1 932 47.8% 2 382 47.6% 4 515 66.5%
1. Final protection visa grants include grants made at the conclusion of all merits and judicial review processes.
2. A stateless person is an individual who lacks identity as a national of a state for the purpose of law and is not
entitled to the rights, benefits, or protection ordinarily available to a country’s nationals. Statelessness is established
where no country recognises the person as holding its citizenship.
r. These figures were revised as at 2 July 2010 to include the latest information, including changes arising from late
reporting and data cleansing. The figures therefore may differ from statistics previously published.
114 Annual Report 2009–10
Figure

So where is the massive decrease in Afghan cases and Sri Lankans.

Why are we wasting hundreds of millions to jail people from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iran and Iraq who usually are just refugees?
And why do we whine incessantly about having to grant 13,770 visas to refugees and others when we granted
3,416,576 tourist visas,                        9897 per day
  269,828 foreign students,                    739
  183,161 working holiday visas               501
  107,868 skilled workers                       295
    60,254 family visas                         165
    35,590 regional worker visas                 97

4,073,277 Total                               11,159 daily

Refugees equal 37 per day with 24 of them by air.

Gregg says:

11:50am | 25/12/10

Marilyn, once again if you persist in posting garbled information, why post at all and even ask irrelevant questions but for some insight you can dwell on.

All those other visas are applied for under the relevant eligibility criteria, many of the skilled/family visa PR applications taking the best part of a year or more to be processed.
Yes, Australia does have an extensive immigration program and yes some people on temporary/visiting visas do overstay and are dealt with when they are apprehended.

And yes there is a humanitarian stream to the immigration program, a program that has been well managed but is under threat because of the people smuggling, the number of applications annually far exceeding the governments budget and the people smuggling not only disadvantages people waiting years in refugee centres and casuses numbers to overwhelm the capacity of our systems to cope but continuing to allow that will just see the situation get worse.

I’ll not bother to give you detail on how that could be for it is obviously beyond your ability in any emotional state to comprehend.

Jack says:

08:32am | 20/12/10

Spot on. The same goes for the rubbish we hear supporting Aboriginals. The lies are endemic and pervasive. For example the mere title of First Australians is a blatant lie. It has been proven with archaeological evidence that the aboriginals are at best the THIRD Australians. Then there are aboriginals (half casts) that were part of the stolen generation that have admitted that they would have been eventually killed by their tribe because they were not pure aboriginal blood. These people have consequently had death threats from their “community”. This fact alone adds a new light to the socialist programming represented by the current TV “advert” that shows an ancient “white Australia” announcement. Privileges denied verses murder due to ethnicity. Hmmm are the aboriginals as pure as the driven snow that we are programmed to believe!

Judy says:

09:46am | 20/12/10

Absolutely spot on “Not Guilty” - this is the real issue - these people (and I hate that term) has a Koranic edict telling them not to mix with the infidel (us) so that makes it difficult to start with. What I do not understand is why, and after reading in an article today that Australia is the dream destination for these people, do they get here then start to tell us what is wrong with Australia - I believe this upsets most people.

Filip says:

11:08am | 20/12/10

Haha - gold! No sooner has Not Guilty finished lamenting being called xenophobic or biggoted than Jack drops this doozy! Not Guilty, if you want to know why people call you biggots, maybe you should have a chat with Jack. Sorry, I know it’s not fair to tar you all with the same brush, but I do find it all kind of amusing.

Seriously, though, your suggestion that Australians are “too scared to voice this sentiment” clearly hasn’t considered 90% of the comments on this and every other thread on the topic of refugees.

Tim says:

11:38am | 20/12/10

Filip,
do you want to actually explain why you think Jack is wrong and must be a bigot/racist/xenophobe?
Or is it OK to simply “know” you’re right?

James1 says:

12:21pm | 20/12/10

Good thinking Judy.  If you can convince Australians that those who follow the Quran are not people (as you seem to believe), you can begin with your final solution to Australia’s Quran problem…

Filip says:

12:59pm | 20/12/10

Can do Tim. This article is about assylum seekers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Aborigines. In fact, the most obvious thing that Aborigines have in common with assylum seekers is that they’re not white (although Jack begs to differ on that one). I believe that qualifies as a fairly racist sentiment. Jack speaks of “proven archaeological evidence” that they’re not the first Australians, and, somewhat bafflingly, seems to assert that mixed blood Aboriginies would all have wound up on the end of their own tribes spear if it wasn’t for the intervention of the government. Not sure what he’s on about with the “white Australia announcement” so I can’t comment, but my point is that none of this has anything to do with anything. It’s just a rant. That’s what bigots do.

But I’m happy to be proven wrong. Can you think of any non-biggoted reasons why someone might jump from a rant about refugees to a rant about Aboriginals?

James1 says:

01:19pm | 20/12/10

Filip,

Asylum seekers and Aborigines both start with the letter A.  Maybe that made Jack get a little bit confused.

Jack says:

02:30pm | 20/12/10

Filip, I you enjoy being lied to by the socialists left pushing their agenda, keep believing columnists like many that write in the punch. By the way, the fact that you wish to immediately raise the “white race card” to discredit people that don’t live in your fluffy world, you have lost credibility. The facts of archaeology are out there (Wollongong University joint research in Victoria, Bradshaw rock paintings in NT) if you bother to look, learn and read. The brutality of aboriginals to half casts is out there if you get your black arm band off. Its like these economic refugees, cut you filters that blind you to the fact of the situation.

dinkidi says:

03:11pm | 20/12/10

Page 3 of today’s “West”, a taxi driver from Africa with an infringement riddled record ,may be able to get back behind the wheel if a hearing in the Supreme court goes his way. He has seven children and ONE ARM.
Complaints against him included making suggestive remarks to a female passenger and appearing drunk behind the wheel.Will he assimilate? Would a white Australian accused of the same offences even get as far as the Supreme Court. Is the Left really driving Australia on to the rocks as well?

john says:

06:28pm | 20/12/10

Jack, I am intrigued by your claims re Aborigines, could you please provide a reference for each of your statements?

Peter D says:

12:15pm | 21/12/10

The indigineous people have a word “shame” and describes a whole range of circumstances, I have worked with Kooris and struggled to understand what is to be koori I wrote the following and was told yeah thats it,  some may disagree and so it goes but I at least tried to understand;
THE LAND

Colour me Tobwabba
Clay hill upon the sand
The rhythm of the seasons
Bound in tides ebb and flow
Colour me Tobwabba
Colour me the land

The colour of the people
Is coloured by the land
Not on the outside
But ingrained way down deep
Without our heart and spirit
How can you understand

Colour is the spirit
Spirit is the land
Caring for her people
For unknown ages past
The cradle of the people
The mother is the land

Colour comes from knowing
Who we really are
Not the things you tell us
Those we understand
Our past is still here and now
That’s who we really are

Reaching out and touching
Gives our people sight
Teaches us our identity
The life we need to live
Unknown to you our way
To us, all that is right

The colour of Tobwabba
Comes from sea and land
A rock towards the centre
Sits pulsing, sunset shades of red
Although some may never see it
Its will always, is to be our land

Colour me Tobwabba
Colour me the land
Try to take our heritage
I doubt you really can
For our heritage is our spirit
Our spirit is the land
               
Peter Davis 1991
May I add that the period I spent with these guys as aSocial Welfare Worker was mixed with sadnes, laughter and amazment of a truely complex and beautiful character we can only guess at, it is so sad that we dont in the greater majority try to understand oour own country and the people who were here first.

Gregg says:

12:15pm | 25/12/10

@ John re Jack,
Though I have sentiments akin to Peter D and not so much that we do not just not understand our indigenous people for most of us will ever have little contact with them but there is a total lack of ability in both indigenous and non indigenous to comprehend a better way forward, a much bigger scene to debate.

But as for protection, Google is easy and governments have not introduced protection measures just for the hell of it, either in centuries past or more recently this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
You will need to read more than just a little bit of it!
I like most people I suspect have never really had it close enough to mind to research it but seeing the comments, I recalled some correspondence I once had with a lass from overseas who had volunteered at a kindergarten in Alice Springs a few years back.
Her main impression was that yes, half caste children were not as well considered in the community.

And when you think about it:
. White man comes in with Dick, money and/or grog
. You have an indigenous women popping out nine months later some one not all indigenous.
. Even though the indigenous women may have been looking for money to help care for her children, what do you reckon any fathers of full indigenous children will think?

Just google something like
” Half caste aboriginal children mistreatment “
and you’ll be able to do a thesis on it.
Just another issue for the indigenous scene.
BTW, the volunteer paid a bit too much attention to the half caste children and was verbally threatened and close enough to being physically abused, she did as told and left Alice.
Merry Xmas.

Peter D says:

12:52pm | 21/12/10

Who would be a journo? you may satisfy some of the people most of the time, most of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time.

Danoz says:

10:23am | 20/12/10

Good comment Charles. I am heartily sick of the sanctimonious, supercilious twaddle from the left that passes for journalism and journalistic opinion.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:16pm | 20/12/10

850 kids died of starvation in Afghanistan on Wednesday.  30,000 kids around the world died of starvation and preventable disease.

8 died here in what was clearly an accident.

What the f….......k is your point?

And the remainder have had their cases pre-empted by Joolya as not real because she says they will be in jail for up to 6 months without charge.

Ben says:

08:12am | 20/12/10

Tsunami appeal, AliceC. Short memory?

Bitten says:

09:38am | 20/12/10

AliceC’s memory isn’t short Ben. She thinks we should give. And give. And then give some more. And more. And more. And more. And more. What? We have expectations of decency and fairness? We expect people who come here on our charity to give back by acknowledging our laws? How dare we! We should give and give and give. And then give more. And some more. We owe the world remember.

AliceC says:

02:03pm | 20/12/10

@Bitten

I’m impressed that you know exactly what I’m thinking and why, based on one sentence. Have you thought about starting a TV show?

Bitten says:

02:19pm | 20/12/10

Now now, no crying AliceC. You want to play in the sandpit, expect to get slapped in the face with one of those small plastic shovels.

AliceC says:

03:28pm | 20/12/10

@Bitten

Not crying, just impressed.

Bitten says:

07:48pm | 20/12/10

Anymore sweetness and I’ll think you’ve got a crush on me darling.

I’ll loan you my shovel if you’ll hold hands with me.

marley says:

12:13pm | 20/12/10

“By UNHCR definition, these boat people are not asylum seekers, but economic refugees. “

Do tell.  And exactly where would we find this UNHCR definition of an   “economic refugee?”  Certainly not in the only place that counts, the UN Convention on Refugees.

grumpy old man says:

03:39pm | 20/12/10

marley
read http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=43144dc52&query=definition refugee, and other docs on this site.

marley says:

07:33pm | 20/12/10

Well, Grumpy, I read through the whole damn thing, all 137 pages, and I don’t see anything that would support your contention that these people are, by any definition, economic refugees. 

What I read is that these people are absolutely entitled to make a claim and have it considered on its own merits.  Whether they transited a non-signatory country is completely irrelevant to the merits of their refugee claim.  It would only be relevant if they had transited a signatory country and not made a claim.  And Indonesia is not a signatory.

Tim H says:

08:46am | 20/12/10

Wake up Peter. Look at the UK, France, Germany, USA, etc, etc. They are all sick to death of these economic opportunists given the damage the parasites have done to their welfare system and the violence and crimes some of them bring. If they we allowed to voice their opinion they would tell us to shut the boards while we have a chance.

Adam Diver says:

10:28am | 20/12/10

My favorite line of attack. What countries do you refer to?

Iraq, Iran, Sri lanka, Afghanistan??? Doubt they woud mind too much seeming that they are risking life to get her.

Perhaps similar countries such as Germany, France, US and the UK? Oh wait they are having more issues then we are, with the attitude far more vitriolic then what you will find here.

Oh you mean the progressive countries of Sweden, denmark and netherlands ilk? Oh no, the right has risen up there, and they all face issues with imigration particularly muslim.

So what other countries does that leave. African, South American, other asian countries? Well we all know how they are known for diversity, immigration and human rights.

The problem is that you care about what the rest of the world thinks, like it is some sort of moral guardian, without realising this is by many metrics arguably the best country in the word, and the reason we are so attractive to refugees in the first place.

A line in the sand has to be drawn. Unless you think Australia can take every refugee please let me know exactly where your line stnads, instead of more pointless dribble about how other countries view us.

Vaunted says:

12:03pm | 20/12/10

Oh yes Peter, quick, quick, draw the curtains, goodness knows what the neighbours will think. I assume you’re referring to those neighbours like the ones that invaded Timor or assumed West Papua, or the ones that lobbed artillery shells over the border onto defenceless civilians, or the one that locked up their opposition leader for decades, or the one that assassinated their opposition leader and harbours terrorists, or the one that waged war for decades against a group of their own citizens, or could it be the one that stones women to death, hangs homosexuals and threatens the annihilation of Israel?

Peter says:

01:28pm | 21/12/10

OK I shudder to think what decent compassionate people in other countries think as there are obviously bigoted self serving )&^#^ every where includung AUS

Christian Real says:

08:48am | 20/12/10

Andrew
It appears that the truth hurts, and that is why you have responded to this article in the way you did.
A greater majority of Australian are in fact racists, and it seems that it is because of the type of mantra they are drip fed from the Liberal party

TimB says:

10:15am | 20/12/10

Christian, if your comment was true then wouldn’t all of these racists have voted Liberal, thus causing the Liberals to win the last election in a landslide?

Or are you saying that we have Labor voters who are part of your racist majority too? Are they getting their racist ideas drip fed from Labor then?

Obviously says:

12:26pm | 20/12/10

No timb
It’s just that there are a percentage of swinging voters who are racist idiots but didn’t vote liberal because of the lack of liberal policies and Abbott’s negativity.
In addition, there are other areas of concern that are more important to them, such as health, education, NBN, climate change, mining tax and keeping us out of the GFC mess..

Greg says:

04:14pm | 20/12/10

Christian,

If the majority of Australians are racists, why is it that so many people want to come here, and often risk their lives to come?

Do they want to be persecuted by nasty Australian racists?

Michael says:

08:38am | 20/12/10

It has been documented that Australians are one of the most generous people in the world when it comes to donating their money to disaster appeals. Are you an Australian? What have you donated?

iansand says:

08:47am | 20/12/10

An empathectomy is a prerequisite for playing politics on this issue.  When you read the comments you would think that the people on the boats are sub-human pawns in the chess game of domestic politics.

progressivesunite says:

09:24am | 20/12/10

@ Michael - ummmm clicking on a form to say “I donate $100” to this appeal or that is not really that impressive….It certainly doesn’t wipe away such decidedly ungenerous Australian classics like, oh I don’t know, murdering generations of Aborigines, the White Australia Policy, refusing Jewish refugees after the Holocaust, until recently some pretty appallling treatment of gays and lesbians…..I’m not sure ‘generous’ is quite the word - overall we’re certainly a pretty decent country with pretty decent people in it, but we do have some negatives that it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge….

Mick says:

09:50am | 20/12/10

Well progressivesunits, I too hope I don’t get caught up on the ‘wrong end of some horror’, but I can absolute assure you that if I do, I will go immediately to the NEAREST safe place. If my house catches fire, I won’t walk past the fire station right next door to go to one all the way on the other side of town just because they have a newer, shinier fire truck.

Tim says:

10:17am | 20/12/10

Yes Michael,
don’t you know that being born into this country means you personally owe the world some sort of eternal debt for all the past and present wrongs that have occured or will occur anywhere.
And if you don’t agree you are racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic etc etc.

Adam Diver says:

10:33am | 20/12/10

Wow you keep getting worse.

“I’m not saying we should accept people coming by boat who aren’t genuine refugees but I think we can afford a little kindness for those who are”

What do you mean by kindness? Do you mean we don’t get aggressive on opinion sites, or do you mean something tangible like providing security, food, shelter and medical assistance?

Because the pacific solution did that as well. But if you mean fast processing, accepting them in our refugee program, and full access to our courts then the inevitable conclusion is more boat tragedys.

Ben says:

03:30pm | 20/12/10

@progressivesunite ... LOL ... “clicking on a form to say “I donate $100” to this appeal or that is not really that impressive”? ... I bet you wouldn’t find it impressive, more like terryifying.

Furthermore, I reckon the prospect of putting your money where your mouth is and personally donating your own money would not only be “not really that impressive”, it would have a hypocritical OPM tightarse like you terrified.

Peter D says:

02:12pm | 21/12/10

Michael more importantly WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

Gregg says:

12:39pm | 25/12/10

Sam,
Re ” is an orderly, regulated and fair processing system “
We have had that and pne Pm Rudd & Co kind of undid it and refuse to acknowledge it.
Australians have been taking refugees for many years and part of our system has involved selection/sponsoring people largely via the UNHCR.
That is certainly not what the people smugglers offer.
And those people in Indonesia bypass refugee centres jst to use people smugglers.
Killing their own children is tragic.

Greg says:

10:26am | 20/12/10

Unless, of course, if the “over the top commentary” is pro-illegal alien.

notsurprised says:

09:32am | 20/12/10

Lay off the egg nog Christian, it seems the nutmeg is getting to you…

MarK says:

09:53am | 20/12/10

“What disgust me is these low life liberal trash trying to score points on the deaths of other human beings”

Care to comment on Faulkner vis Siev X?

“Tony Abbott and all you drip fed liberals were not as vocal when the SeivX sank with the loss of 353 refugees enroute to Australia on October 19th, 2001, is that because it was a liberal government in at the time?”

No. That is because the Liberals did not change a policy that had stopped the “evil scum” trading in illegal immigration. The Liberals created no pull factor. Siev X also sank in Indonesian waters. Sort of a bit different. Please also refer to the Faulkner comment above. Care to make any points about Labor doing the very thing you are howling against now?

““Don’t believe everything I say”, as it has been revealed in a story in the Sydney Morning Herald ” Tony Abbott ‘offered to double’ refugee intake”  “

Hmmm what? Also a hospital was offered. Ask Wilke why he rejected a new hospital and a doubling of the humanitarian intake. Not from illegal people smugglers but from UN camps. Wow. Sounds terrible eh CR.

“Lately, Tony Abbott is babbling on about turning the boats back, has this man got any credibility left, it seems not. “

Gillard used exactly the same language but because of weakness she could not. People are now dead. Not the forst either. Where were you CR when the other 170+ were reported to be lost but Gillard was denying it?

Where was you morality then?

Where were your questions?

The irony is delicious. Using peoples deaths in 2001 to score some political points about the horror of using peoples deaths in 2010 to score political points.

Adam Diver says:

10:40am | 20/12/10

Yeah you are not scoring political points either Christian. At least his political point-scoring doesnt cost lives like a certain parties relaxed border policies.

Also for future reference, how many days after a teagedy can politics be debated over that tragedy. We don’t want to set you off again obviously.

acotrel says:

08:16pm | 20/12/10

Christian, You just don’t llike Tony Abbott!

Christian Real says:

08:50am | 21/12/10

Acotrel
I consider myself to be a good judge of people,and I have not been wrong yet.
And you are right, I don’t like Tony Abbott, never have and never will

Adam Diver says:

10:53am | 20/12/10

To be fair, Markus’ role here s to simply cut and paste responses from other sites. To be more to the point, nobody appreciates it, if he is going to that effort, why not simpy write his own opinion piece?

James1 says:

01:22pm | 20/12/10

Nobody appreciates it to the tune of 100+ comments by 2pm.  I’m sure News Limited appreciates it for the website hits, at least.

Adam Diver says:

03:39pm | 20/12/10

@ James1 how many of those comments are directly related to his piece and not simply the issue? I counted 4 and those were all directed at how stupid the article is.

Bet anyone could get the same number of comments with any old crap article vaguely related to “boat people”

James1 says:

08:20am | 21/12/10

I have no doubt that you are right Adam.  If you also made the piece about the NBN, gay marriage, and Julia Gillard, you would be looking at the perfect (comment) storm.

Expat says:

09:33am | 20/12/10

‘Tougher’ than dying at sea, Adam ? Please explain this ‘tougher’ policy you speak of.

AdamC says:

10:06am | 20/12/10

Hah, indeed, Expat. How true. Perhaps us heartless conservatives are the real refugee advocates.

(Of course, on a serious note, expecting the vicious seas to operate our immigration program would make Chris Bowen superfluous, and that just wouldn’t do. He’s tipped as a successor to Jools, you know.)

Expat says:

01:28pm | 20/12/10

Please explain this ‘tougher’ policy you speak of, Adam.

AdamC says:

04:47pm | 20/12/10

Expat, when I say tougher, I mean any policy that doesn’t offer the prospect of permanent residency to boat arrivals. The previous system of temporary protection visas (TPVs) was a ‘tougher’ approach, for example. Frills like Nauru detention centres and the like are not really necessary, in my view.

Expat says:

08:52pm | 20/12/10

That doesn’t sound ‘tougher’ than dying at sea.

AdamC says:

03:19pm | 21/12/10

Expat, indeed. That was my point.

Expat says:

10:37pm | 21/12/10

It was mine actually, Adam. Anyway, what exactly is this ‘tougher’ policy you speak of ?

Adam Diver says:

10:43am | 20/12/10

May it never happen again.

MarK says:

09:53am | 20/12/10

So what you are saying is that Aborigines would have been better off with a firmer border protection policy?

notsurprised says:

10:47am | 20/12/10

If you knew your history you’d also know that when white people first came to these shores as Prisoners of His Majesty’s Service they had no say or choice either. So what does your comment have to do with modern Australia and it social policies?

Greg says:

03:50pm | 20/12/10

I spell it out for you notsurprised: societies that do not or cannot protect their borders will lose control of their destiny and will have their culture overrun.

notsurprised says:

04:17pm | 20/12/10

Happy you can spell Greg but if you could read you’d see that my post was directed at yofussn.

Connie Lowe says:

02:00pm | 23/12/10

Well Well what a bunch of denials 26th January 1788 may actually suggest that illegal boat people entered a sovereign nation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traditional homelands on that day.
Invasion Day 26th January 1788
Convicts - people who were already tried and cnvicted of various crimes
Pray do tell what have the current boat people have been charged with?
To you colour challenged people that is what this is about COLOUR!!!

I look forward to the day when we have a coloued Prime Minister of Australia from one of the nations that these people have come from

Rose says:

11:41am | 20/12/10

They sell all their possessions, or in many cases they have entire extended families pooling funds to either send an individual (that’s why there are often young, single males-those with the best chance of surviving) or one family. It is also true that having money doesn’t stop you being a refugee, you are just one who is more fortunate than a refugee with no money.
The problem is being a people smuggler is illegal in Australia, but not Indonesia, so we get to prosecute lowly fishermen who are just trying to supplement meagre incomes, while the heads of people smuggling groups are free to continue their operations with impunity. There is a huge lack of political will to process and relocate those in Indonesian and other countries’ camps, meaning anyone with the resources to get out will take any chance they can get. The international push factors continue to escalate and there also is a distinct lack of a co-ordinated international effort to relieve the situation. A survey taken last year indicated that a huge majority of Australians would do exactly what these asylum seekers are doing if they were in the same situation.
In the short term, Australia needs to ensure that any arrivals be treated humanely, processed and resettled or deported quickly. Turning back the boats is just a slogan, it cannot and should not even be seriously considered, it will just lead to more tragedy. In the long term we need to work with our international neighbours to create a queue that can get these people processed and resettled so that the need to get on a boat is removed.

Charles says:

01:16pm | 20/12/10

Well then Rose how does that explain how they were fleeing from unimaginable horror and danger that they could leave the majority of their family in harm’s way?

In addition, if this is the trick then they are expecting this single emissary will be trying to attain family renunion status in Australia in order to bring out the rest of them at some time in the future, which once again does not sit that well with the narrative of desperates fleeing for their lives.

In fact, it looks like a well planned exercise in circumventing the rules and laws of Australia to avail themselves of an ill-gotten place in our society, rather than any genuine attempt to flee overwhelming danger.

This is the problem with the Left, facts tend to ruin a good yarn most of the time.

Greg says:

10:33am | 20/12/10

They do go back Alex, after they have got their residency and meal ticket.

In Canada, 70 percent of Tamils have returned home for a holiday, and in Britain, Pakistanis go home for terrorism training.

Tim says:

10:23am | 20/12/10

“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

I personally would like to know that I would be treated with equality. That the possession of money or other means would not be a deciding factor in whether one was able to get one of the few refugee places available around the world.
But hey that’s just me.

Greg says:

10:40am | 20/12/10

David, these new heathen arrivals hate your invisible friend in thje sky. If you don’t believe me, go and try some of your preaching in their countries.

Zac says:

11:24am | 20/12/10

David,

Refugee and Climate Change Scam are probably the only two issues the aggressive secularists and some main stream Church meet. The aggressive secularists are more than happy to use the Church when it suits them, because it suits their goal of using Jesus as a weapon to whip guilt to further their ideology. But their ultimate goal is the installation of de-facto religion Atheism.

David says:

01:13pm | 20/12/10

@Tim - i’m suspect you would be the first person to do whatever it took to save your skin.  Just as you are doing, right now.

@Greg - in case it didn’t occur to you, these people are actually riskingg their lives to leave the countries of which you speak.  Sort of goes against your claim that they are all “heathen’s who hate my invisible friend in the sky”, doesn’t it?

James1 says:

01:16pm | 20/12/10

“But their ultimate goal is the installation of de-facto religion Atheism.”

How do you know that Zac?  I’m calling you on that, because I am certain that it is something you have just made up.

Zac says:

03:29pm | 20/12/10

James1,

How do you know that Zac?  I’m calling you on that, because I am certain that it is something you have just made up.

How do you know I have made it up? If you are so certain, you should have substantiated it with some back up.

Have you heard of Frankfurt School - a Marxist school - of thought, James1? In the interest of readers I would like to post some basic detail (towards the end, to understand this school of thought in depth pl google) on this. Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. However the whole idealogy of Communism/Marxism is built on the de-facto religion Athiesm and it’s foundations - social darwinism. No wonder the architect of “Frankfurt School” claimed “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”
Vladimir Lenin

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Willi Munzenberg whose proposed solution was to organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have
corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat. One of Frankfurt schools recomendation was:

Huge immigration to destroy identity.

James1 says:

08:24am | 21/12/10

You are a very paranoid man Zac.  You need to relax.

Had enough says:

10:54am | 21/12/10

@David,, I have no trouble with compassion, humanity and treating others the way I would want to be treated. It’s pretty much what I’ve lived by all my life and it’s what I’m teaching my son. But compassion and humanity only go so far, these people come to this country illegally, we offer them food, accommodation, medical, schooling and money all for FREE (paid by the taxpayers), which is far more than some of us get, i.e. our pensioners and low income earners, and they throw it back in our faces. They take our governments to court (at our expense), riot and destroy what we have given them, escape detention and protest because they have no bloody air conditioning! All I can say is that my compassion has gone, no more, until our government (whichever is in power) gets tough & starts sending some of these people home & the dogooders in this country wake up, then we are doomed. You only have to look at the amount of racial hatred violence that has increased in the last 10yrs or so, because people that come to this country cannot leave the ‘olds ways’ behind & realise they are in Australia. I don’t know about you buddy but I’ve had it up to the eyeballs with my compassion & humanity, if i was in power, those who were genuine refugees would be welcome with open arms, those who were not would be on the first plane flight back to the mother country.

TimB says:

10:22am | 20/12/10

They have something like that already. They’re called UN refugee camps.

Which is the point. These people don’t feel like waiting in these camps like everyone else has to, and thus decide to try a more direct route.

Which is also why the demonstrations they had on Christmas island the other day with “Help me UN” signs were incredibly ironic.

James1 says:

12:27pm | 20/12/10

That is not irony.  Unless they were making an ironic statement about the UN being useless at helping people.

TimB says:

12:48pm | 20/12/10

Well James, when they choose not to avail themselves of UN help (via refugee camps) and instead choose the more dangerous route, then start appealing UN when their choice doesn’t turn out to be easy solution they thought it would be….

Asking for the UN for help in dealing with the consequences of a choice not to use UN help. That’s ironic to me.

Tripper Smurf says:

12:50pm | 20/12/10

What these camps need is a more effecive management with less red tape so that these people dont get desperate as they are spending decades in these camps.

James1 says:

12:59pm | 20/12/10

Irony is the use of words with a meaning opposite to their literal intention.  What you have identified is asking for something after it is too late to do so, or perhaps a logical inconsistency (and maybe even a type of poetic justice, in that they should have asked that of the UN to begin with), but definitely not irony.

If it is ironic to you, then you must have invented a new meaning for the word.  In any case, I am not arguing against your point, just the way you have expressed it.

TimB says:

01:34pm | 20/12/10

It’s situational irony James.

C’mon, you agree with me, don’t be a pedant

Brad of Bentleigh says:

02:07pm | 20/12/10

“of these boats leaving Indonesia in the first place is the best way to prevent the loss of life that continues, no matter who is in charge in Canberra.”
How about, to prevent the boats leaving Indonesia in the first place, we send all arrivals off to somewhere like, say, Nauru? This might discourage people from making the trip, and thus, save lives. We could also disincentivise this by introducing something like temporary protection visas and excluding access to the family reunion program for say, three years.

Sounds like it might just work!

James1 says:

02:19pm | 20/12/10

I wish I could silence the pedant in me Tim, I really do.  In any case, I suppose I can (grudgingly) accept that it might be situational irony.  Although if asylum seekers are as aware of Australian refugee policy as some claim, it seems unlikely to me that asylum seekers would be unaware of their fate upon reaching Australia, which stretches the definition of situational irony almost to breaking point.  So while it is still a long bow, it might yet be robust enough to fire an arrow after all. 

Part of me still hopes that the asylum seeker with that poster was being ironic, in the original sense of the word though.

Tripper Smurf says:

04:31pm | 20/12/10

@Brad.

If it works mate…  You wont find me beholden to the mantra of the morally bankrupt political parties, no matter their ilk.

Having said that, what I was trying to express in that poorly constructed sentence you quoted from one of my earlier posts, is that actually processing them where they currently are in Indonesia would be the best way to deal with this ongoing issue.  Split the genuine refugees up amonst the signatory nations to the Convention and take our fair share from this group.  In fact we should be prepared to take a few more than usual to ensure this slow process occurs as quickly as possible

The remaining people in the camps then dont meet the definititions set under the Refugee Convention and therefore can be sent home.  Not only that it would cut down on processing time in Australian based centres as we would be more certain that the people that did try and enter unannounced were not genuine refugees.

Take away the incentive for someone to get into that boat, while remaining true to our ‘small-l’ liberal principles and our international committments.

Gregg says:

12:58pm | 25/12/10

@Tripper,
You’ve smurfed out in tripping up on lack of knowledge of the refugee system, there being 15M of them in camps run by the UNHCR and other organisations globally.
Australia is already among the highest in re-settling refugees and all the lot in Indonesia are doing is bypassing the UNHCR system and undermining Australia’s own contributions.

KH says:

01:55pm | 20/12/10

Exactly - many of them destroy all their paperwork to delay deportation, and to ensure that their ‘claim’ takes a long time to investigate.  Right now there are a number of men referred to as the ‘afghan boys’ who are claiming (often using the same birthdates) to be underage, in order to take advantage of the fact that Australia doesn’t deport unaccompanied minors.  Many of them are clearly well over 18, but once they get their pass in, they can bring their whole family here.  They know exactly what they are doing.  Funny, if you have any kind of criminal record you can be denied entry to Australia if you fly in, yet if you break all kinds of international laws and show up in a boat with a sob story, thats OK.  Its a ridiculous situation that we are expected to put up with, and anyone who argues the point is accused of racism.  I have no issue with accepting refugees, however we should have full knowledge of who they are and where they are from, and what their intentions are.  If they were really in that much trouble, it shouldn’t be hard to prove.  We should be able to verify their stories relatively easily.  Why is that too much to ask?

Tripper Smurf says:

11:18am | 20/12/10

Incorrect.  The fact that Australia has signed and ratified several treaties, most of them sponsored by the United Nations, in relation to the treatment of internationally recognised refugees is an obligation Australian governments have placed upon themselves under internationally recognised laws.  The Migration act notwithstanding, the rights of the refugees enshrined by this treaty include the right to seek assylm anywhere in the world.  While Australia does not have an obligation to be that country of assylum, if we knock back an application we still have the obligation of finding these people somewhere else to go.

Australian law does not override ratified international treaties as to what we have an obligation to, no matter how much some people wish ithat to be the case.  We may choose to ignore this treaty, but this does not make what we are doing legal in any sense.

What is illegal and where the Migration Act is actually legitimate is where people are entering the country or overstaying in this country without a valid visa when they are not a genuine refugee as determined by the United Nations definitions of such.

Both sides have their urban myths.

Tommo says:

11:36am | 20/12/10

I wish people would stop calling these people refugees,they are illegal immigrants.There is an international law which allows people to flee as reugees to the NEAREST safe haven and to be accepted there.Once safely there if they choose to leave of their own free will they become emmigrants,not anymore a refugee.Australia is not by any stretch of the imagination the nearest safe haven.When they breach our borders they do so illegally.Where do they get the money to flit from country to country,they are not even in poverty,I can barely afford to run my 16 year old car,and don’t forget they needed passports to to pass thru so many foreign ports,when they arrive here they have deliberately thrown them overboard.Sorry but I have no sympathy for them,they have been smuggled here which makes them criminals.Plus their culture is totally alien to ours and they will not integrate.

marley says:

11:48am | 20/12/10

Greg is wrong, and Tripper Smurf mostly right.

We signed on to the UN Convention and Protocol, and we then wrote the key elements of those documents into the Migration Act.  So we’re bound by our own laws to assess anyone who makes an asylum claim.  And, if we find them to be a refugee, we are obligated in law, both national and international, to provide them with protection - and that includes access to employment, social services and education.

And, as our own law makes clear, an asylum seeker has a legal right to make that refugee claim, irrespective of how he arrives.  His right to protection trumps the requirement to have a visa. 

We do not, however, have an obligation to those found not to be refugees.  This would include people who don’t meet the definition, people who are war criminals, people who already have the protection of another Convention signatory.  Those people can be removed.  But people who have come out of Indonesia do not have the protection of another country.  They have a right to make an asylum claim.  It’s as simple as that.

And that’s the truth.

Greg says:

11:55am | 20/12/10

Incorrect.

The UN Convention on Refugees is a treaty. It is not “international law”. There is no such thing as “international law” in any meaningful sense. There are only agreements between nations.

Sovereign nations can agree to UN treaties if they want, but even then the treaties have no legal status unless and until they are passed into national (or federal) law.

It is not “illegal” for a country such as Indonesia to ignore the UN Convention. And it does ignore it, along with many other countries.

Australian can also decide to withdraw from the UN convention. One day, the government might actually listen to the vast majority of clear thinking people, and do just that.

Jon says:

12:58pm | 20/12/10

Greg@Thank you, hands up all those who want to hand over control of this country to the UN.  I thought so, its a big NO!

Tripper Smurf says:

01:04pm | 20/12/10

@ Greg

I suggest then you look up on the legal definitions that have been agreed upon for things like ‘ratification of treaties’ and other aspects of the international law regime which you decry as largely non-existent.

While we do have the right as a sovereign nation to withdraw from the Refugee Convention, doing so when we have been lobbying other regional governments for years to join would be an embarrasing backflip for our foreign affairs.  Not to mention by committing this act to prevent some few thousand people arriving (when they are likely to just come regardless of our Refugee Convention status) we undermine a few of our human rights arguments with governments around the world.

The reason why countries like Indonesia can ignore this treaty however stem from the fact that they have not signed or ratified the agreement.  This means that this is not a binding law on this country, where it is for Australia who has ratified the convention.  For another example of ratification of a treaty does mean for a country, look at the Koyoto Protocols and the refusal of several governments, most notable the US and Australia to ratify it.

Those who are not genuine refugees should be all means be moved on if they do not go through due discourse to get here. However under internationally recognised definitions this status does apply to many of the people who do make this boat trip, and thus need to be identified. Despite however much people would like to demonise everyone who does to strengthen their own arguments.

Tim says:

01:51pm | 20/12/10

Tripper Smurf,
I think that’s sort of the point.
We have lobbied other nations to ratify the refugee convention for years.
They unsurprisingly have not been so silly to agree.
Therefore it would not be a backflip to remove ourselves from the convention, simply a product of the recalcitrance of these other nations.
The convention was written for different circumstances to which we face today. It is seriously out of date in the modern world and needs updating.

Greg says:

02:44pm | 20/12/10

@Marley is just completely wrong. Again.

The UN Convention did not anticipate nor allow for the scenario of boat people bypassing multiple safe countries and making demands on distant nations. So no “key elements” were written into the Migration Act, even after Australia made the mistake of ratifying the convention.

There is no obligation to give employment, social services and education either. You are just making this up.

If it really is the truth, you should have no trouble referencing the section of the Migration Act that codifies your claims. It’s all online so you should have no trouble finding it, whereas I can’t refer you to something that is not there. Put up or shut up.

Greg says:

02:46pm | 20/12/10

@ Tripper Smurf, how exactly do I look up “an international law regime” which is non-existant? I don’t have direct access to your imagination.

Australian law is created by federal parliament, not the executive government. So even if the government ratifies a convention, that still does not necessarily make it federal law, unless the parliament agrees to pass complying legislation.

So-called “international law” is in reality just a series of multi-lateral treaties. They are not permanently binding, and the Australian government can withdraw from them at will. The Australian parliament can also modify or cancel any previously passed legislation.

There is absolutely nothing stopping Australia from withdrawing from the UN convention and fixing the illegal immigration problem (Apart from our current batch of spineless politicians, which can also be fixed at the next election).

Maybe the withdrawal from the UN Convention would be embarrassing for the government, but it would not be for the Australian people who were never even asked to endorse the convention at a referendum or even during an election campaign. Most of us don’t care if the government or assorted “human rights activists” get embarrassed. In fact, we would enjoy it.

And better still would be the message that it sends to the illegal immigrants, that even if they get here without drowning, they will not receive permanent residency. If they decide not to remember where they came from or what their identity is, then they stay in detention indefinitely, or until the government finds out independently and sends them back to their homeland.

Tripper Smurf says:

04:21pm | 20/12/10

Greg.  The definititions for what consitutes a refugee, the text of the Refugee Convention and everything else I have pointed towards can be found from the website of the United Nations.  It is not my imagination, however much people wish it would be.

Personally I would like to prevent these boats from coming to Australia.  I also am pragmatic enough to realise that simply pulling out of the Refugee Convention will not get this desired result, but in reverse actually weaken our postion at a regional level.

I do agree with Tim.  We as a nation do need to lobby the United Nations (alongside other nations who are similar, or even worse postions that we are in when it comes to this international question) to amend the Refugee convention to better reflect today’s refugee demographics.  This will be neither easy or quick, but would be worthwhile as a longer term meassure.

Turning our back on a ratified treaty of some international standing however not only sets a dangerous preceedent in numerous areas for future Australian relations with other countries, and also jepordises the high moral ground we like to try and hold when dealing with other nations.

Australia is not a big enough power to ignore perceptions the world has of it, regardless of what we may wish.  Id actually argue that by withdrawing from a convention (without at least attempting to modify its articles) the damage done to our reputation would far outweigh any short-term monetary affects we would achieve, or any sense of security we may achieve from protecting ourselves from the few thousand people that make it to our shores on average a year, especially when its just as likely the boats would continue to come regardless due our committments to Human Rights under another United Nations convention.

marley says:

07:56pm | 20/12/10

@Greg:  Section 36 (2) of the Migration Act refers to protection visas:

“A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
              (a)  a non?citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; “

So, the Migration Act says that a protection visa should be issued to someone who meets the UN Convention and Protocol criteria. 

Section 3 states that Australia has no obligation to people who have transited another country and not sought protection. HOWEVER, Section 5 states that if that transit country will not grant protection, and may return the asylum seeker to the country of origin, then Section 3 doesn’t apply and the asylum seeker has a right to make a claim in Australia.

That’s Australian law.

So, asylum seekers transitting a non-signatory state like Indonesia are exempt from trying to get residence there, and have a right to apply for asylum in Australia.

And if they are found to be refugees they are entitled to a protection visa.  And a protection visa is a permanent visa giving the holder all the rights of a regular Australian resident - social services, schooling, employment.

And it’s all very easy to check out.

Tripper Smurf says:

01:30pm | 20/12/10

Glad to see stereotypes are alive and strong with you mate.  If you did an in-depth study of the people who are arriving through unannounced means as opposed to other segments of the population, that crimes committed are relatively at the same levels.  Its the people who believe that these humans, because they are different, are out to get you that prevent true understanding of a topic that does require it.

The vast majority of these people do not wish to shaft our country.  By tarring them all with the same brush and espousing your loudly held views of these people you help lead to their ostricization from mainstream societty and lead to the issues you describe is evident throughout history wherever such ostricization occurs.  This prevents them being assimilated into the mainstream, or the mainstream from absorbing the cultural traits of these people which are popular with people outside their nationality.  In essence its a self-fulfilling prophecy perpertrated by those who claim they are ‘Realists’ and shows that they do lack common sense just as much as anyone else who happens holds a view blindly, without considering the facts at hand.

By all means ensure that these people are genuine refugees, but if they are live up to Australia’s international legal obligations for these people, not to mention show these people the true sense of Australian values such as ‘a fair go’, ‘mateship’ and even the persumption of innocence until proven guilty.

acotrel says:

08:19pm | 20/12/10

‘Jon says:12:58pm | 20/12/10

Greg@Thank you, hands up all those who want to hand over control of this country to the UN.  I thought so, its a big NO! ‘

Jon, just do as yoy’re told.  You’ll be much happier!

AliceC says:

02:18pm | 20/12/10

@DizzyDame

‘And the fact that these “refugees” can pay so much money to a people smuggler makes all of us living in reality land very angry’

They have this money because they sell EVERYTHING so they can escape. How much would a pensioner get for the house they owned? And what would you do if you and your family were in danger?

These people are asylum seekers, and need to be processed before they can be declared genuine refugees or not. You cannot establish a genuine asylum seeker base don how they arrived in this country.

What about all the people who overstay their visas illegally? There are tens of thousands of them, taking jobs from Australians and no-one bats an eyelid. By the way, they are mainly from NZ, UK and US.

marley says:

07:07pm | 20/12/10

AliceC - I want this discussion to be based on fact, not assumption.  I’m trying to correct errors on whichever side of the spectrum.  So I’m going to correct yours.  The majority of overstayers are not from NZ, UK and US. I’m going to exclude NZ because they have special rights.  According to DIAC, the top source country for overstayers is China, followed by the US, Malaysia and the UK.  Most overstayers are Asian. That’s a fact.

Gregg says:

01:17pm | 25/12/10

You do generalise Clare and we do have people with ancestry links to something over 200 nations.
We also have had a very well organised refugee program for many decades and we take refugees from many countries, many people with different physical characteristics including colour as also applies to skilled/family streams of immigration.
Despite an Afghani being a doctor, you will if you do some research find that he getting his qualifications approved for practice in Australia may be no easy matter.

All that aside, people smuggling is disadvantaging true refugees from UNHCR refugee centres and undermining the UNHCR/Australian refugee program and that is not Racist based.

Seed says:

03:35pm | 20/12/10

I was already angry at the amount of Poms and South Africans that were forced on us over the years, particularly in the white Australia period.
Maybe we could cut back on immigration from the UK and South Africa and take in more refugees instead?

Zac says:

05:20pm | 20/12/10

The vast majority of those arriving by boat are being granted residency. The approval rate is roughly twice that of applicants processed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This is a green light to the people-smuggling trade.

The High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that large numbers claiming asylum status in Australia are not refugees. The government has been slow to handle legitimate refugee claims. It has been slow to handle illegitimate claims. Detention centres have seen riots, demonstrations, hunger strikes, self-harm and suicide by asylum seekers.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-diminished-gillard-caught-in-a-storm-of-her-own-making-20101219-191ub.html

Henry says:

02:36pm | 21/12/10

Oh aren’t you wonderful! Now would you like a medal, or a chest to pin it on?