We need to help asylum seekers help themselves

Anna C says:

11:14am | 17/02/12

I read about it too and apparently they also want the government to purchase homes for them.  What next?  These people should be bloody grateful that we have let them in and are giving them a new life.  They should be knuckling down and working hard; not waiting for more handouts from the government.  Is it any wonder more and more Australians are becoming anti-immigration?

This lot give all migrants a bad name which is a shame cause most migrants have and continue to contribute enormously to this country.

TChong says:

11:16am | 17/02/12

Tony
as you say,  a “wish list.”
You may “wish” everyone agrees with you, i might “wish ” the same.
But it aint ging to happen.
( the “wish list” wasnt even ambit, as those making the “wish"were not part of any review , or policy implementation)
Nothing to be fearful about.

Craig says:

12:00pm | 17/02/12

This suggestion was from an Australian citizen, not an asylum seeker.

It was heavily opposed by asylum seeker groups.

Do your research!

James1 says:

12:14pm | 17/02/12

Indeed Craig.  Also, they didn’t ask for them to be paid for, only for tax concessions, which most migrant groups also oppose.

So many words, so few facts, Tony.  Pick up your game - your aversion to facts seriously damages your credibility.

Pierre says:

12:46pm | 17/02/12

Punch & Judy. Which one is Judy or do you share the same underwear. Listen to the likes of Tony of Poorakistan. He is sending a message to both of you from 99% of working families.

Alex Brisco says:

01:08pm | 17/02/12

The fact of the matter is that these asylum seekers and other migrants do find jobs. Jobs that lazy Australians couldnt be bothered applying for.  I know this as a fact. I work in the Aged Care Industry and we have constant enquiries about employment from migrants - rarely ever from white anglo saxons!  We are too lazy to wipe the asses of the elderly yet we complain and say migrants take our jobs.

Bear says:

01:09pm | 17/02/12

Anna C, I’m sure they WOULD work, if they were allowed to. While I don’t have a problem kitting them out with household items, as we’re not letting them earn money, the money could be spent a little better. No doubt the business’ that won the tender are massively over-charging as that is BAU when selling to govt.

andrew says:

01:55pm | 17/02/12

tony and Anna, any chance you can refer me to a link or a press conference or anything where this was stated that asylum seekers are requested flights home and homes paid for by the Australian Government?

I dont want a talk back radio script.
I dont want a chain email written by the illinformed.
I dont want the transcript of a conversation you heard on the streets

I want some hard evidence from an official source.  i am almost certain you probably heard on talkback radio or some fool on the streets or read a chain mail.

sakun smith says:

02:04pm | 17/02/12

Brisco should start to get streetwise. My parents are in a aged care home and I listen every day to Ozzie staff asked to train second rate migrants as well as do their own work. If they complain they are sacked. Their poor English and low skills are making it dangerous for residents. A male staff member who complained was sacked. This is happening daily. Ozzies are deserting in droves. The homes management are happy to get short term staff who do shoddy work for low wages - of course there are exceptions - some migrant satff are great but sadly most are not.

James1 says:

02:09pm | 17/02/12

“He is sending a message to both of you from 99% of working families. “

In that case, we should triple the amount going to education, because 99% of working families have worse English comprehension than most migrants.  If that is representative of most people’s ability to understand things, I despair for our future.

Anna C says:

02:15pm | 17/02/12

@ Andrew

Here is the link.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/pay-for-our-trips-home-the-islamic-womens-welfare-associatio/story-fn7x8me2-1226269131671

Richo says:

02:24pm | 17/02/12

Bear - Perhaps you should read my article towards the bottom of the page if you really want to see the work rates for people granted refugee status. It is appalling and backs up my claim that the vast majority of these people are coming here for welfare with little desire to do work.

Bear says:

02:40pm | 17/02/12

And Herald Sun is a real source Anna C? How about a credible one?  That would exclude all radio talkback and tabloid newspapers for starters.

Bear says:

02:43pm | 17/02/12

Richo, i didn’t look at the figures but how do you KNOW they deliberately come here choosing not to work? Do you speak to them? Do you work in an industry that would have reliable knowledge? Are you doing a thesis on asylum seekers? Because if you’re merely going off rubbish in the tabloid media and flimsy stats that lean the way of those organisations, i wouldnt take anything you read on face value.

andrew says:

03:20pm | 17/02/12

cool thanks AnnaC, i must admit i didnt think your original was true…... of course it isnt really true if you read the article.

the article is fairly clear to me.  it is an unknown muslim association already here in australia suggesting/requesting this for new migrants - not asylum seekers.  there is a difference.

what is also clear from your comment, is that you implied that the asylum seekers currently in detention (which this article is about) have requested flights home and taxpayer funded homes.

Richo says:

03:51pm | 17/02/12

Bear - No, I’m going off statistics provided by the Department of Immigration. If they don’t know the truth then who would?

Bear says:

03:57pm | 17/02/12

OK I should have been, before i get slaughtered by fascists and in a circular argument, I’m not even saying all your points are wrong, I’m just saying question. Question, read, get ALL the facts, not just a snippet from the paper or Ray Hadleys word, which are worth sweet FA. I’d go further than just the Herald Sun if i wanted decent info on anything!

Little Joe says:

04:05pm | 17/02/12

I just wish that we would help the 105,000 Homeless Australians help themselves ...... FIRST!!!

Space Ghost says:

05:25pm | 17/02/12

“I just wish that we would help the 105,000 Homeless Australians help themselves ...... FIRST!!”

There’s no reason why we can’t do both.

Bho Ghan-Pryde says:

06:01pm | 18/02/12

Brisco, you are a dill. It was “lazy” Aussies that built the Australia these migrants queue up to come to. Yes, some migrants are fine in the work place and many others have poor english skills, no literacy and require endless support and frankly are dreadful bigots bringing old conflicts and hopeless religions here. The fact is those “lazy” Aussies would be richer without the dead weight of migration. There is no net gain for those already here from any migration. Just ask the Aborigines. Migration decreases the wealth and opportunities of those already here to increase the wealth and opportunity of the migrant. It might not be a zero sum game but it is close enough. Many countries have no migration and do very well. Also, are we not supposed to be getting all green? If that is the case shouldn’t they be teaching the migrants to live eco-friendly lives without all these mod cons?

Labor is Toxic says:

07:26pm | 19/02/12

@ Space Ghost

“I just wish that we would help the 105,000 Homeless Australians help themselves ...... FIRST!!”

There’s no reason why we can’t do both???? Are you sure???

2008-09 Underlying Cash Balance : -$27.1B
2009-10 Underlying Cash Balance : -$54.8B
2010-11 Underlying Cash Balance : -$47.7B
2011-12 Underlying Cash Balance : -$37.1B (Budgeted)

Net Debt is budgeted to increase to over $136B ..... by $175B over 4-years.

No we can’t afford both!!!

ghnaga darin says:

08:26pm | 19/02/12

Do you refugee supporters want to be properly informed or not? I suspect not.  See submission 403 from the Islamic Woman’s Welfare Association (Lakemba) to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s Multiculturalism inquiry dated 12 April 2011 (link below).

For many this will be a shocking eye-opener to what is asked for behind the scenes in return for multicultural votes.

Some of the things they ask for:

*Tax assistance with travel back to their home country (but perhaps also domestic) to see friends and family. They say that travelling long distances (again presumably home) and missing out on the company of friends and family and ‘cultural events’ (Haj?) is a ‘loss’ that they should be ‘compensated for’ so that we retain them here. Presumably ‘compensation’ would be direct cash payments. Do they want the Australian Government to buy them tickets home? Or tickets to fly to Mecca for the Haj?! It seems so. How often? What about the persecution they fled from? If refugee status has been gained by false claims of persecution then the decision is reviewable and can be overturned legally. Perhaps we need some test cases. Note: the Refugee Convention says that return is possible if persecution no longer exists.

*Special tax concessions so they can support family members who are located overseas because they say that the existing tax concessions that allow them to write off payments to support family here in Australia are not enough. (What precisely are these concessions? Can Australians deduct costs of family support here? Most Australians would be shocked if special concessions are available that the broad community don’t get)

*Assistance with house purchase, and affordable housing to undertake further education. They welcome first home owners scheme but say they want more. Presumably tax deductions or direct payments to immigrants, or Muslim immigrants only, on the basis of race or religion.

*They complain about being given ‘junior’ positions if their qualifications deserve higher level positions, and ask for special assistance for ‘refresher’ courses to ‘polish’ their qualifications. With an unemployment rate of 5%, underemployment at 8% and underutilization at 12% over 2.2m Australians are underutilized! Many Australians would be grateful for any job

*They ask for specific monetary incentives to work in regions and establish their culture there (what are these Muslim Dawa (spread of Islam) grants?).

Rather disturbingly they refer to the fact that ‘work ethics are different’ and adjustment time is needed. What this seems to be is acknowledgment that many do not wish to work. If so this would be a damaging admission indeed!

I suspect they will want to withdraw this submission. Watch out as an exercise in Government censorship seems likely. I have a copy of the submission for future reference if they or the Government try this. It will backfire.

Come on Punch have you the courage for true journalism? I suspect not. Type in
(http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=mig/multiculturalism/subs.htm)  then go to 403

Fred the immigrant says:

12:12pm | 17/02/12

what about a right of reply for the people being denigrated by sensationalist journalism - the asylum seekers who would much sooner be working and supporting themselves ? Can the Minister for Immigration please explain the whys and wherefores, and Australia’s obligations to asylum seekers? The Minister and his public servants have a responsibility to explain “community detention” and Bridging Visas” to the electorate, not leave it to advocates and charities to do. .

Joe says:

12:59pm | 17/02/12

@Fred the immigrant,

This government doesn’t need to explain anything. 

The Australian people know an Open Border when they see one and they are smart enough to know what will be the ultimate result of labor’s Open Border Policy.

fml says:

02:03pm | 17/02/12

Joe,

How can it be an open border when we have a set intake?

Marilyn Shepherd says:

02:09pm | 17/02/12

Joe, we don’t have any frigging borders, we are surrounded by millions of square miles of water and it is bloody hard to get here.

The two “leaders’ in this country are feeding the trolls in the race to the bottom and forgetting the law, along with almost the entire media.

The law set in concrete is that borders must be open to anyone who claims asylum but our obsession with just a few who come by sea makes us forget that simple fact.

The fact is that for every 100 Afghans who arrive here 99 will be accepted even after we waste hundreds of thousands jailing them fior years on end.

For every Indian who flies here and makes a claim only 8 will be accepted yet we abuse and torment those telling the truth and leave alone those who tell lies and tie up the courts.

The stupid thing is the liars are allowed to work and those who are honest get treated worse than murderers with less rights that terrorism suspects on Gitmo.

The media has a role to play here and for the past decade they have been worthless, hate mongering morons.

The facts are easy to discover but here is the short version from DIAC.

QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE
SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET ESTIMATES HEARING: 20 OCTOBER 2009
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
(82) Program 2.1: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance
Senator Fierravanti-Wells asked:
1. What is the definition of refugee according the UNHCR?
2. What is the definition of refugee according to immigration law currently in force in
Australia?
3. Is the definition of refugee according to immigration law currently in force in
Australia considered to be broader than the UNHCR definition?
4. Does the UNHCR define the term “economic refugee”?
Answer:
1.
The definition of a refugee, according to the Refugees Convention is a person
who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the
country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country” (Article 1A of the 1951 Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees). The UNHCR has responsibility under Article 35 of the
Refugees Convention for supervising the application of the provisions of the
Refugees Convention.
2.
Under Section 36 of the Migration Act 1958, a criterion for a Protection visa is
that the applicant for the visa is 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.
3.
Australia’s definition of a refugee is not broader than the UNHCR definition.
4.
The UNHCR says that the term “economic refugee” is not correct, and that the
accurate description of people who leave their country or place of residence because
they want to seek a better life is ‘economic migrant’. The UNHCR defines economic
migrants as migrants who ‘make a conscious choice to leave their country of origin
and can return there without a problem. If things do not work out as they had hoped
or if they get homesick, it is safe for them to return home’. (source: UNHCR website)

Now enough of the hate and ranting by clowns like Joe.

Only 0.0001% of the world’s refugees are in Australia, just grow up and accept their legal right to be here.

And it’s sure cheaper to help people instead of having to pay millions in compensation after driving them insane.

Bear says:

04:01pm | 17/02/12

The Media Code of Ethics says a whole lot of things about having to be balanced, objective, not slander people, not sensationalist and the like. None of this is present in the garbage piece in the DT today. Of course all of this is worthless as basically the industry polices itself but maybe we could have a body that isn’t a toothless tiger to stop papers from printing outright lies..

Little Joe says:

04:17pm | 17/02/12

@ fml ..... we do not have a set intake and, just for the record, the intake was higher when Howard was PM!!!!

What we are seeing is a dramatic increase in SHP Visa’s given to people who apply after they arrive in Australia. The number of people apply for SHP Visa’s who do not fly to Indonesia, ditch their documents and jump on a boat, is decreasing!!!

I would like to thank Marilyn Shepherd for detailing the UNHCR stance. It is a brief and ultimately correct record of how Australians have NO RIGHT AT ALL to say no to people how claim to be asylum seekers .... Australians have NO RIGHT AT ALL to say no!!!

fml says:

11:34am | 18/02/12

Little Joe.

“Australians have NO RIGHT AT ALL to say no to people how claim to be asylum seekers”

You are absurd. We chose to sign up to refugee convention. And australia has checks, and if they pass the checks and are genuine refugees they are accepted.

You have every right, you can go to your politicians and ask them, they will just laugh at you, or you could go start your own political group. To say you have no right at all is dishonest. What you are really saying is no one is listening to me when i yell and scream

Tony of Poorakistan says:

11:03am | 17/02/12

That’s a very good point, AdamC. We are allowing ourselved to be defocused from the main debate which is that they shouldn’t be able to waltz in to our country without an invitation.

Kristian says:

11:27am | 17/02/12

That’s funny, I thought we were talking about the welfare of fellow human beings…

gobsmack says:

11:37am | 17/02/12

And let’s not confuse “asylum seekers” with “boat people”.
A large number of asylum seekers who are accepted into Australia come here through the “correct"channels and processes.
I don’t think there is an issue between the parties that Australia should have a set quota for the intake of asylum seekers.

Peter says:

11:40am | 17/02/12

Kristian….Their welfare was not threatened in Indonesia or the many other safe countries they passed through legally.

Hamish says:

12:21pm | 17/02/12

I agree AdamC. This is really a non-issue. Sure if you’re going to house asylum seekers in houses in ‘the community’ because the government has allowed detention centres to become so horribly overcrowded you need to provide them with basic household items. Obviously the real issue is the almost comic incompetence of this government when it comes to boat people…and pretty much everything else.

AdamC says:

12:45pm | 17/02/12

Tony and Hamish, my views entirely.

Kristian, I would hate to think you were just spouting glib slogans as an excuse not to engage with the issue. We are all concerned about the safety of our fellow human beings.

Arturo says:

01:09pm | 17/02/12

People should note how Israel treats its Asylum Seekers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/world/middleeast/israel-steps-up-efforts-to-stop-illegal-immigration-from-africa.html

“Mr. Netanyahu said that the overwhelming number of Africans who slip into Israel are not political refugees, but are looking to improve their economic status. He said they pose difficulties for the people they settle among. Poorer Israelis, in particular, resent the Africans’ arrival and compete with them for jobs.”

Richo says:

01:18pm | 17/02/12

Peter - Notice how the refugee advocates such as Kristian never reply when you bring up the fact that they pass through numerous other safe countries such as Dubai and Indonesia to get to Australia? Not only that, they have their passports with them until they get on a boat to Australia and then the passports conveniently disappear. Are the refugee advocates so stupid as to not realize these people are using all the devious methods available to them to increase their chance of getting residency? It’s massive fraud, all at a huge cost to the Australian taxpayer. Just remember, all the billions that are spent on these devious people means less money available for the wider Australian community.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:23pm | 17/02/12

@Arturo

That’s how Israel treat everybody, be the last place on earth I’d link an article to.

Greece is doing the same thing I think.

Dragon says:

01:37pm | 17/02/12

And they come with an attitude that “they would value what’s here more than the inhabitors/current citizens” currently do so “don’t worry about them”.
I actually heard this dialogue coming out of someones mouth right after defending paople in such situations (detention) as human beings who deserve a chance. And they do but at what or at whos expense?

Rather than trying to get a feel for what the genuine sentiment is on a forum such as this one, or even worse, guessing, try an honest conversation with one or two of the people applying for residency or citizenship (if they are prepared to offer that honesty to you). If our Govt doesn’t look after its own citizens when determinig policy, why should other people who have their own interests at heart be bothered about us? If we are expecting people who have turned up here from an “every man for himself environment” - as opposed to our own Govt (who we elect to represent us), to think about our needs and how factors will effect us, the problem is far far bigger than anyone here has identified…

Richo says:

01:43pm | 17/02/12

Arturo - I don’t think there is one country where the majority of people like the refugees coming in. I have been throughout Europe and spoken to people and the opinions are the same. These new waves of asylum seekers are largely bad for the host countries. Japan is a signatory to the UN and if you research how many refugees they have taken in you would find you could count them on one hand. I guess Japan has seen the mess in other countries and would not dare go down that path themselves.

AdamC says:

02:32pm | 17/02/12

Richo, the Japanese are anti-immigration. I am not, provided immigration benefits the people who are already here. For example, well-designed skilled worker programs are a beenficial form of immigration. Asylum-seeking by boat is not. When it comes to immigration, John Howard said it best.

“We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

And why on earth shouldn’t we?

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:15pm | 17/02/12

Gobsmack, the proper channel to be an asylum seekers in Australia is to be in Australia.

Those who come under the voluntary resettlement program that costs $360 million a year for just 6,000 people are already refugees in other countries and have zero right to come here, they are part of a HOAX.

Why is it that people are too racist, too ignorant and too lazy to even read facts before prattling out the same old lies.

This from the UNHCR Australia branch report just last December:

Third, the confusion, and often wilful conflation, of Australia’s commitment to offer asylum to those eligible under the 1951 Refugee Convention with a separate, and discretionary, programme of resettling 6,000 UNHCR-referred refugees from different part of the world each year.
This has led many to assume, wrongly, hat ‘proper’ refugees arrive through the resettlement programme and ‘improper’ refugees arrive by boat, with the latter accused of violating Australia’s borders and hospitality by jumping the (mythical) queue of more deserving people awaiting
resettlement. This false characterisation has led, in our view, to a disappointing loss of support for the institution of asylum at a time, during the Refugee Convention’s 60th anniversary year, when we are asking States to reaffirm the primacy of this important human rights instrument.

This from the Honourable Judi Moylan, liberal party MP:

http://www.judimoylan.com.au/LatestNews/Speeches/tabid/71/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/859/Default.aspx

The fact is that once an asylum seeker reaches our shores we have a legal, social and moral obligation to assess the claim and then provide asylum. This obligation must be separated from our voluntary commitment to offshore resettlement programs.”

RThis from the DIAC mob:’

Background information
One of the major challenges facing the world today is protecting refugees who have been forced to leave their homes by armed conflict and human rights abuses.
As a member of the international community, Australia shares responsibility for protecting these refugees and resolving refugee situations. This commitment is most strongly expressed through the Humanitarian Program.
The Humanitarian Program has two important functions:
it fulfils our international obligations by offering protection to people already in Australia who are found to be refugees according to the Refugees Convention (known as the onshore protection/asylum component)
it expresses our commitment to refugee protection by going beyond these obligations and offering resettlement to people overseas for whom this is the most appropriate option (known as the offshore resettlement component).”

Now no more fucking crap about this.

And Adam C, why is there some morality in making the 0.0001% of the world’s refugees go somewhere else?

andrew says:

03:41pm | 17/02/12

Richo - you say the government spends Billion(S) on this.  Perhaps they have spent billions on this, but what is your solution?  put them on a dodgy raft and push them back out to sea?  put them on the first plane and push them out of a plane over international waters?  what is your solution that doesnt cost anything?

also, per the article above it states that the government spent 772 million (not quite a billion) in 2010-2011 financial year.  Sure is a lot of money isnt it?  I have no idea if this figure is correct.

However lets put it some perspective.  The Australian government’s revenue from their audited published 2011 financial accounts was $322,289 million.  <- you see this is a fact not a random figure somebody pulls of the backside to make up a story.  you can even get the 200+ page report from the finance website if you are really interested in providing facts.

the amount they spent on asylum seekers is around 0.2395 percent.  If you rounded to the closest percent, it would be ZERO. 

Yes it is still a lot of money.  But on the grand scheme of things, it is trivial.  Yes i realise many people will disagree with me that 772 million isnt trivial without putting it in context, it would be like most people spending $100 on a dinner and drinks on a friday night.

There are bigger problems in this country then asylum seekers.

marley says:

07:50am | 18/02/12

@Marilyn - you keep saying that refugees accepted under the offshore resettlement program have zero right to come here. 

So tell me, how is an Afghan asylum-seeker sitting in Pakistan any less entitled to be considered for an Australia visa than his cousin, who sat in Pakistan and then decided to fly to Indonesia ?  Both are asylum seekers, both are in non-signatory countries, neither has legal status in the country they’re in, neither has protection under the Convention.  One gets to Australia via the resettlement program, the other via a boat and onshore processing.  What’s the difference? 

Your repeated statement that these people aren’t entitled because they’ve already been accepted as refugees is ignorant, uninformed and flat out wrong.  Pakistan doesn’t accept refugees.  Neither do the African countries we resettle people from.  The Burmese don’t have refugee status in Thailand.  The Bhutanese don’t have refugee status in Nepal.  You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

Arturo says:

05:57pm | 20/02/12

@ Richo,

And the Israelis are kind compared to what happens on the India-Bangladeshi border.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/jan/23/india-bangladesh-border-shoot-to-kill-policy

TS says:

11:09am | 17/02/12

I wonder though, has anyone thought or tried to actually stop and interview a boat smuggling ring if that is the impression we are giving? I bet no one has. A job for Louie Theroux perhaps.

I seriously doubt it matters at all what we are or aren’t offering. The world is a messed up place, and Australia is a great looking place if you come from any of the hot spots of trouble at the moment.

And as if Scott Morrison is any better than Chris Bowen. That portfolio is a poisoned chalice, even moreso that Australian wicketkeeper.

Kassandra says:

11:13am | 17/02/12

Yes that’s a good point I haven’t heard raised in the comments on air about this issue this morning. People coming by boat are not paupers and are not being brought across from Indonesia for peanuts. All the reports I’ve heard suggest it costs several thousand dollars each at least plus the costs of getting to Indonesia from somewhere else, usually by air. In their countries of origin that’s a good deal of money.

Jade says:

11:16am | 17/02/12

@ TS “I seriously doubt it matters at all what we are or aren’t offering. The world is a messed up place, and Australia is a great looking place if you come from any of the hot spots of trouble at the moment”

Goood point

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:43am | 17/02/12

@TS

“I wonder though, has anyone thought or tried to actually stop and interview a boat smuggling ring if that is the impression we are giving? I bet no one has. A job for Louie Theroux perhaps”

Today Tonight did, whether you count that as journalism I’m not sure..

Scott Morrison is a grub I cant see him doing any better, but I’d dare say Abbott will be running that portfolio from over Morrisons left shoulder.

“The world is a messed up place, and Australia is a great looking place if you come from any of the hot spots of trouble at the moment”

Good point. Unfortunately you can’t help where you are born, If I was born in Afghanistan I know it wouldn’t take me long to get out of there.

Refugees are a trade, no different to people smuggling for prostitution. Find the source and stop it instead of pussy footing around.

TN says:

12:38pm | 17/02/12

you do realise that as the asylum seekers use doctors, dentists, etc, that the medical professions receive payment for these services, which they pay tax on.
the money goes around the country either way via tax and spending, so i wouldnt get to caught up on that.
plus as we have an aging population, you’d want more people here of working age to replace the retiring population. it essentially means we will pay less tax if there are people here to replace the aging workforce/tax base.
if we dont have enough people to fill the skills shortage, then we will end up paying more tax later to fund the welfare system, health system, infrastructure, schools etc.
and at the end of the day, we need to help those who need it. why are we being so superior because ‘we got here first’? and then fighting and bickering about trivial things like them getting a welcome pack or that they would use our medical services? what the hell? its embarassing really.
if you were in their shoes, you’d certainly hope for all the help you can get.

Chris says:

01:43pm | 17/02/12

@TN: that would be fine if they actually worked once they were here. I know a lot of them do but as a percentage there are more asylum seekers on welfare than there are australians that have been citizens for either their life or at least 20 years. It is this that people get angry about. By all means give them ago but they should expect to contribute as well, not have everything handed to them.

MMK says:

02:02pm | 17/02/12

TS, I think Foreign Correspondent or Dateline did something on the people smugglers in Indonesia and the smugglers certainly did admit that the cessation of offshore processing in Manus and Nauru has allowed them to make more money from these queue jumpers. They actually pay more than 10K per person. And most of them fly in to KL and Jakarta or Colombo to catch their boats. They are not all victims. The majority are opportunists who are taking advantage of a loophole and the ignorance of most Australians who know nothing of the trade.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:14pm | 17/02/12

@Chris

There are sections of the Immigrant community that have a higher workforce participation rate.

The biggest barrier is language, always has been and always will be.

I’m not to fussed about the current crop its when they have kids they will grow up and do good things like the Viets, Chinese, Sri Lankans etc.

What worries me more is the bogan area’s around Australia full of whites with unemployment at 10% and they were born here and can speak English.

Even though the majority work and give back to Australia it’s always going to be the minority which get the headlines.

Bruce says:

06:36pm | 17/02/12

How about we get the asylum seekers to pay back the money when they get work. Much like how we make our kids pay back their university fees through HEX. Seems fair to me !

fred says:

12:17pm | 17/02/12

and your sources, your research?

Wynston Cruso says:

12:28pm | 17/02/12

Why are we housing them in anything more than what the legitimate refugees are housed in elsewhere around the world? I don’t think tv’s and ciggies are on the list of essential items for survival, give them food, water and tents.

marley says:

01:52pm | 18/02/12

@Tony of Poorakistan - I think you’re forgetting a few things.  When we detain people, we have to build buildings, install plumbing and electrics, put up fences, set up computer and telephone links.  It’s a lot more expensive to build than to rent, at least in the short term.  And then of course we have to pay for all the people required to guard the detainees.  That doesn’t come cheap.  It’s much cheaper to let them into the community than to have to invest hundreds of millions in new detention centers (or even in refurbishing old ones).

James1 says:

11:57am | 17/02/12

My gran came over on one of those - it cost us thousands and the taxpayer nothing.

fred says:

12:16pm | 17/02/12

Tony, set up your own blog and clear this space for informed comment from people who know the law, have a global understanding of asylum seeker movements and have a heart for the dispossessed and persecuted of this one world we live in.

Rob M says:

12:51pm | 17/02/12

Temporary Protection Visas are a wonderful example of the fact that draconian government policy does nothing to stem the flow of boats.

They were introduced in 1999, and, lo-and-behold, the next couple of years saw unprecedented armadas striking out for our shores. They must have just loved those TPVs!

You can whinge about causation and correlation all you like, but the fact is that you have no hard evidence correlating government policy with the levels of boat arrivals.

me my mo says:

01:14pm | 17/02/12

“and have a heart for the dispossessed and persecuted of this one world we live in.” Yeah, deciding to use tax dollars to give accommodation to a handful of refugees certainly qualifies you to be one with a heart for the dispossessed and persecuted.

Troy Flynn says:

02:07pm | 17/02/12

Rob M, TPV’s worked. Just because it took 2-3 years for the message to filter through doesn’t mean it wasn’t effective.
And Fred, are you a QC or solicitor. I know I’m not, but that’s beside the point. This is an opinion page. IE: you get people’s opinions here warts and all. I don’t always agree with what some people say either, but they are entitled to their opinion same as you. If the opinion of others upsets you so much. Don’t read The Punch!

Rob M says:

03:32pm | 17/02/12

Troy Flynn, I’m sorry, but your insistence that they worked is incorrect. If they were to have worked, why should “the message” have taken 2-3 years to “filter through”? Are you imagining places like Indonesia as being barren technological backwaters where media such as the internet don’t exist, and people smugglers and asylum seekers alike are forced to rely on Chinese whispers for their news? They do not. When the TPVs were introduced in ‘99, those folks knew all about them. But they were still prepared to take the risk, and so, frankly, would you have been had you been waiting in the “queue” that is the swamped, disorganised mess that are the camps supplied by the $81 MILLION dollar UNHCR budget.

But still you say TPVs worked, so where’s your proof? That the boat arrivals went down… *eventually*? Well, I say that that was a coincidence.

I say that, in particular, it coincided with a reduction of hostilities between the Taliban and the Coalition forces in Afghanistan, a ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamils, an Indonesian crackdown on people smugglers and illegal immigrants, and a relatively widespread period of global prosperity. Push factors, in other words. Serious problems that have nothing to do with Australia’s insecurity about a pathetically small amount of unregulated person movements.

If you have hard evidence that proves correlation, feel free to produce it. But I say that boat arrivals go up and down with no relationship to government policy, and with every relationship to overseas situations.

Is there a solution? Yes. The first thing we have to do is withdraw from the Refugee Convention.

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:44am | 17/02/12

hahaha they guy with a bald spot saying 17.

Rose says:

11:30am | 17/02/12

What a load of old codswallop, the huge majority of boat people are eventually deemed to be refugees. Whether you agree with the criteria or not is your issue, but they do in fact qualify, and did so when Howard was in as well.
Being able to raise enough cash to pay to get here does not mean you are not a refugee, it just means you are more fortunate than those who can’t.
As for the drownings, they will continue until the governments of the world address this issue, no one country will be able to solve the problem.

JT says:

11:43am | 17/02/12

@Rose ‘‘the huge majority of boat people are eventually deemed to be refugees.’‘

They are not proven to be refugees, just classed as such because it is politically expedient to do so and then let loose.

‘‘Being able to raise enough cash to pay to get here does not mean you are not a refugee, ‘’

Yes it does, in fact I would say that pretty much disqualifies them from ever being considered a refugee.

‘‘As for the drownings, they will continue until the governments of the world address this issue’‘

They will continue while the carrot is big enough for them to risk the journey.

sickoflies says:

11:54am | 17/02/12

@Erick, considering after they’ve been processed and assessed, over 80% of them are found to be genuine refugees, how do you back up this nonsense you’re spouting? Is it just… the vibe of the thing you’re disagreeing with? (oh, don’t worry, I don’t expect you to even answer, let alone answer with proof.)

fox says:

11:55am | 17/02/12

@Rose

They are classed as refugees because they have destroyed their paper and the authorities have no other choice.

Kiddo says:

11:58am | 17/02/12

@Rose - considering that the boat people arrive without any identification papers (which they would have had had at some point in time to get to indonesia), how exactly does the australia decide that they are genuine refugees fleeing persecution?  I wonder if the immigration department just grants them refugee status because they are here, they wont go back, and there aren’t many ways of finding out who they really are in their home countries? Happy to be corrected if I am wrong, for australia’s sake I hope they are genuine refugees whom we are helping.

Kiddo says:

12:02pm | 17/02/12

@JT “Yes it does, in fact I would say that pretty much disqualifies them from ever being considered a refugee. “

I disagree with that. A political dissident in a country like Iran or even China for example, could face very real danger to thier life. They probably wouldnt be dirt poor, but would still be classified as a refugee\asylum seeker fleeing persecution

fml says:

12:08pm | 17/02/12

JT,

“They are not proven to be refugees, just classed as such because it is politically expedient to do so and then let loose.” That is extremely cynical. Politically expedient? to whom? If its what the people wanted, why didnt it occur? why would the government go against what the “majority” of people wanted?

“Yes it does, in fact I would say that pretty much disqualifies them from ever being considered a refugee.”

No it doesnt. Maybe they were lucky enough to be able to sell their house? one of the few that might not have been hit by missles? I don’t understand why a refugee has to be penniless to be considered a refugee? All they have to do is to be considered to be escaping violence.

“They will continue while the carrot is big enough for them to risk the journey.” Yep, fleeing war, death and persecution is a pretty big carrot.

TN says:

01:08pm | 17/02/12

my parents were boat people, they certainly we not on that rickety old and over crowed boat for fun. you know, drinking sea water, eating nothing, baking in the sun. so much fun!
not to mention the pirates raping and stealing the last few possessions you have.
mum was actually pregnant with me on the boat. can you imagine that Erick?
how would you feel if that was your parents?
that’s why a lot of ‘new’ immigrants want to work their asses off to pay off their houses and look after their parents (to be whinged at by bogans saying we steal their jobs and how unfair it is we drive nicer cars then they do - true story!)
i would not ever call my parents greed opportunists. Id call them survivors, doing what they need to to ensure the safety of themselves and their children.
I think youv’e been too sheltered. You need to go travel and see the world and perhaps grow a heart.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:26pm | 17/02/12

TN - but it wasn’t Ericks parents, it was yours who made the conscious decision to endanger themselves and their unborn child in order to presumably bypass other countries to get here. I don’t see your point. To me, survivors would stay where they are and try to fix the problem inherent in their own country, jumping on a leaky boat and being a victim of the things you claim they were doesn’t strike me as a reasonable decision to ensure their own safety. This tells me that there was perhaps further incentive to risk that kind of journey.

fml says:

02:18pm | 17/02/12

Wynston,

You have never been in a war before aye?

What are civilians supposed to do against armed soldiers, tanks, mortar and rockets? seriously. That is seriously not a rational argument.

How is the chemist, the school teacher, the cab driver supposed to work (in a war zone mind) take care of their family and then fight an invasion force?

Troy Flynn says:

02:31pm | 17/02/12

FML “why would the government go against what the “majority” of people wanted?”
Obviously you’ve never heard of the up coming Carbon Tax.

fml says:

02:39pm | 17/02/12

Troy,

My point being that its in the best interests of the country. I admit that is debatable, but thats possibly the reason why the politicians do not abolish the asylum seeker policy, and the same goes for the carbon tax.

TN says:

03:11pm | 17/02/12

@ Wynston, how bout you try to ‘fix problems inherent’ in a country where you AND your family will be shot dead if you dare say anything against the reigning rulers.
so sheltered you are, if only the rest of us who have seen what war does to a country and it’s people can forget.
my dad doesnt talk about the war, all i can gather is that he spent 7 years in crude asian prison whilst my mother had to raise 3 kids in a country where she had nothing and didnt speak the language.
if it were for the charities that helped us, who knows where we’d be. i definately wouldnt be here typing away at my air conditioned office trying in vain to enlighten you ignorant folk.

Borderer says:

03:26pm | 17/02/12

Compare a refugee in the Sudan to one of the ‘arrivals’. Now give them each a bottle of fresh drinking water. Watch their reactions and pick which is in more need?
We have a fixed number of refugees we take in each year yet due to this feeble border policy we continually take in the less needy, the less appreciative and those less in peril. We leave the rest die out of sight of the cameras so some well fed, safe individual can illegally enter the country and be handed more welfare than our own citizens.

acotrel says:

09:22am | 18/02/12

@Eric
Female asylum seekers are all closet feminists.

Sean says:

12:36pm | 17/02/12

Rose - won’t work. I do not have the statistics, but people on Working Holiday 417 visa’s are always overstaying them, then they disappear when they’re due back to go to their country. If you allow them to enter the community and start working, they’ll stay—even after they’re told to go home.

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:46am | 17/02/12

@Zeta

Its the figure that keep the misinformed hysteria going, all part of the plan my friend.

wakeuppls says:

12:02pm | 17/02/12

“It’s a lot cheaper than the alternative”

No, the alternative is free. Let them survive on their own, just like the rest of us. They either can’t do it and stay away or they can and can contribute to society just like every other individual should have to in this country.

fml says:

12:13pm | 17/02/12

Amen Zeta.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

04:59pm | 17/02/12

Zeta

the last contract with Serco for refugee detention was a BILLION dollars - that’s why Labor have rolled over. They have no solution and they don’t want to pay, so they’d rather let these unkowns, these unchecked, unscreened alleged ‘‘refugees’’ loose in our communities.

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:47am | 17/02/12

Gemma Jones and Simon Benson, two pea’s in a pod.

pat says:

01:25pm | 17/02/12

Brenda. Yes, and all this, at the same time , while other Australians cannot afford to get dental care! And the Labor Party PROPORTS to care for working class Australians!!!!!
With that same hipocrisy in mind, let’s all also think back for a minute to a ridiculous media publicised event .Back when little Kevin Rudd and Gillard - when they were suposed to be close Palsy Wellsy frends   jointly got together, helping each other to pile Howard’s Work Choice manuals in those garbage dumpsters.  It seems like light years ago! How the public face of Labor has changed in the interim ,, How!!!

Larry says:

12:09pm | 17/02/12

Just a minor point.  We can’t actually turn the boats around as Indonesia is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.  It would be as illegal as sending them to Malaysia (not to mention infinitely more dangerous).  Not that I would recommend it but if Christmas Island wasn’t there (it is much closer to Indonesia than Australia) not many boats would make it to the Australian mainland.  Should we resettle Chjristmas Islanders to Australia and then sink it?

fml says:

12:20pm | 17/02/12

What about being a responsible global citizen in a world which is increasingly becoming globalised and being heavily dependent on our neighbors for trade?

Nan says:

03:29pm | 17/02/12

the boats cann’t be turned around because these people set fire to them and injury our sailors as had happened in the past,and the Indonesians know it,this is the greatest export bussiness that has ever come from there,this goverment should have a plane ready with a once aweek flight back to Indonesia ,if they donn’t want to take them back put amount of money[10,000 per boat 1.000 per person on that boat] to be taken from the so called aid of tax payers money they get each year,to give these people welcome gifts along with free rent is a slap in the face of every tax payer ,we are putting mentaly ill people up in tents [west australian newspaper 8/2 /2012/] in caravan parks because there is nowhere else to house them,we have people with small children sleeping in cars and showering at the beach showers,cooking on the beachside BBQs because they cann’t find housing or cann’t afford the rents being asked for,these people still go to work each day after taking their kids to school,they pay tax,when is the goverment going to offer they free housing along with the tv dvd mobile phone and the rest of the goodies,when we don’t have anybody homless who doesn’t want to be homeless in this country we can start handing out freebies to any blow in who think they can lob at our backdoor and suck the life out of us,theGillard goverment is the cause of all the resentment because they don’t have any idea of how to look after their own people first

PD says:

11:48am | 17/02/12

The only real “asylum seekers” are the ones who flee directly here from their country.  Not those who come via Indonesia.  And especially not those who FLY to Indonesia before jumping on a boat.  You can’t just jump from country to country until you find somewhere you like.  That doesn’t make you an asylum seeker, that makes you a migrant.

Wauker says:

11:49am | 17/02/12

baddog, I forgot to mention, yes Aussies are racists.  Aussies are now made up of every nation under the sun and each of them hate one another.  We have Pacific Islander hating the Arabs, we have Arabs hating the Hazaars, we have Chinese hating the Indians, we have most of them despising Anglo-Saxons…shall I go on

We also have imported drive by shootings from the Middle East, we have machete attacks imported from Africa, we have had knife attacks from Asia, gotta love non-assimilation, eh?

I’m waiting for the Jain priests to come here, how will we handle these; its part of their culture…

subotic says:

12:03pm | 17/02/12

@PD, what about the ones that come from Samoa via Fiji then New Zealand?

Are they true asylum seekers too?

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:03pm | 17/02/12

@Wauker

So there was never any white crime beforehand?

No white guys to run the Cross, no white guys to set up all the Outlaw Motorcycle gangs, no white guys to sell drugs.

Strange view you have.

wakeuppls says:

12:08pm | 17/02/12

“As one of the wealthiest nations it shames me that Aussies can still be so close-minded and insular. Our tiny population & vast country us lulls us into believing the Australian way is ‘normal’ and every country has the luxuries we take for granted.”

You speak as if the wealth just magically appears at our doorstep. I believe people died for these luxuries and continue to work hard to make sure they stay.

Contrary to popular belief, foreign aid and immigrant welfare are two certain ways to waste money. If you are such a bleeding heart about the poor asylum seekers then you should donate all your disposable income to their cause and agree to let people who would rather their tax money spent elsewhere keep it. I’m not holding my breath for any of this socialist insanity to stop.

Leah says:

12:09pm | 17/02/12

Damn Straight!

The comments on the article on Herald Sun website seriously made me lose faith in humanity.

I got through about 3 before wanting to throw up.

fml says:

12:22pm | 17/02/12

wakeuppls,

Why do we have to spend disposable income, and you can argue about not spending tax?

I am quite happy for my tax money to go towards this issue.

Jay Santos says:

12:29pm | 17/02/12

“...Our narrow-minded attitude is not going unnoticed overseas, Aussies are getting a well-deserved reputation for being total racists. That’s truly sad.

What “reputation”? 

Any proof of that BS assertion published in the global mainstream press?

Didn’t think so.

“...Well done to the government for this policy, I say!...”

Considering this ‘policy’ has been in place since 2005 I think you can thank John Howard.

But that conflicts with your narrative right.

Annoyed says:

12:57pm | 17/02/12

@fml
You are right, why should our tax money go to our children’s education or health, upgrades for our roads and transport, or the assist those Australian Citizens that need help when we can pay for people from OTHER COUNTRIES!

What is wrong with you?  Australians need to help each other first, and those who came here legally before we give hand outs to illegal immigrants.  I’m damn sure my rent, bills, dental and “basic” needs like a TV aren’t payed for by the Government.  But maybe they should be.

What this article is suggesting is ludicrous.  Australia needs to wake up and help each other, or we won’t be Australia anymore, we’ll be some amalgamation of dole bludgers and people expecting constant handouts over hard work.

Some of you people need to have a look at your lives and wonder why OUR government should pay for things for foreigners that they don’t give to us?

wakeuppls says:

12:57pm | 17/02/12

“Why do we have to spend disposable income, and you can argue about not spending tax?

I am quite happy for my tax money to go towards this issue.”

You answered your own question. One is transfer of wealth by force, the other is free will. I don’t think I need to explain which is better.

RB says:

01:40pm | 17/02/12

Does that mean they will look somewhere else as we are so racists?
A genuine asylum seeker would keep their identification to prove this, unless they are one of a very small minority that have never had the priverlige of having one, and then I have no problem helping in any way.

fml says:

01:45pm | 17/02/12

wakeuppls,

Tax, a transfer of wealth by force? my, my what little faith in democracy you have. How many Australians would pay tax if they had the choice?

“I don’t think I need to explain which is better. ” Thats right, taxation is the correct choice because it pays for the building of nations.

Annoyed?

Whats wrong with me? Well, I wonder what you are referring to when you say foreigners get things that we dont? do they get to keep the contents of the house?

What about homes west? Australians are entitled to a free house. Asylum seekers are not. Are you seriously trying to argue that the average asylum seeker gets more entitlements than the average citizen you are sorely mistaken.

wakeuppls says:

02:08pm | 17/02/12

@fml

I don’t even know what you’re on about anymore. I never said welfare for Australian citizens was right either.

“Tax, a transfer of wealth by force? my, my what little faith in democracy you have. How many Australians would pay tax if they had the choice?”

Uhhh, no…...

Income tax is service to the national debt, much like every other country. I’m pretty sure people would rather not pay it.

Wauker says:

02:58pm | 17/02/12

SimonFromLakemba not mention of the racist hatred from these groups?  Sure we had crime, most of all it was fists, not reaching for a weapon. 
It also didn’t take long for the crime to begin; in fact per capita, white guys as you call them pale into the insignificance, check court records.
You are eiter too young or an apologist for new crime.
We didn’t need to import new methods of murder and extortion.
Back in your box!

Hamish says:

03:25pm | 17/02/12

baddog, a ridiculously small proportion of boat people coming to Australia are women and most of the ‘children’ are 20 plus. It just goes to show how few of them are actually fleeing serious persecution. If you’re being persecuted you don’t flee the country leaving your wife and kids back home. Of course if you’re just participating in an organised people trafficking exercise, you’re probably more than happy to leave the family and wait for the reunion rights to kick in.

Gregg says:

08:34pm | 18/02/12

@Lucy,
Don’t mind you fancying a dog as I have found them to be true to being mans and womans best friends, even if a little naughty at times but Lucy, you have certainly shaken off some of that starlet stardust with your praising of bad dog and that’s no way to train any dog.

In this case we have a post starting with ” Chill out haters, ” and you call well done!

I do not feel that is a great way to incite some good rational discussion and whilst you would seem to disagree with what may well be a majority of posts, I do not see too many haters amongst them Lucy and like myself just Australians putting their point of view.

ghanga darin says:

09:29pm | 19/02/12

A country of 23m like Australia cannot solve third world poverty. No country can. More children are born each year in India alone than we have in Australia already!. By luring young people and the middle classes able to afford the trip we are implementing a new form of colonialism whereby we lure people in distress into colonising themselves. If they are an economic asset to us they are a loss to their former country. It is far cheaper and will help many more to spend money training and employing them there and spending money on refugee support in neighbor countries. Our system encourages some of the world’s worst regimes to ethnically cleanse their populations which is a war crime. The poverty of those back home is made worse by loss of their family when they move here and when they brag on the internet and over the phone of how well they live here. Any money they remit is a drain to our economy making them net economic loss to us. Middle class refugee advocates’ ‘compassion’ is false and narcissistic. They have no compassion for the poor here or Indigenous people. Their poorly designed welfare policies have failed, they are fascinated by the Africans and Muslims since it helps them prove to themselves they are sophisticated and not racist, but think poor whites and aged people are bogans not deserving of compassion or a problem. Many have a vested interest in welfare jobs, legal services etc and feed on the multiculturalism industry. Yes, to some genuine temporary refugees, yes to some immigration but only with compensation to the source country. No to this refugee Ponzi scheme.  Free speech or cowardly censorship?

Jade says:

12:04pm | 17/02/12

If seeing a dentist is a basic health need, why do most Aussies have to pay out the ass to see one?

Sigmoid says:

12:23pm | 17/02/12

add to the list rent, food & electricity. Some Aussies struggling with those too.

Di says:

11:49am | 17/02/12

Great Comment and it’s all true… Thank you.

SimonFromLakemba says:

11:50am | 17/02/12

The homeless issue gets raised all the time. Now homeless people I’d say the majority were born in Australia, so they had a chance to go to school, work, raise a family which they somehow failed at along the way. So you could ask why should we help them when they already had a pretty good shot?

The ones I really feel sorry for are the people with mental illness who have been put in the too hard basket by society.

James1 says:

11:55am | 17/02/12

While I think our migration program should be orderly and controlled, I have very little sympathy for people born here who can’t manage their shit.  If you are born in a country where you get free education, welfare, free healthcare, and subsidised housing, and you still can’t manage to provide yourself with the basics, you have no hope, and deserve very little sympathy.

As Dave says above, I have very little sympathy for the country shoppers.  But for refugees processed overseas and settled in Australia I have far more sympathy than your average homeless person.  These refugees are actually poor, they have not had access to the opportunities that the homeless person ignored and wasted, and in most cases I have witnessed will do far more with their lives, and for their new country, than any homeless person ever will.

Paul says:

12:09pm | 17/02/12

@ Tax Payer: Concur. Taken from the Interpol website:

‘The flow of migrants across borders is controlled increasingly by criminal networks. Due to more restrictive immigration policies in destination countries and improved technology to monitor border crossings, willing illegal migrants rely increasingly on the help of organized people smugglers.’

fred says:

12:21pm | 17/02/12

rubbish. An asylum seeker is legally entitled to cross any border using what ever means ... pity the crims can exploit those genuine folk.
Indonesia does not offer asylum.

fml says:

12:25pm | 17/02/12

What?, you think that if we stopped ALL illegal immigration into australia, we australians are suddenly going to become altruistic and solve our homeless problems?

I thought i was naive.

Cath says:

01:23pm | 17/02/12

Could not agree more, well said

Wynston Cruso says:

01:44pm | 17/02/12

Just like I have very little sympathy for people who couldn’t manage their shit in their own country, so come here to enjoy the ride while the rest of us work for it. Genuine refugees certainly deserve our support, not the criminals.

My education certainly wasn’t free and I’m still paying for it. Never recieved welfare, free healthcare is arguable, and I spend a fortune to keep a roof over my head. I can definately see how someone born into poverty in this country could end up homeless through no fault of their own.

Not Stupid says:

06:59pm | 17/02/12

I fully agree Tax Payer, In my mind they are nothing but economic opportunists and country shoppers full stop. I have worked all over the world and can assure you from my personal experiences many foreign women have said to me ” oh you have free health and welfare?” and when I reply “yes”, they instantly ask me to marry them. Few even offered lots of American cash for a 1 year and one month marriage deal. I believe a true asylum seeker is for example an Afghan that has made their way to say India or SE Asia, being two or three boarders away from trouble in their home land for safety and is happy to start a new life in that country away from danger. Another example a Palestinian that goes to Jordon as a refugee.

fml says:

12:30pm | 17/02/12

I say john, you dont know what you are talking about.

1) Quarantine, people are tested before they get into the country.

2) Thats only your fear talking. They go through massive secuirty checks, are you calling our vetting officers incompetent?

3) We take in about 13 thousand a year, and many, many more in legal migration.

Also, Do you really care about the welfare of boat people? If its the sinking of the boats you care about in addition to their welfare, why not escort them to the closest shore? But, i dont think its their welfare you are worried about.

john says:

01:16pm | 17/02/12

@fml
what security checks?  plenty of them charged with crime and are in our jails, what about those charged with terrorism?
some of the crap that been allowed in is for all to see.

quarrantine does not mean a medical check lol.

you really don’t have a clue do you fml?

fml says:

01:54pm | 17/02/12

R U 4 Reelz? (I hate that saying, but its apt here).

“Australia detains ‘unauthorised’ arrivals while their refugee applications are decided. Those found to be refugees according to Australian migration law and who pass medical and security tests are granted a temporary protection visa (TPV). 23 Unauthorised arrivals who are found not to be refugees under Australian migration law remain in detention until they are removed from the country.”

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/face_facts_05/refugee.html

confirmed here,

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/resources/advocacykit.html

“plenty of them charged with crime and are in our jails,” Only if they are citizens, if they do not pass the checks they are sent back.

“quarrantine does not mean a medical check lol.” refer to links above,.

“you really don’t have a clue do you fml?”
Too Many lulz, sides literally splitting.

john says:

06:19pm | 17/02/12

@fml “R U 4 Reelz? Too Many lulz”

Indeed. Your spamming this topic with weird assumptions and interpretations from your wiki or other links.

Here is just one example:

  fml says:
  03:03pm | 17/02/12
  Joe,  How can it be an open border when we have a set intake?

Little Joe says:
05:17pm | 17/02/12
@ fml ..... we do not have a set intake and, just for the record, the intake was higher when Howard was PM!!!!

Perhaps waste time on other replies and don’t waste my time.

Your comments seem to lean towards justifying illegal human trade by boat arrival, under the guise of asylum seekers, yet dry on any workable solutions to cease this illegal business as I provided earlier.

fml says:

11:39am | 18/02/12

No point in arguing with someone who is clearly wrong and calls official government websites, “wikis”.

You are wrong, there are security and medical checks, You are only deluding yourself.

john says:

12:34pm | 18/02/12

@fml,

You can’t be educated to understand that medical check ups is not what quarantine is all about.

And furthermore your deluded that security checks can be made effectively with people who have no documents.

It is clear that as I stated before you lean towards justifying illegal human trade by boat arrival, under the guise of asylum seekers, yet dry on any workable solutions .

Please get some help, can’t you see the vast majority of people don’t want this situation to continue?

Joe says:

12:22pm | 17/02/12

Fred, Its not mandatory detention at all.  Its voluntary detention.  He is free to go home anytime he chooses.

Annoyed says:

12:25pm | 17/02/12

Fred, how many countries did he go through before he reached Australia?  Why did he feel he had to come here, when I have no doubt people of his” religious and ethnic minority” were established in the neighboring countries, and every SINGLE COUNTRY he passed through.  No, he came here because he heard you could do live the high life, that Australia was easy.  Guess what, it isn’t.  We work hard, so we can spend our money on ourselves.  He was a refugee when he crossed into Pakistan, but after that, he was a migrant, hoping country to country til he hit Australia.
Every country he passes through would have given him this “humanitarian help and protection”, but he didn’t ask for it.  Not our fault, it’s his.

Paul says:

01:10pm | 17/02/12

@ Fred the Immigrant: So your healthy, 30 year old male friend fled the persecution of the Taliban whilst Australian soldiers are fighting them?

My heart bleeds, I’d have more respect if he grew a set, picked up a weapon, joined the Afgan National Army who are being trained by us at our dollar and fought for his own Nations freedom against oppression.

Your friend is a coward.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:34pm | 17/02/12

@Paul

“My heart bleeds, I’d have more respect if he grew a set, picked up a weapon, joined the Afgan National Army who are being trained by us at our dollar and fought for his own Nations freedom against oppression.”

The army barely get paid, why would he fight with them? it’s why they are having problem with the Taliban at the moment because they pay more.

Well of course its our money, we decided to invade the place.

Annoyed says:

01:53pm | 17/02/12

@Simon

Not only are you an advocate for spending tax payer money on crap, you also clearly think we should let people who use terrorist tactics to run a country… What the hell is wrong with you.

I can understand you attacking people based on opinions of tax money, but the moment you say we “invaded” a country that was definitely NOT better off before we got there, you are a moron.  Australian soldiers have fought and died, not because we have “invaded” but to make the country better for it’s inhabitants.

Wake up to yourself idiot

fred says:

01:55pm | 17/02/12

Paul, my friend is Hazara, and his people laid down their arms when asked to do so by NATO/Coalition , but the Taliban and Kuchi did not. Hazara are systematically murdered for their religion and their ethnicity… a guerilla type Taliban attack and fade away operation, against unarmed civilians. It’s gutsy to leave all that you know, in the faint hope you can find a country that will let you live and work in peace and where your children may have an education and a future.  I recommend that you meet some Australian Hazara and hear their true life story. It will shame us who are born into a democratic and peaceful society- a stroke of luck.

Paul says:

02:01pm | 17/02/12

@ SimonFromLakemba: Agreed regarding pay (funded I might add by international narcotics trading), however as Afgans are joining the Taliban because of pay issues they deserve everything they get under Taliban rule. You know, the whole stoning, beheading and hand removal thing.

‘Evil prevails when good men do nothing.’ In the case of Afganistan however ‘Evil prevails because capable men fled.’

MJ says:

02:07pm | 17/02/12

I wonder if the mental health issues faced by asylum seekers are due to being in detention or because the have fled life threatening persecution where all relatives have been killed? Surely being somewhere with food, shelter and knowing you are not going to killed by the Taliban tomorrow is not worse than what he fled from?

fml says:

02:14pm | 17/02/12

Paul,

So the afghans deserve the taliban because of the few that have fled? what about the multitudes more that stay there and are fighting?

Don’t they count in your eyes?

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:27pm | 17/02/12

@Paul

I actually agreed with the Afghan War even though USSR and America created the mess that they are now fighting. I just didn’t agree with America going after the Taliban as they were just the militant arm of Saudi Arabia who remained untouched. People seem to forget that Afghanistan wasn’t completely awful in the early days, only once Britain, USSR & USA got their hands on it.

Afghanistan was a mess that’s true, but I’d be buggered if id stay behind not knowing what would be left. The only option they had was to go to Pakistan on the border which is a huge hell hole run by the Taliban with Saudi funded madrassa’s.

The place is still corrupt, still run by region’s and local mullahs only thing that has really changed is Kabul and a few provinces.

@Annoyed

you have a strange perspective, we weren’t exactly asked to come were we? so I’d say we invaded…

Paul says:

02:29pm | 17/02/12

@ Fred: ‘It’s gutsy to leave all that you know, in the faint hope you can find a country that will let you live and work in peace and where your children may have an education and a future.’

Yes it is Fred and whilst I understand their desire for a better life I cannot excuse fleeing, travelling through many safe countries prior to destroying passports and paying criminals to get them here.

‘It will shame us who are born into a democratic and peaceful society- a stroke of luck.’

Australia is a peaceful and democratic Nation because we fought against oppression (twice) and created this society. It didn’t just happen, nor was it a stroke of luck. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance Fred. Lest We Forget.

Wauker says:

03:10pm | 17/02/12

SimonFromLakemba quotes: The Afghan Army barely get paid, why would Fred’s immigrant friend fight with them? it’s why they are having problem with the Taliban at the moment because they pay more. unquote

Yes Paul, he is absolutley GUTLESS as is all young Afghani men that leave their wives and children to so call flee.  (flee to be on welfare for in excess of 5 years -so far)

With thinking like that Simon I can see the Labor Party searching you out for preselection; what utter twisted thinking!

James1 says:

03:48pm | 17/02/12

These armchair generals sitting at their computers calling other people gutless because they prefer life to death would be funny if they weren’t so pathetic.

Paul says:

04:22pm | 17/02/12

@ fml: ‘So the afghans deserve the Taliban because of the few that have fled? what about the multitudes more that stay there and are fighting?’

Nobody deserves to be oppressed by fascists. I have the utmost respect for those that have stayed and are fighting. The Taliban are the modern era Nazis. Those that have stayed deserve our fullest support both financial and militarily. Oh by the way, that’s why we have a $4 billion foreign aid budget which is set to double by 2015.

My question to you is, if we were facing Nazi style oppression in this country, would you take up arms and fight or would you leave your wife and kids behind, pay a criminal 10k to jump on a leaky boat to New Zealand and expect them to feed and house you?

Paul says:

05:30pm | 17/02/12

@ James1: I’m neither an airchair General or pathetic, the best part of 20 years in the service of my country and recognised active service demonstrates it.

I’d be interested to hear what you have done for your Nation or are you simply a citizen that enjoys the freedom it provides but ridicule it because yes I agree, our Nation isn’t a perfect utopia? By my reckoning having travelled all over the planet it’s pretty, bloody good in comparison to others. And oh by the way, I welcome genuine refugees who arrive here by the right channels, they enhance the welcoming fabric of the true Australian way.

onlooker says:

09:31am | 18/02/12

Fred, many Australians have fought and died in wars for this country, they are still fighting and dying now in Afghanistan. We are not a country for cowards, we stay and fight for what we believe in. These young Afghan men running here, while our soldiers are dying there is an obscenity. I have no sympathy for your friend in the detention center, he chose to run away and come here, just as easily he could chose to go back to his homeland and fight for his countrymen

fred says:

12:30pm | 17/02/12

Rhi it never comfortable to be an asylum seekers and to be denied your human right to work to feed and clothe and house yourself and the people who depend on you, the head of family. It is not illegal to flee to save your life and seek a safe future for your children. If only you knew the real story of the people who are desperate enough to come by boat I believe you would think differently. There is no right way to seek asylum… you have the human right to cross a border and ask for protection from persecution. That’s the law. Whatever “benefits” you think the asylum seekers get, they are no compensation for being in immigration detention and not being allowed to work. And they want to work.

Gregg says:

10:26am | 18/02/12

@Rhi,
You have a misconception re getting skilled visas and working in mines for mines will seek people with skills and experience and No, it is not so easy to get a working visa, not from most countries but do not believe me and have a look at the Immigration web site.

And for you Fred
Yes, being detained is no doubt undesirable for those who have wanted to come to Australia but Asylum Seekers also need to realise that Australia is a country which has developed on a law and order basis, quite likely a lot different to most of the middle eastern countries.
Australia also supports the UN with their approach to setting up refugee camps, the policy to have camps as close as possible to where people originated from for various reasons you can read about on the UNHC web site.
There are something like 15M refugees globally and another 25M people classed as internally displaced persons as a result of violence, persecution etc. and Australia cannot take them all and in fact though Australia as a country have our own issues to deal with, we do take in many more refugees than most countries, there having been a long term humanitarian policy in place.

It does take a lot of Australian government resources funded by tax payers to process people in all forms of immigration and the arrival in recent years of thousands of people using people smugglers does put a strain on our resources and yes people do get held in detention at great cost to Australian taxpayers while they await processing.
Many people argue that we should speed up the processing and the simple answer is that only so many people can be employed and that there are a lot of checks to be made.

Other things that speeding up processing would do would be to
. encourage more people to use people smugglers and that would just not exacerbate the problem of resourcing the processing but quite possibly:
. lead to many more deaths at sea because of people smugglers using unsafe boats.
. create many more refugees in Australia with limited capacity to house them, there already being a national housing shortage for people already living here and then you have the questions of what skills do asylum seekers have for use in the workforce, even those with some qualifications abroad needing to have skills verified and that in itself can be a lengthy task.
Thus we just also exacerbate the situation we would have with more people being supported by government welfare.

Certainly, Australians understand the plight of many asylum seekers including Hazara people but the Hazara people also need to understand that they may have to rely on the UN and just like the majority of refugees it can mean many years in a refugee camp.

fml says:

12:42pm | 17/02/12

Does this apply to white australians with a low level of illiteracy too?

I read today that Asian kids have a greater level of comprehension in mathematics and english than Australian kids, Should they be our thrusted into power as our political overlords?

fml says:

12:43pm | 17/02/12

damnit, Literacy*, you know what i mean.

I need a drink.

ghanga darin says:

04:08pm | 21/02/12

Silly me but I can’t help but try to help the foolish. Customary international law and international law are effectively the same when it comes to refugees because custom effectively includes the judicial decisions of States becuase it is part of how they behave in practice. They either send refugees away or they do not based on their law which is a combination of their legislation and how their courts interpret it and Governments administer it. NOW DO YOU GET IT? Last word. No more help.

riversutra says:

01:06pm | 17/02/12

Under the published guidelines they get a TV of 53cm minimum-  - referred to in the article as ” a tiny TV”. The author of the article understands the publics main understanding of this issue will be ” they’re getting a free plasma” so has to sneer dismissively about the “tiny TV” in the knowledge all “progressives” will understand his contempt of any who don’t accept that economic refugees must be never criticized. Interesting that a TV is regarded as one of lifes essentials. Next- a computer and free internet? Anyway, the package remains in the house and does not become the property of the economic refugee. I’m sure anyone who shows such contempt of our immigration laws would never take this stuff; besides the chances of the organisation responsible pressing charges for missing stuff is zip.
Please be advised that any criticism of the term economic refugee is or the claim they are not technically breaking immigration law is going to be paid as much notice as ..well..anything out of Gillards mouyth, zip.

fml says:

12:40pm | 17/02/12

Horrible post, filled with inaccuracy, the only accuracy was the hate portrayed.

*Spew*

Troy Flynn says:

03:30pm | 17/02/12

FML So are you denying female circumcision is part of some muslim immigrants cultures? NOTE I said SOME not all.

fml says:

11:43am | 18/02/12

“Australia now has tuberculosis in every state and a plethora of diseases previously unknown here. All types of worm and infection can be easily spread just by one of these people putting their foot into a puddle”

I was talking about this hate filled lie.

fml says:

01:01pm | 17/02/12

There is only a perceived inbalance, Once citizens they are entitled to the same as everyone else. Before, definitely not as much.

MJ says:

02:03pm | 17/02/12

Being a refugee does not mean being poor.

It is not only the poor who have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”

fml says:

02:21pm | 17/02/12

I am in agreement.

Richo says:

02:24pm | 17/02/12

@MJ - Bypassing many safe countries, throwing away your passport and other ID on your way to Australia to assist your chances of residency is blatant fraud and casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of these so called refugees.

fml says:

02:35pm | 17/02/12

Richo,

What safe countries? There is only one signatory on the way from afghanistan to australia and that is Cambodia, the rest do not accept refugees.

And countries like Iran are already saturated with refugees, Where there is more than 3 million, 2.3 million of them Afghan.

Richo says:

04:10pm | 17/02/12

fml - Dubai takes in people willing to work. Also, you’re not suspicious that they throw away their ID on the boat to Australia? Then they complain about how long they have in detention? I’m sure if i rocked up at Australian airport after a holiday and didn’t have any ID I’d be locked up too. The fact is, when you don’t have ID you can be anyone you want. You can make up stories to gain advantage.

fml says:

01:34pm | 17/02/12

Therefore we shouldnt help anyone else?

My parents worked when they came here, and i was ineligible for centrelink, but i wouldnt begrudge anyone else a helping hand.

Chris says:

04:21pm | 17/02/12

That sounds like an excellent idea with the community service. It would also help improve current residents perception of them since they are contributing rather than only taking.

ghnaga darin says:

10:11pm | 19/02/12

There are over 2.2m undreutilized Australians (Roy Morgan), 8% underemployed (ABS), 12% underutilzed (ABS), and many long term unemployed. Why should you apply a racist employment policy that advantages one group on the basis of race or religion or refugee status. All Australians should be helped when unemployed. Those who have lived here longer, worked and paid taxes should have greater rights not less than others. Singling out refugees for special treatment breeds racism. Unless all can be helped none should be. Anyone who responds to disadvantage with crime, or violence should be prosecuted harshly. Refugee status should not attract lenient sentences. Responsible people would have a greater sense of the need for public order if they have come as refugees and a greater sense of gratitude.  Terrorists should be deported.

ghnaga darin says:

07:48am | 20/02/12

Can someone explain to me why a refugee should be given priority over an Australian to get a job? Why exactly? Once here refugees are safe and no longer persecuted. They should be treated the same or less favourably than other Australians, not more favourably. Why the same or less?  Because they have not been here long, and have not contributed through their taxes or employment here. Yes they should be treated compassionately and not discriminated against but they should never be put ahead of others on the basis of race or refugee status. They are no longer persecuted when here. That ends their special pleading.  Then should start equality, responsibility and self-reliance. No more special treatment we should reserve this highly exceptional affirmative action for only Indigenous people, but even that should be means tested properly so rich Indigenous people don’t get help they don’t need and more goes to the most needy.

Arturo says:

06:09pm | 20/02/12

@ ghnaga darin - we need to look after them once they are here because if we don’t their second generation will miss out on the opportunities available to other Australians and they will end up hating us.  This has happened in the past in Australia and overseas to first generation refugees who have been left to fend for themselves, the first generation is thankful but that hasn’t been the view of their second generation, unless they have been helped and included.  That means other Australians will miss out on opportunities and will need to move aside, so be it, but we have agreed to take 13,750 people per year and this is our responsibility.  This is why I don’t won’t to see the 13,750 refugee quota increase because it is the poor Australians who will suffer the most with any policy to increase this quota.

fml says:

01:24pm | 17/02/12

Television is actually a decent way of introducing Immigrants to australian culture.

Put home and away on constant re-runs and theyll prefer to be back in afghanistan in no time.

Thirsty says:

01:37pm | 17/02/12

@Richo
Did you know that most Australian households receive welfare…ever heard of family tax benefit, private health insurance rebate, pensions, senior health care cards, education tax offsets, child care rebates, utility supplements etc etc
or dont you consider these things “welfare”
Did you know that youth unempolyment for those who havent attained a school certificate is near 50%...better kick all of these fuckers out of our great country as well
Your link above is to an article on another news limited site….it must be true then
Idiot

Winston Smith says:

01:48pm | 17/02/12

I read the news story, and the raw figures, and no inference can be made that “these people don’t really want to work.”  Using these raw figures, one might speculate that an element of racism exists that prevents refugees from finding full time work.  One might also speculate that a traumatic life in their home country, or a culture of distrust and racism that exists within Australia, forces newly arrived refugees to socialise with their own country-people ensuring that they don’t learn English to a standard that allows them to find meaningful employment.  There is more evidence from human rights groups and refugee advocacy groups to support the latter, than your inference of laziness.  I find it curious that you chose to go with that.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:02pm | 17/02/12

Would be interesting to see how many were studying as well.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/outcomes-contributions-apr11.pdf

Whilst unemployment is higher, the majority do work.

Interesting note about people banging out about family visa’s, spouse’s had an unemployment rate at around 9% which I think is pretty decent.

Another article showing certain groups of refugees that came now have a higher rate of Labour Force Participation, all makes interesting reading.

Richo says:

02:51pm | 17/02/12

@Thirsty - Clearly, you misinterpret what I’ve said. The article is based on Department of Immigration figures and reported to the public via news.com.au. The stats ARE fact. It might be hard for you to swallow but those are the facts.
Yes, some Australians do receive welfare but the vast majority don’t rely on it as their sole source of income, like the majority of the refugees are doing, particularly the refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan whose work rates are nothing short of appalling. Additionally, just because some Australians receive welfare does not mean Australia has to be a dumping ground for asylum seekers who bypass numerous other safe countries, where there is plenty of work, to come here and get welfare. These people are also throwing away passports when they get on the boat to Australia, which only a stupid person would not consider suspicious. Did they not know that having ID would greatly assist their process times? Only someone with something dirty to hide would throw away ID. I smell BS on all these refugee claims.
Lastly, if you have no confidence in a News Limited website, what are you doing reading and contributing to this one?
Clown.

Thirsty says:

03:12pm | 17/02/12

@Richo
this said clown reads news limited websites in order to see and try and understand the “other” side of the story….it also reinforces in my mind that I am smarter than some other people out there…
When a story is published on their website that is more bullshit than normal, I have great pleasure in clicking on as many add links as I can (advertisers get charged per click, what page it comes from is tracked as well)
Now I know you will jump up and say that News is making money out of this…I know, but you have to look at the bigger picture
if advertsers are getting charged more and more for advertsing, and they dont get the increase in sales coresponding to increasing in advertising spend…guess what, they will advertise somewhere else.
Its just my little way in punishing companies that advertise their product through such as shameless organisation. Once they change their medium for advertising, said organisation then suffers
Im a bit loopy, I know

Thirsty says:

02:26pm | 17/02/12

@Linda
Aahh, the good old days
Geez, wasnt that long ago, we didnt even count people of Aboriginal descent as Australian, we didnt have seatbelts in our cars, telephone and TV were luxuries, child mortality was 10 times than what it is now etc etc etc
its called progress stupid….refugees arent playing the victim card, Australians like you are the ones whinging like stuck pigs because we open our hearts and minds to the tiny amount of people who want a chance at a better life
Fuck me, as a country, are we that much against giving some poor family a place to live and $216 a week to live on until they are granted assylum or citizenship

The Proud Aussie-Brit says:

09:48am | 18/02/12

Too right Linda, I came here as a migrant and no one gave me anything either.  I left my family and friends at home to seek my fortune here, and compared to some UK migrants now, arrived on the bones of my butt.

Take a leaf out of the Vietnamese and Asian migrants book - can you cook ?  Open a restaurant.  It’s what the Indians and the Pakistanis did in England, and I dare say, the SE Asians did here.

The success of those restaurants and Vietnamese nail / beauty salon, market gardens etc. shows that they did get off their butts and do something instead of expecting a handout.  Likewise, I don’t see the African refugees that I know personally, asking for new TVs etc. because they are a proud people and want to “make it” in Australia themselves.  Bloody good on them.

Makes me sick when other people shout “Visa, Visa” and then destroy what we gave them, people like me and Linda have MORE reason than the average home grown Aussie to be angry because WE never got anything when we came here AND we pay tax in this country, probably a damn sight more than some home grown Aussies who aren’t as driven to succeed and get out of relative poverty.

Maybe, Thirsty, you can understand WHY we are so annoyed at how ungrateful some people are ?!

fml says:

01:57pm | 17/02/12

Really? you stopped eating meat?

The terrorists have won.

Thirsty says:

02:15pm | 17/02/12

@Di
for fucks sake, THEY ARE NOT ILLEGALS
As a beef farmer, I am gald you have stopped eating our meat, it has upped the IQ of the average meat eater

fitter says:

10:47am | 20/02/12

Di, I dont know where to start with your post. All I can say is that you are just the epitome of the Ugly Australian.

fml says:

02:10pm | 17/02/12

I thought homegrown terrorists were ones that were born and grew up here?

How many, asylum seekers have turned to into terrorists? I want numbers.

Richo says:

02:38pm | 17/02/12

fml - aside from how many have turned into terrorists, the question remains “Is Australia’s current refugee program a good and successful one?” The answer is, largely no it isn’t.

fml says:

02:48pm | 17/02/12

Richo?

If the purpose for a refugee program is to replace people fleeing persecution, then yes i would say it is extremely successful. Generally that is the purpose of a refugee policy.

RyaN says:

04:05pm | 17/02/12

@fml: “fleeing persecution”, but not enough to want a taxpayer funded flight back home to see the family.
Sounds like horse excrement to me! Smells like it too.

RyaN says:

04:08pm | 17/02/12

@fml: “How many, asylum seekers have turned to into terrorists? I want numbers. “

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/what-really-happened-when-asylum-seekers-boat-exploded-20090424-ah3k.html

The terrorists that did this are now in the Australian community, lets hope they never end up in an altercation with the neighbor, for the neighbors sake.

Richo says:

04:21pm | 17/02/12

fml - ah yes fleeing persecution but one year later wanting to go back to their homelands. Better be careful and hide from those people who are persecuting you when you get back! The persecution stories are just left wing propaganda used by greedy lawyers to get their clients’ residency. Sadly, some suckers like you fall for it too.

ghnaga darin says:

07:32am | 20/02/12

The problem is that the UN has now widened the definition of persecution in the Refugee Convention so much that almost anyone can qualify. Imagine if every person in the world who suffered from, domestic violence, civil war, homosexual, gender or religious discrimination came to Australia tomorrow. We’d be stuffed. But that is what the definition of persecution now effectively allows. Andrew Bartlett of the Democrats even wants a new visa category that allows people to come to escape poverty, environmental crises and civil war ie no longer limited to persecution. Why bother we have it almost anyway. Since sectarian strife, homosexual and gender discrimination are rife throughout the Muslim world it is basically loophole for Islamic immigration to the West and lifetime welfare. Why should we pay because the Islamic world cannot Govern itself properly or because people implement religious law we do not agree with? Please explain! Indians know well how violent some of these people are or can be when religious extremism takes them over. Many Australian migrant communities oppose the Government’s crazy open door policies, even responsible moderate Muslims are fearful. The Government has lost control. Time to abandon the Refugee Convention, assert sovereignty and make our own humane but not weak policy.

marley says:

09:13am | 20/02/12

@ghnaga darin - that’s absolute bulldust.  The UN definition of a refugee hasn’t change a jot since the Convention was written. 

Under the Convention, a refugee is a person who, because of a “wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;.”

If we choose to apply the definition more broadly, that is entirely a decision made by us and not by the UN.  Their definition hasn’t changed in 60 years.

ghnaga darin says:

06:50am | 21/02/12

Marley obviously has no expertise in law. The definition is subject to judicial interpretation which has effectively changed it as applied. The Migration Act picks up the definition from the UN convention which any legal drafter knows means that it picks up the UN definition and current interpretations. Our courts have regard and apply these interpretations. Obviously you have never drafted a law or had to administer one. You should be careful that you do not mislead readers if you have no legal expertise. That is how the law works. No lawyer would make such a stupid mistake as you have. As any refugee lawyer and s/he would happily admit that our definition has been broadened as applied.

marley says:

08:10am | 21/02/12

@ghnaga darin - and you clearly have no understanding or experience of law and international conventions yourself.  You said, and I quote, “the UN has now widened the definition of persecution.”  And I said, no, it hasn’t - because it cannot.  The definition is as it was written all those years ago.

You are correct in stating that the definition is subject to judicial intepretation - but entirely wrong in claiming that the UN has any role in that. After all, judicial interpretations are made by judges and courts - and the UN has no judges or courts dealing with refugee matters.  Or didn’t you know that?  The UN has absolutely no legal role in the refugee determination process.  So the concept that it has made judicial interpretations of refugee definitions is, quite frankly, laughable.

As I’ve already stated, any extension of the definition is made by individual nations, and not by the UN.  Some countries have deliberately chosen to broaden the definition; others have not.  The UN has absolutely no role in those choices.  All it does is monitor the refugee determination processes of individual signatory states to ensure those processes meet the minimum requirements of the Convention.  It can’t overturn them, it can’t force nations to comply, it can only use moral suasion when they don’t. 

In short, the UN has zero role in “judicial” interpretations of the refugee definition.  Our courts have developed a body of legal precedent on refugee matters, and may as well consider legal rulings used in other national courts (Canada, the US, the UK) but none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the UN.  And that’s a fact.  So perhaps, before lecturing me, you should do a little reading yourself.  Because no one who knows anything about refugee matters, or legal systems for that matter, would have made the mistakes you’ve made.

ghnaga darin says:

10:10am | 21/02/12

I suspect I have more experience in law and probably more law degrees than you. The UN has a key role in international law formation. The UN comprises 192 nation States. States’ practice and legal decisions form customary international law. International law is ‘open textured’. Any international lawyer knows that. The definition of who is a refugee is part of customary international law. Ipso facto the UN makes customary international law even though it is not a Parliament. Another primary source of customary international law is treaties. The refugee convention is a treaty. Treaties are made, interpreted and implemented by UN Members. The expert bodies of the UN such as the UNHCR help to make law by advising States as to how they should behave which forms State practice. They give expert advice on interpretation of the treaties and on international law and suggest how treaty text should be worded. The UN bodies are highly influential when it comes to the international law definition of refugee. This all feeds into the formation of customary international law. It is not the role of the ICJ to deal with the refugee case law of States. I did not say it did. 

But in one narrow sense you are right. States are sovereign. That is why we can withdraw from the refugee Convention when and how we like and the UN can do nothing legally. It is up to our Courts to interpret our treaty obligations and the definition. They should have regard to international law but not so as to abrogate Australia’s sovereignty. That defeats your argument to the effect that we are locked into the Convention. Please apologize and correct the record. If you are a practicing international lawyer you have a duty to do so and a professional obligation.

ghanga darin says:

10:55am | 21/02/12

In anticipation: Perhaps you are too stubborn to admit mistake. Perhaps if it comes from a refugee expert you will concede. Read Art 38 of the ICJ on the sources of international law; consider such as the opinions of leading academics; consider how the UN’s refugee handbook and opinions of its scholars, its declarations etc are used. Consider all the interpretative aids. All are used in the process of forming international law norms. Read for example Hathaway, J:  “Leveraging Asylum” [2009] UMelbLRS 6. Then consider how international law sources were employed in the High Court’s decision in Teoh and on the Malaysian solution. Then tell me that the UN and its member States has no role concerning the definition of refugee. If you can’t understand then, I cannot help you. A simple search of Austliii will suffice. Of course the wording of the definition in the text of the treaty has not changed. The customary law and practice has. Beware, your arguments are self-defeating.  I don’t have any more time to help you.

marley says:

01:23pm | 21/02/12

@ghanga darin – I don’t even know whether it’s worth replying, because you clearly don’t understand the terms you’re using.

The refugee definition is not “customary international law” – it is “treaty law,” pure and simple.  The definition came into existence in 1951 with the Convention, and was reaffirmed with the Protocol in 1967.  There is no obligation on UN members who are not signatories to the Convention to observe what it says – and they don’t.  So your concept that there is a single international customary law relating to the determination of refugee status is erroneous. 

Second, of the signatories, each has its own refugee determination process incorporated into its own domestic legislation.  Although all use the Convention definition, they apply it in different ways, and with very different results.  You only have to look at the differences in acceptance rates between, say Australia, Greece and Norway to know that there is no international customary law for determining who is and is not a refugee.  There are 144 individual national laws relating to one, very specific, definition in one very specific treaty and there are 144 different determination processes with 144 different sets of parameters as to how the law will be applied.

There is in fact only one real international customary law when it comes to refugees:  the right of an asylum seeker not to be “refouled” to his country of origin until he’s had an opportunity to request protection.  The rest is a matter of domestic legislation.

Insofar as the UNHCR is concerned, it provides advice, and that’s it.  It has no legal standing on refugee legislation or decision-making, and if countries choose to flout what it considers “best practice” in their determination processes, there’s not a damn thing it can do about it.  It can urge countries to introduce complementary protection (for those who don’t meet the strict terms of the Convention definition) but it can’t require them to do so.  A few signatories do, most don’t.  Again, no international customary legal standard exists.  And certainly not one that extends beyond the original narrow Convention definition of a refugee.  Otherwise, complementary protection wouldn’t even be an issue.

And since the text of the Convention and Protocol haven’t changed in 50 years, it is nonsensical to suggest that the UNHCR has influence in the wording of refugee treaties today. 

Further, if you actually knew as much as you claim to about international law, you would know that neither the Teoh case nor the Malaysian Solution decision had anything to do with the Convention definition of a refugee.  In the one case, it was a lack of procedural fairness surrounding the Convention on the Rights of the Child that was at issue, and in the other, the Migration Act itself.  Neither is in any way evidence of a change in the refugee definition, or of an international “customary” law overriding domestic legislation.

I’ll say this again, and I’ll say it slowly.  The UN has not changed or extended the definition of who is or is not a Convention Refugee.  It is exactly what it has always been.  If we have changed our own definition of who is entitled to protection, that is entirely a matter of domestic law and not of a non-existent customary law.

ghanga darin says:

03:42pm | 21/02/12

Very sad. It obviously means too much to you to admit error.  A number of points. Your mistake was to verbal me by saying that I said that the UN had a court that made refugee law. I did not. You try to make the point that international law is static and fixed according to the words of the Refugee Convention in 1951. The words are fixed the meaning is not. There is no such thing as ‘treaty law’ there is only international law. A huge blunder - showing how little you understand international law and its sources. I would have failed you for that. It is derived from the sources I explained. The UN is all the States not just its organs commitees etc. see the Charter. You labour your point because you are struggling. You say the UN has no standing? I didn’t say it did. But why not? Any Court can allow anyone to appear and argue and influence its decisions – see now are you thinking?  Your argument that the UNHCR or UN have no influence on international law concerning refugees is nonsense and self-defeating. If you suggested it was not influential to your café late buddies they would be displeased. Of course each individual State determines its own law. That is my point.  But all States’ Courts have regard to what others States do which along with other sources forms the body of international law. They are not bound. That is what the Teoh case was about: How far our courts could incorporate current international law. That is why the Gov tried to pass legislation to address it (see Teoh Bill). The Bill failed. The Malaysian case was the result. Those cases are important because they are about how the sources and principles of international would be received into domestic law.  International is a single body of law. It moves forward depending on how all States practice that law and is informed by the sources. I know those cases far better than you do obviously. I suggest you read them.  But your argument defeats itself. So thanks for that. If international law and the UN are irrelevant then we can easily renounce the Convention and make our own law. You have defeated yourself. I will not bother replying to what you say in future since you are a waste of time. READERS SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE REPEATS HIS OR HER ARGUMENT DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT OR MEAN LATER ARGUMENTS ARE CORRECT. All debates have to end. The ALP will be defeated sadly. The Libs will probably go Nauru and may actually have the coconuts to renounce the Convention at which point all your arguments will help them. Live with that.

marley says:

06:42pm | 21/02/12

ghnaga darin - sorry, but you are simply wrong.  Of course there’s such a thing as treaty law.  Geez, what exactly do you think is the legal basis of treaties and conventions? 

International customary law on refugees is meaningless, except for the one example I’ve given, which is the only one universally observed (more or less.)

Refugee determination is part of domestic, not international law.  The UN can advocate on behalf of a refugee but it has no place in domestic jurisprudence, nor would it claim to have.  And no matter how often you want to state the contrary, will not make it true.

And I didn’t say international law was static. l said the treaty definition of a refugee was static.  And it is.  You haven’t produced a single example of “international customary law” which overrides the definition contained in the Convention.  And you won’t.  You can find plenty of examples of individual countries having extended the definition to meet the wishes of their own domestic constituencies but you will not find an example of the UN doing so. 

And no, international law doesn’t override national law.  The Malaysian case failed on the basis that the government wasn’t following the Migration Act, not on the basis that it was flouting the Convention.  The Teoh case had nothing to do with refugee law and certainly nothing to do with refugee determinations at all.  Both of these examples were utterly irrelevant to the argument you are attempting to make.

As for your statement that “any Court can allow anyone to appear and argue and influence its decisions” - balderdash.  Courts of appeal rule on the decision-making process of the lower court or tribunal, and on it’s adherence to the law and to due process.  Both the cases you cited failed on these grounds.  The opinions of the UNHCR are simply irrelevant at this level. 

And if you actually had any legal training, you would know that.

ghnaga darin says:

12:57pm | 22/02/12

Marty has made a range of serious errors I need to correct . He says there is no customary international law regarding refugees. Wrong. The customary international law regarding refugees predated the 1951 Convention, which codified it, applies today alongside that Convention, and will post date the Convention if it ever lapses. Godwin Gill, a renowned refuge expert, the UNHCR, UN and others have argued that there is a customary international law obligation on all States of non-refoulement, whether or not party to the convention, that has reached the stage of being jus cogens ie binding on all States without derogation. Others, like myself, dispute this because they are not persuaded State practice is widespread and uniform enough. The obligation applies to ‘refugees’. But what is a refugee? The answer is found international law which is, by definition, law made by UN States through their practice. Any other conception of international law (eg natural law, principles etc) are, in real life terms, merely a wish list. It is for that reason that lawyers sometimes use the terms customary international law and international law interchangeably. 
Marty argues that the international law definition is fixed by the 1951 Convention and that UN members have no role in extending its meaning and cannot. Very wrong. The words are fixed the meaning is not. The UNHCR handbook, which the UN deliberately offers as highly influential primary tool in interpreting international law, clearly acknowledges that over time the meaning of words in the convention have been interpreted so as to extend the obligations to people who were not formerly covered in ways that they were not.  Because there is no agreed international law definition of key phrases such as ‘persecution’ (but there is only one body of international law (with sub-brances such as that on treaties, refugees etc) and sometimes a rough consensus forming, in effect, a rule or standard) those terms are open to interpretation. The UNHCR through its own practice in performing its role of protecting refugees (which Marty seems to overlook completely he seems to think only States determine refugee status when the UN does too) given it by the Statute of its office (GA Resolution), through opinions of its experts, through its advice, through the interpretive tools it provides, shapes international law in an important way.  It is highly influential without being binding - since States are sovereign. 
The UNHCR in its tools for teaching such as Marty how to understand international law (below) on refugees clearly supports my view when it says: ‘However, it is important to recall that the institution of asylum from persecution predates the development of human rights law. Many of the existing human rights standards have developed after the 1951 Convention was drafted and are continuing to evolve. Thus, while the analysis of persecution must be informed by human rights principles, it would narrow its scope unduly to define persecution solely in terms of existing codified human rights standards. ‘ p31 and see eg discussion about gender p 41. (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/43141f5d4.pdf) For the Handbook see (http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html). If I have time I will correct Marty’s other serious errors.

Marty reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where the Black Knight, now with no arms and legs, says ‘is that all you have got!’. He should be more careful in future

ghnaga darin says:

01:42pm | 22/02/12

Marley is sadly misleading many readers and won’t stop. So I must go on until his wrong arguments are completely corrected. The Toeh case was considered so important on the principles of receiving international law norms into domestic law (remember the arguments is about whether both doemstic and international law on refugees is changing though developments in international law led by UN members States and the UN) that is was the subject of Government legislation to override it. It meant that a criminal could not be deported because he had a child here. The Protection of Child Rights Convention was the source of the legitimate expectation that the child’s rights be taken into account. The same issue arose in the Malaysian High Court case and would be a potential impediment (but not complete barrier) for sending some aslyum seekers to Nauru. These cases highly relevant only Marley could fails to see that. He might want to read the Malaysian deal judgment carefully and see that the deal that the Government did with Malaysian was given ‘the tick of approval’ by the UN. Why Marley? Why? Duh! Learn.

Any court can determine who has standing before it or a right to appear. That this central to the exercise of judicial power. Yes, cases can be appealed. So what. That does not change my point.

International law is one body of law full stop. ‘Treaty law’ if it exists, is simply a subset. Anyone who stubbornly holds the position that the international law concerning refugees begins and ends at State parties to the Refugee Convention is wrong. What about the other Refugee treaties? What about the UN and its responsibilities towards refugees? My central point remains however that States are sovereign and Australia can withdraw from the Refugee Convention, leave the Migration Act, in place and administer it by Executive Instrument , so it can get on with it without passing legislation ( see my other posts). If it did so it may face Manne in the High Court arguing that people cannot be taken to Naurua because of the customary international law rule against refoulement, at which point the customary law definition of refugee will be in play. But I do not think that the rule is jus cogens so as to stop the Libs from using Naura. If Naura does pass its own domestic law in line with the Refugee Convention then only issues such as were raised in Teoh could stop the Libs. I think Teoh will not stop refugees with children from being sent to Naurua becuase in the end the Teoh decision was only a directive that the right of children must be given strong consideration when sending parents away.  Whether Teoh will prevent children being sent away with their families seems less likely. Now do you see its relevance to international law of refugees?
Up for some more embarrassment Marley?  Squirming? If you keep misinforming readers I must keep correcting you.

fml says:

01:55pm | 17/02/12

I thought we abolished slavery?

working class says:

02:14pm | 17/02/12

FML
Its not Slavery it work for the Dole or Work for your good you are consuming.

Anna C says:

02:18pm | 17/02/12

Fml it’s not slavery ...its voluntary work. I’m sure most of them would gladly volunteer to do something rather than sitting around doing nothing.

Anna C says:

02:19pm | 17/02/12

Fml, how is this any different from unemployed people doing work for the dole programs? Both receive money from the government for doing it.

fml says:

02:23pm | 17/02/12

“Free Labour” is slavery,

possibly you meant job placement?

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:17pm | 17/02/12

Assistance you call it do you?  INcarceration with no legal rights, brutal guards and no reason.

Some assistance.

Honestly Anna you are a facist little soul aren’t you.

They are not working because for some deranged reason we don’t let them until they have a visa that they don’t even need.

RyaN says:

05:00pm | 17/02/12

@fml: Its not FREE, they are paying the debt of the money taken from us the taxpayer used to process them, clothe them, feed them and give them a massive 55cm flat screen TV.

RyaN says:

10:13pm | 17/02/12

@Marilyn Shepherd: “we don’t let them until they have a visa that they don’t even need. ” you would prefer we protect our borders with force?
Now that’s not very nice, even from a crazy like you.

fred says:

02:04pm | 17/02/12

and the 457 visa holders who came in their tens of thousands under Howard will vote for which side? Swings, roundabouts… h

Richo says:

02:27pm | 17/02/12

My guess is at the next election the Labor vote will be made up of largely dole bludgers, hardcore Unionists and refugees. I can’t too many reasons why many others would vote for them.

BLA says:

03:05pm | 17/02/12

evelyn, unfortunately true arguments like yours get squashed by the loud minority of leftists or the well flourishing refugee industry. They just have to scream loud enough ‘bigots’ and more civilised people who don’t scream to get their point through are overlooked…
If you are forming a political party, I will join…

Ken says:

04:03pm | 17/02/12

Fantastically well said. I agree with everything you said 100%

Truth says:

05:04pm | 17/02/12

Well said Evelyn. I am surprised your reply was published on the Punch to be honest.

evelyn says:

11:40am | 19/02/12

There is a political movement you can join. The Government has tried to stop them and suppress their submissions but the word is getting out. Go to the Government’s multiculturalism enquiry webpage and see the submission of pluaralistsforareferendum submission number 479 but be prepared to be shocked by the truth. They are a non-political, non-religious moderate nationalist movement who believe in common sense policy that will unite Australia into a modern diverse but not multicultural nation. They abhor violence, racism and and terrorism but affirm our right to be Australian, put our law above others and express our conception of law, culture and human rights.  They strongly oppose muticulturalism.  If you agree it is your solemn duty to join them and spread the word to save Australia. Punch it is your duty to allow responsible free speech.

BLA says:

06:16pm | 19/02/12

I had difficulty finding the page, as the link to the page listed by google has been removed. I eventually did find it, but guess what, submission 479 is the only one that has no link to the document (apart from ‘confidential’ submissions).
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/mig/multiculturalism/subs.htm
I randomly opened a few other submissions and found that all objected multiculturalism - number 317 was quite interesting too.
I cannot understand what drives a government to intentionally destroy a social fabric of a well functioning democracy.

fitter says:

01:16pm | 20/02/12

Your so called lies sheet is wrong, on a number of occassions.
Boat arrivals will soon outnumber plane arrivals? This is just nonsense. The big fear of refugee hardliners is the we are being swamped by boat arrivals isnt it. The department of immigration advises below as taken from their press releases.
EVERY day, at least 13 asylum-seekers enter Australia through airports, representing 30 times the number of boat people that are supposedly “flooding” across our maritime borders.
A total of 4768 “plane people” - more than 96 per cent of applicants for refugee status - arrived by aircraft on legitimate tourist, business and other visas compared with 161 who arrived by boat during the same period..
“Taking refugees ecourages bad governments to ethnically cleanse their own populations? ” are you serious? did you write this as a fact? So, according to your theory, the unfolding syrian tragedy is a result of the greens / labour immigration policies?
“if refugees were an asset to us they would be a loss to the source country” - people arent commodities, they are people like you and I. Were Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in WW2 an asset to us as you put it? If not ,well, we should have rejected them. Viewing protection based on economic value of a person is quite insulting and quite frankly dehumanising.
” preventing wars and the conflict that causes them to flee in the first place” - not sure if you are aware, but Australia was part of the coalition of the willing that invaded Iraq and unleashed one of the biggest refugee issues in the middle east this decade, the irony of this is clearly lost on you.

evelyn says:

08:17am | 21/02/12

Fitter you are ill informed and should not mislead people. To get an idea how incompetent this Government is, and for a laugh, look at the YouTube clip (below) of Chris Bowen’s estimate that the Government was budgeting for 750 boat people per year. HA HA. Fast forward – the Malaysian deal is struck down, boats turn up lured by, among other things, the $10,000 welcome pack, and the Government has lost control -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbXM_l149aI. In Senate estimates last week Bowen admitted it expected 450 per month to arrive or 7500 by June 2013! 750 per year becomes 450 per month!!! By my calculation that is that is 16 per day. 
http://www.scottmorrison.com.au/info/pressrelease.aspx?id=821

The Immigration Department’s annual report says there were 6316 asylum seekers who arrived by plane and applied for a protection visa in 2010-11, compared with 5175 people arriving by boat and applying for the same visa.(http://www.smh.com.au/national/failed-offshore-policy-blamed-for-latest-rush-of-asylum-seekers-20111023-1mekf.html; http://www.theage.com.au/national/latest-boat-arrivals-fuel-new-war-of-words-20111023-1meml.html).

Given that the 2011 annual report is outdated and boat arrivals have increased markedly my estimate that boat arrivals could exceed plane arrivals was correct.

Sri Lanka has been accused of ethnically cleansing it Tamil population. Many Tamils have left and sought asylum and come to Australia by boat. Anyone who has any expertise in the law of genocide and humanitarian law would support my concerns. We need greater and more effective intervention and assistance to neighbouring countries so that refugees can move short distances to safety be kept well and safely there, then return.

TimR says:

02:35pm | 17/02/12

Considering that almost every boat person flies into Indonesia on a passport, then destroys it before coming to Australia by boat, I think that’s a very good idea.

Richo says:

03:49pm | 17/02/12

fred - you’re a silly man. Have you ever wondered why when these people get granted residency they want to go back to their homelands for a holiday? Now tell me this, if they were at fear from persecution, wouldn’t those people who were supposedly after them (for whatever reason, perhaps they did some bad?) try and get them as soon as they go back. Persecuted people? Turn it up. Don’t believe anything you hear from those greedy lawyers representing asylum seekers. They see asylum seekers as a cash cow, nothing more, nothing less.

fml says:

02:45pm | 17/02/12

I like Britain,

I think it would be great if everybody was forced to follow soccer.

Before you say, if you dont like it leave, i would like to but I dont have a british passport.

LDLS says:

05:05pm | 17/02/12

@fml
Seems to be that question of needing a drink is a real problem in your life.  You have to berate and denigrate anyone who believes in an opposing view.

Talk about an obsessive personality.  Nothing else to constabtly harp at today?

Couple of tips. Stop drinking and try harder for that British passport if Australia is no longer to your taste.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:32pm | 17/02/12

lol…

Was waiting for one of these comments.

Richo says:

03:44pm | 17/02/12

@Simon - well he has a fair point. Africans, although not arriving by boats by but the official channels are overly represented in the crime stats. Considering laws in Sudan and Somalia are practically non-existent, what would you expect? These people would be best helped in their own homelands. Western countries simply bringing a few in to be settled here and there will never resolve the real problems but will more than likely cause more issues in the new host country.

Truth says:

04:23pm | 17/02/12

Heard of the ‘middle eastern crime squad’ Simon? We dont have a Jewish crime squad do we? Or a Sth American crime squad. Thats strange. Its almost as though we need a dedicated crime squad to deal with the excessive crimes of our middle eastern minority….... 

Paula says:

02:45pm | 17/02/12

Yep its happy families in Britain and France and getting happier by the day! Not!...shame Australia is too deluded to learn from other’s expensive mistakes.

William Belmont says:

02:58pm | 17/02/12

Absolutely spot on. Never a truer word spoken.

Teresa says:

03:02pm | 17/02/12

Given that huge numbers of jobs are disappearing every day in Australia you would think it would be smarter to start reducing population, not increasing it! Eventually the Australian welfare cheques will start to bounce.

JamesD says:

03:48pm | 17/02/12

Asylum seekers are a world wide issue.

Gregg says:

09:56am | 18/02/12

Richard, having gone through immigration processes you’ll know all about the ammount of documentation you had to have for you and your family, having qualifications etc. approved if you came here as a skilled immigrant and what may have even been involved in getting licensed/registered as it is for some trades, all a very time consuming process.

The employment levels within immigration are designed so that the numbers of immigrants decided upon for any particular year will mean the immigration department does have a uniform activity throughout the year for there is not much sense in having three times the number so they can process everybody in four months and then sit and twiddle their thumbs for another eight.

So yes, the processing for skilled or family stream visas will take whatever time it takes, a year say, give or take for most visas, some being handled in a far shorter time and ones like 457 temporary visas the quickest of the skilled category.

Then you have the humanitarian visas and the normally selected refugees from refugee camps, up to 6000/y can I understand take anywhere from 1-2 years, the special humanitarian visas which are for sponsored refugees and asylum seekers possibly taking the same sort of time or even longer.
Already, we’re seeing many of those using people smugglers possibly processed quicker than even skilled immigrants and the usurping of immigration resources would be quite high, not to mention cost of engaging contractors.

How employable most of these people are in our communities is a totally separate question and with limited skills in occupations and language, employability is I suspect very low and if immigration figures re refugees is anything to go by, 85% remain unemployed five years on from arrival.
Continuing with encouraging people smuggling is doing nought for Australia other than making a mess of our special humanitarian approach, costing Australians millions of $$$ immediately and with substantial welfare costs to flow on into the future, there being a new sub class of unemployed we are creating.

And this is at a time when unemployment is likely to grow and you know what will follow and that’s crime.

marley says:

12:16pm | 19/02/12

@RyAN - well, a 55 cm TV sure isn’t big.  That’s about 21 inches.

RyaN says:

05:13pm | 19/02/12

@marley: 55cm, or even just having a television is better than 98% of struggling Australians and our elderly.
At least most of our people have actually contributed to our society at some point whereas more than 80% of these country shoppers will STILL be taking handouts in three or more years.

marley says:

06:24pm | 19/02/12

@RyaN - first, I’m just saying, a lot of people on this thread are confusing a 55cm TV with a 55 Inch TV.

Second, I have never met an Australian of any sort that doesn’t have a TV of some kind.  One of my neighbours, who is certainly Centrelink dependent, has a TV bigger than that.  And I’m fairly confident she’s never contributed a damn thing to the Australian economy.

I don’t think that TVs of whatever dimension should be part of the “welcome pack.”  But beds, refrigerators, basic kitchen implements, that I have no problem with.

RyaN says:

11:45pm | 19/02/12

@marley: They shouldn’t be getting squat, they all have PLENTY of cash to spend, hell they just spent a wad on a boat ride over.
They should pay for this themselves, they are clearly cashed up!

Karen from Qld says:

04:38pm | 17/02/12

Hear hear - it is about time Australia told the UN where to stick its treaty.

Winston Smith says:

06:21pm | 17/02/12

Richo, Australia can withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention but most people who advocate this don’t really understand international or domestic law.  These calls are merely shrieks from the indignant and ignorant.  It is the executive in Australia who has the power to sign, ratify and withdraw from treaties, with advice from the cabinet.  In most treaties there are withdrawal provisions and for this convention Australia needs to give one year’s notice.  International treaty law finds its force in reciprocity, not only for that particular treaty but for all treaties.  A state adheres to treaties it finds may not be in its national interest because others benefit it economically and politically.  To withdraw from one will leave others that do benefit its national interest weaker.  Withdrawal from treaties is usually done multilaterally to minimise the damage.  The next problem is that most treaties are not merely signed and ratified by the executive.  The provisions are written into our acts.  One cannot withdraw from the convention without having to change our Migration Act and our Maritime Act, and these require passage through both the House and the Senate.  With Morrison using the Refugee Convention as the backbone of his criticism of Labor’s Malaysia solution, and with the Greens steadfastly refusing to support changing the act, I can see hell freezing over before any meaningful changes are made.  The last, and most obvious problem, is if you want to change something, leaving is stupid.  Australia, believe it or not, still has a lot of political capital in the world regarding its treatment of asylum seekers.  With that kudos, and a small but growing antipathy toward parts of the convention in some countries, meaningful changes can be made.

john says:

07:03pm | 17/02/12

@Richo “Chris Bowen. This man wants Australia to take in 20,000 refugees each year ”

Yeh no problems here’s some advice how we can all help above and beyond the current 100,000 -170,000 immigration intake depending which way the wind blows.

Get the whip out and make those battery chickens work harder and lay more eggs to provide those extra people full buffet Bed & breakfast. instead of 4 per cage how about 5 or 6? Strangle them by the neck to force that extra egg if you have to.
How about milk those cows 4 times a day keep it flowing, make ‘em mooo twice as hard.

Perhaps also add double decker freeways for all those extra cars in the next 20 years.

How about re-start forest clearing to grow more food. To hell with it, just fire up those old bulldozers and chains and wholesale clear anything thats left like they used to in the 1950’s & 1960’s.

Trains @130% capacity! what go to 160% capacity so public trains are useless.

Don’t worry about housing just stack and rack into towers and jam as many as you can into one house like they do in Melbourne!

Build a few more desalinate & coal fired power stations, and throw in some more wind farms to make it look green. Pollution…don’t worry, all paid for, thank you carbon tax!

Sydney Melbourne…...pack em in…push like you push that food down your throat and watch that waist line expand….lets see what gives, like an artery coming away from the heart perhaps, something has to give.

We got plenty beef,croc , camel meat and there is skippy, start slaughtering more…let the blood flow, theyr’e only animals just waiting for more people to come and consume them. Depending from where they are from,,,cats & dogs even make the menu.

And we all love a lovely new Airport , perhaps a new port coming to a spot near you!! Curfew, what the hell, no way ....lift that. We’ll have more obese carcasses that take longer to ferry around.

Those indigenous aussie’s just love more of them immigrants too so their own lot can get pushed further down the ladder for their causes. The tent embassy can’t wait for their welcome pack - 6 pack to shut them up! 

The funniest part is that once the asylum seekers arrive here after a while they want the tax payer to pay for their airline ticket back to visit for holidays.

LOL…gold,

LIke the Hardly Normal jingle go! hardly normal go!

Go! Chris Bowen go!, give them a welcome pack we’ve got computers, electrical, etc.

RyaN says:

10:04pm | 17/02/12

@Winston Smith: “Australia, believe it or not, still has a lot of political capital in the world regarding its treatment of asylum seekers. “

How pertinent that you call someone ignorant then spout this line. Australia is basically nothing in the world, don’t kid yourself that we are some big player in the scheme of things. I will assume you are naive because I would want to lower myself to calling someone ignorant.

ghanga darin says:

01:04pm | 19/02/12

Winston Smith knows nothing about international law or constitutional law. It is simply rubbish to say that Australia cannot withdraw from the Refugee Convention. If he was a lawyer in practice and gave this legal advice to a client he’s be in trouble. It simply does not matter what international laws says because international law does not override domestic law. This was estblihsed by our High Court in Polites and has not changed. Its that simple. Say we breached an international law rule by withdrawing? So what. So what. What can they do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing legally. We would refuse to go to the ICJ about i like we doid over East Timor oil. What can they do - nothing. Fat nothing. So what if they try to shame us we would be a hero in the eyes of most nations!!!

ghnaga darin says:

08:26am | 21/02/12

The law on asylum seeking

Various bloggers have given legally inaccurate advice about asylum seeking. Prima facie entering Australia without a visa is illegal. Australia has ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention which makes asylum seeking legal under international law. Asylum seeking is made legal under Australian domestic law by the Migration Act, but only subject to the words of that Act.  Our High Court has repeatedly affirmed that international law does not override domestic law (Polites case). Nothing has changed. The Australian Government, without passing legislation, could withdraw from the Refugee Convention and stop accepting asylum seekers at any time, or apply whatever tests or definitions it wants. This is because the power to enter or withdraw from treaties, such as the Refugee Convention, is an Executive power not requiring Parliamentary assent. International law must give way.

The Migration Act has not entrenched the Refugee Convention. This would be unconstitutional. Instead, s. 36(2) of that Act says that a protection visa can be issued if the Minister is satisfied that ‘Australia has protection obligations under the Convention’. If Australia withdraws from the Convention, and makes its own humane but sensible policies by Ministerial directive under the existing Migration Act, there is no ‘protection obligation under the Convention’ and nothing that the UN can do legally. That is the law.

marley says:

06:22pm | 21/02/12

@ghnaga darin - I almost hesitate to state the obvious, but even if the Executive decides to withdraw from the Convention tomorrow, we would still have to take refugees who met the Convention definition because that’s the law as defined in the Migration Act.  It requires Parliament, not the Executive, to amend the Migration Act.  Until Parliament makes that decision, the definitions and obligations contained in that Act stand.  Really, this is Civics 101.

ghanga darin says:

08:14pm | 23/02/12

Marley has been completely discredited. If a practicing lawyer he should stop giving misleading advice. He said the UN definition of refugee has not changed. The UNHCR clearly disagrees and agrees with me.
‘Later developments – in particular, resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), organizational and State practice – have resulted in a widening of the refugee definition for the purposes of UNHCR’s international protection mandate. p 8 UNHCR Self-Study Model on Refugee Determination.’ 1 September 2005. This proves him wrong and discredits him completely. (Marley should start from scratch and relearn) see link below for other readers as well.

He says the Migration Act obliges us to take refugees. NO IT DOES NOT. The term refugee is not defined in the Act which simply uses some of the terms of the refugee convention which does not define it comprehensively either. It takes its meaning from international law and domestic law. The Act has not entrenched the convention. No competent lawyer would say otherwise. The Act says a protection visa can be granted to someone the Minister thinks we have an obligation ‘under the convention’ to protect (here Marley’s idea that treaties are all that count defeats him). Renounce the convention and the treaty based protection obligation goes. We are then in the realms of international law on refugees which does not bind Australia so as to compel us to take refugees unless there is a jus cogens norm which Marley earlier conceded there was no consensus for and I agree. Even if such a jus cogens rule applies, international law does not override domestic law. Ordinarily I would not bother with someone like Marley but I will not let him mislead readers on such an important issue and will correct his future errors as they occur if the Punch will allow.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/43141f5d4.pdf

acotrel says:

06:49am | 18/02/12

@Old Chook
I agree with you 1000%, you have taken the words right out of my backside.  A minute ago those sneaky Chinese were taking our gold, and sending it back to China !  We should pass a law stopping the asylum seekers from going to Ballarat or Bendigo !

Mark/Fox says:

08:13am | 18/02/12

I highly agree. We are the soft touch, and our enviroment and resources cannot cope with our current population. I think anyone who cared for this country would stop these boats.

Leigh says:

10:11am | 18/02/12

Well said, Dinsor.

Sinbad says:

01:14pm | 18/02/12

I agree with you 100%

Sinbad says:

09:15am | 19/02/12

@Agree with you.

The best way is to send the boatpeople to the countryside to grow trees and save the environment and Learn English and Australian culture before they are allowed into Community.

The present policy is a disaster. They come here and start living with people of their own kind and set up ghettos and keep using their own languages.

perplexed says:

12:37pm | 19/02/12

making soap or baskets? wow, have you ever thought of running for government? I would most certainly vote for you! you are such a visionary just what this country needs!...

Eyes wide open says:

10:19pm | 26/02/12

You do realise that not all the asylum seekers are muslims (ie the chinese coming in by plane seeking asylum)? Let’s not make this out to be a muslim bashing tirade shall we?  Your comment is all about “they want”. Any evidence to back up these so-called demands (ie have you spoken to any asylum seekers? Are you doing a thesis on them) or are you just ranting out from your rear end?