We’re all at sea on the facts about boat arrivals

Phil says:

09:07am | 08/06/10

Sherlock you are spot on. As I have said many times prior on this site. The left want to sprook that its ok if youve got money to get preferential treatment than those in the refugee camps, but if you or I showed up for our child needing surgery and paid a bribe to get in first there would be an outrage.
I personally think that Abbott should increase the genuine refugee intake from camps throughout the world as well as the new pacific solution, thus saying we will in fact take more persons than labor, but unless you are processed offshore, you will be sent back. No ifs no buts.
When they can hold a customs ship to ransom for 3 weeks, if you and I took over the Manly ferry we would be arrested and face jail time for more than one crime.
This government is a joke.

Grumbles says:

12:31pm | 08/06/10

A better question would be, estimate the percentage of asylum seekers that arrive by boat that have ID, then, estimate the percentage taken by other means that have no ID.

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

10:41am | 09/06/10

I think perhaps we do need to look at our total immigration stats. See WHERE they are coming from, HOW MUCH it costs the Australian taxpayer and HOW MANY of them are drawing any form of welfare.

Dan says:

07:17am | 08/06/10

Really? So it’s not a fact that it’s perfectly legal to seek asylum? So it’s not a fact that more ‘than 90 per cent of asylum applicants arriving by boat are found to be legitimate political refugees’? Which of these facts are opinions?

Sherlock says:

07:37am | 08/06/10

I’m amazed at the left’s stance on boat people. At home they’ve been waging a class war since the day Labor was elected continually raging against the imagined privileges of those they perceive to be rich.

Yet, despite the huge numbers of people in refugee camps desperately waiting for resettlement, the left are prepared to champion the cause of anybody with the financial resources to pay, what in many cases is many times the average annual income for most refugees, to a people smuggler.

The majority of other people, who are more than prepared to take our countries share of genuine refugees, prefer to take those that have at least gone through the official process regardless of how flawed that process may be. Yet the left denounces us as racist or at least xenophobic.

Well if the desire not to open our borders to absolutely anyone who can make their way here makes me racist or xenophobic then so be it.

However, I’m prepared to see every single boat person sent back to a refugee camp. With a proviso that for every person we send back we can accept two extra refugees that have been processed by the UN who mightn’t have had the required financial resources to bribe a large number of people.

This means we accept even more refugees while sending a message to the people smugglers that they won’t be successful. When every boat person is put straight back on a plane to a refugee camp watch how fast the boats stop.

That gives everybody an equal chance not just those who have money. Yet the left are supposedly the champions of.equal rights?

iansand says:

08:32am | 08/06/10

Eric and Sherlock, when confronted by facts, default to rant.  Mr Abbott must be delighted.

Nicole says:

08:57am | 08/06/10

Sorry iansand, but what Eric and Sherlock say is 100% correct. Theses people are queue jumpers, nothing more. What should happen is when they arrive here, they should be immediately flown to a refugee camp, and genuine refugees should take their place here. People who have nothing, who have been waiting patiently for years in these camps, who can’t afford to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers, should take preference over these queue jumpers. They, in my and many others opinion, are real refugees.

Sherlock says:

09:30am | 08/06/10

iansand says: “Eric and Sherlock, when confronted by facts, default to rant.  Mr Abbott must be delighted.”

Rant? I stated an opinion and offered an alternative. Far more than you did.

In fact, you couldn’t even be bothered to disagree with me.

I’d suggest your comment says far more about your inability to present a cogent argument than it does about my opinion.

It’s sad that some people lack the ability to enter into a serious discussion about an important issue and in their frustration lower themselves to insults.

I’m surprised you didn’t just call me an out and out racist. That’s how most ignorant people attempt to end these type of discussions.

James1 says:

10:38am | 08/06/10

To be fair on the author, Sherlock, you have not shown that the facts he presents are false at all.  You have focused on different aspects of the asylum seeker debate, such as your class envy of those who have enough money to pay to migrate.  That said, it is admirable that you advocate increasing our refugee intake - kudos to you sir.  However, as far as I can see, the author is absolutely correct in the numbers and facts he presents. 

Eric, can you please tell us which facts presented in the article are incorrect?

iansand says:

10:45am | 08/06/10

Sherlock.  1% of immigrants are boat people.  That is 1 in 100, in case maths is not your strong point.  That is hardly a tsunami of “queue jumpers” overwhelming the system.

Hence my comment about defaulting to rant in the face of fact.

Steely Dan says:

11:39am | 08/06/10

@ Nicole

“What should happen is when they arrive here, they should be immediately flown to a refugee camp, and genuine refugees should take their place here.”
Did you read the article, Nicole? 90% are genuine refugees. It seems like you want to redefine the term ‘refugee’ to exclude any person who arrives by boat…

Nicole says:

12:25pm | 08/06/10

@Steely Dan did you read my post? The refugees in camps are genuine and have waited patiently in line. The illegals who arrive here and jump the queue have not waited at all. They should be replaced with the ones who haven’t. What I would like to know is how 90% of the boat people can be proven to be genuine, considering they destroy their ID’s? They are queue jumping Country shoppers. A genuine asylum seeker would not care what Country they went to, as long as they were safe.

Sherlock says:

12:30pm | 08/06/10

iansand says: That is hardly a tsunami of “queue jumpers” overwhelming the system.

I’m sorry but I read my comment three times and I can’t find the section where I said it was.

The author of this article is (or at least was) a senior Labor official. I expressed my amazement that the left appear to be in favour of accepting anyone with the financial resources to bribe a people smuggler over those who don’t. I think that’s a legitimate opinion.

We appear to disagree on how many of the above should be accepted into the country. You and the author appear to suggest that the number should be all that can make it and I suggest the number should be zero

I’m happy to take our fair share of those that have followed the applicable process while you seem to be prepared to open our boundaries up to all and sundry that have the available cash to pay bribes.

To be honest I’m far happier accepting refugees who recognise authority and processes over those who think that having financial resources means that the rules don’t apply to them.

I’m amazed that the left doesn’t think so too.

Ginger says:

12:37pm | 08/06/10

No, that article is based on the facts!
Fact 1) Many people who arrive by boat have legitimate cause for asylum.
Fact 2) The Opposition regularly exaggerates the amount of people who arrive by boat to mislead the public and exaggerate the issue.
Fact 3) There are many other ways people arrive to seek asylum
Fact 4) It is NOT illegal to get in a boat and travel to Australia to seek asylum. It is UNLAWFUL to enter Australian waters without permission. The Opposition’s policy document on the issue mentions the word illegal 26 times. People are having the wool pulled over their eyes on this.
Eric- before you jump up and down representing the thoughts and feelings of the Australian people (mighty big of you by the way)- have a think about where the facts are coming from that are bringing the Australian people to form these opinions.
Me, an Australian, a white person, is totally ok with doubling, tripling and drastically increasing the number of asylum seekers allowed into Australia each year- the more the merrier I say. And, I also say, it’s not ok to turn the boats back, to put people in detention for a long time and drive them and their children mad.
It’s got nothing to do with my ideology, but rather the fact that I believe in equality for humans

CHristian Real says:

12:40pm | 08/06/10

Nicole,
As there are no queues to jump, your comment clearly shows that you are a clone for the liberal party, echoing the name brand that John Howard had the audacity to brand these poor, unfortunate refugees fleeing from their war torn, strife torn Countries with.
The fact is that Australia is a signatory of the Refugees Convention of 1951, which John Howard breached by demonising these people and setting up other Countries to take our responsibility.
Nicole, It is the European people who has stuffed up our great Country that my Aboriginal Ancestors inhabited before the first fleet arrived and took away our Ancestors lands and their rights.
It is our people of today, that should have more of a say in matters, and as for these mining companies, they should pay for the right to dig up our Country and mine minerals and ore, if the don’t like the proposed tax, then they can leave and take their greedy self centred mob with them.
In case you missed it, Clive palmer admitted on four corners that he exaggerated the possible consequences of the proposed resource super profits tax, he must have been getting lessons of Tony abbott about lying on ABC programmes.

Nicole says:

01:15pm | 08/06/10

@Christian, sorry but there is a queue. Refer to my previous posts, and read them over and over if you have to. It might actually sink in. Can you please tell me what mining companies and Clive Palmer have got to do with this topic? A Bex and a lie down might help you unscramble your head.

Hamish says:

01:25pm | 08/06/10

Christian mate, there is a queue. It’s 16,000,000 and counting. Your cruise-ship friends aren’t in that list. Why are they more deserving than the 16,000,000 who are going through the established channels?

Heath Karl says:

01:30pm | 08/06/10

I agree that boat people are queue jumpers.
I also think that those slaves who in early America travelled the underground railroad to Canada, were illegals. Those Queue jumpers shoud have also waited their turn, until they were legally freed, not criminally escaping their servitude.
And dont get me started on that scum-of-the-earth people smuggler Osker-bloody-Schindler.

Gee Sus says:

02:41pm | 08/06/10

I sometimes despair at the attitude of so many ,i suspect political,people on these blogs.. I reckon some of them would even go to church on Sundays.  Shame!!

Sherlock says:

03:56pm | 08/06/10

Heath Karl:

Where you’re argument fall down is that the people you mentioned were escaping oppression and servitude. These boats aren’t coming form Sri Lanka and Afghanistan they’re coming from Indonesia. These people are escaping from unpleasant refugee camps.

However the people coming on boats are the ones with the financial resources to bribe whoever needs to be bribes and the left are saying that’s OK , we’re prepared to accept you over those who didn’t have enough money.

What you’re supporting is the acceptance of the richest. I’m not suggesting we don;t accept refugees in fact I’m suggesting we accept more.

What I’m advocating is that we take refugees on the basis of need not just those with the biggest bank balances. I’m suggesting that all be treated equally. I’m a little surprised that some people have a problem with equality.

Perhaps you might explain why you appear to be happy to accept those who have the most money over those with the greatest need.

Runs with Scissors says:

04:06pm | 08/06/10

The boat people are exercising their legal right to seek asylum. Those who are opposed to them being allowed entry to Australia should be grateful that they do not require assistance from other nations for their survival. The real queue jumpers are those who overstay their visa.

Roja says:

01:26am | 09/06/10

If the Greens represent 15% of the voting population, surely allowing them this measley 1% of the immigration intake is fair? 

As for the whole ‘queue jumping’ scenario - even if there was a queue to jump - Australians are reknowned for jumping fences at concerts to get in when the tickets are sold out.  Particularly if the concert’s a good one.  Sounds to me like (a) they think Australia is a pretty good gig and (b)  they have passed the first test of Australianism by demonstrating a complete lack of patience for an utterly retarded system of treating human beings.  Now if they know who Don Bradman is then let em in!

Adam Diver says:

11:17am | 09/06/10

They may be facts but they well misrepresented.

1. Since when does asylum seekers and immigrant numbers need to be compared? Its illogical and paints a false set of numbers. A far more compelling and appropriate statistic is the number of asylum seekers by boat as opposed to asylum seekers by plane.

2. “we asked people to estimate the current number of asylum seekers arriving by boats as a percentage of our annual immigration intake.” How is this a healthy question to ask. Firstly one must be adept at determining percentages as oppossed to raw numbers an extra calculation fraud with error. Secondly its a percentage of immigrants instead of asylum seekers (see point 1) which is completely misleading. The question was a loaded question (do polsters know another way) and should of simply be stated at, “how many assylum seekers arrived this year by boat” or on average over the last 3 years etc. It would of been a far more accurate way to see if Australians truly overestimate the number of asylum seekers coming by boat.

I think you would find that the “facts” in this case were lead to mislead and arrive at the conclusion of this ex-labor, left wing bias, hypocritical, misleading, and manipulative tool trying to come across as completely impartial on this matter.

Disclaimer: I am happy for the debate but to spew obvious bias under the loosely applied “facts” is disgraceful.

2.

Steely Dan says:

02:36pm | 09/06/10

@ Nicole

“The refugees in camps are genuine and have waited patiently in line.”
We know they’ve waited in line, but we don’t know that they’re genuine refugees just because they’ve turned up to queue. 
Not all refugees can get to a refugee camp safely.  You’ve seen the quality of the boats most asylum seekers arrive in.  Don’t pretend that they’re high-flyers who stroll off luxury yachts in a polo shirt and deck shoes because it more fun than flying.  If you’re desparate enough to float around the ocean in one of those things, chances are you’re a real refugee with a real and urgent need to get out of the hellhole country you set sail from.

Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

10:25pm | 08/06/10

Xenophobia was what caused “The White Australia Policy” to be passed, by Labor’s Billy Hughes & was a main plank of their policy for years. It took Sir Robert Menzies (Liberal) to start dismantling it.

Tara says:

08:53am | 08/06/10

The amount of asylum seekers we receive by boat is insignificant compared to the number of people who over-stay their visa in Australia each year, particularly those on travelling visas, the majority of whom are English-speaking tourists (estimated at around 50,000 of them stay in Australia without the proper documentation each year). Recent figures show that asylum seekers only take up 0.7% of immigration in Australia.

Australia has signed the Refugee Convention, and therefore it is not illegal to seek asylum. Terms like “illegal immigrant” and “queue jumper” are simply designed to make asylum seekers seem alien and unworthy of sympathy. They are just nasty catch phrases to appeal to the uneducated.

James1 says:

10:43am | 08/06/10

That is the exact situation in this country - the wealthy have access to all sorts of things that others can not.  Also, it is more usual that the truly wealthy are simply allowed to migrate here due to the fact that they can contribute something to our economy.  A family that manages to raise $10000 one time is hardly to be considered wealthy.  I have that much in the bank, yet I earn less than $600 a week and support a family.  I am wealthy?

Colin says:

12:15pm | 08/06/10

@Tara - I’m not going to respond much to your first paragraph - it’s so off topic, it’s hardly worth a response. Figures show that Australia has among the highest refugee acceptance programs per capita in the world. We’re doing our fair share.

Secondly, there are over ten million people designated as refugees in the world. I think it would be common cause that Australia cannot take them all. So we set a quota - a number that this country will take. People in refugee camps, in not very pleasant conditions around the world have their names on a list and wait for their turn to come up. That’s a queue, by most reasonable definitions. Hence, if people pay to come here and get handled first, they are queue jumpers - they are demanding preferential treatment because they managed to get here, mostly because they could afford to get here. I feel that, as a nation, we should encourage the orderly resettlement of refugees, giving preference to the people who have waited the longest.

If you favour the people coming on boats you are therefore against the people in the refugee camps. On humanitarian grounds, I’d rather be on the side of the people patiently waiting their turn.

Grumbles says:

02:02pm | 08/06/10

People who overstay their visa’s are known to authorities, simply because they had to present a passport to get into the country. Over-stayers collect ZERO welfare and put ZERO strain on the economy. Over-stayers entered the country thru legal avenues. Over Stayers eventually leave of their own accord, they can never own property in Australia and they can never claim welfare. People who claim that over-stayers are a bigger problem are pointing at a unicorn and revealling their own ignorance.

James1 says:

02:18pm | 08/06/10

Once a refugee gets a visa, they are Australian Grumbles, and they get all the rights that other Australians get.  What are you saying, exactly?

Joan says:

04:08pm | 08/06/10

` No queue jumpers` ?? Some queues are visible- like supermarket checkout , others like Medicare surgery, public housing , refugee queue are invisible - and the people who push ahead in these `invisible` queues play by their own rules for their own quick gain - nothing to do about fairness - just self.

James1 says:

10:45am | 08/06/10

Rubbish.  Whoever wrote that is wrong (if indeed anyone did - the most common claim amongst undergraduates who cannot back up their opinions is “I read it somewhere”).  Why would people trying to get to Australia hide when they could just claim asylum, which is what they obviously intend to do anyway?

Heath Karl says:

01:34pm | 08/06/10

I thought when refugees saw an australian plane, or an australian boat, when Howard was in power, they threw their babies overboard. That slur was proven false, so best to forget and move on to the latest slur, no?

Paul Horn says:

10:52am | 09/06/10

Heath Karl you obviously never read the parliamentary report did you!!! Children were thrown overboard on SIEV 7, as para 1.41 clearly states
“Two members of the boarding party have made sworn statements that a small child was held over the side by a woman passenger, then dropped into the water. The child was recovered by one of the male passengers already in the water, who bought the child back to the SIEV.[1560] All of those who entered the water were safely returned to the SIEV.”

But alas it gets worse on SIEV 9 para 1.51 states
“On the morning of 31 October, a riot occurred during which the passengers attempted to kick out the sideboard panels of the vessel. At the same time, a man was observed leaning over the port guard rail with his arms extended holding an infant over the side of the vessel, apparently threatening to drop the child overboard.[1566] The transport security element intervened and child was bought safely back onboard. “
again para 1.53 goes on
“In the second of the reported incidents, later on 31 October, the same man who had earlier threatened to throw a child overboard was observed to be roughly holding a small infant, apparently threatening to throw it overboard and in a struggle with a woman who also had hold of part of the child.[1567] Some witnesses report that the man held the child over the side of the SIEV before being restrained.[1568]”
and para 1.56 states
” In the final incident involving children, a passenger is reported to have threatened to throw a child overboard if not permitted to cook his own food.[1572”

and again para 1.57 states “Other incidents abroad SIEV 9 included a hunger strike, threats to boarding party members, and self harm. However it is the frequency and severity of incidents involving children which is notable in regard to this vessel. As summed up by the Commander of the Army contingent aboard SIEV 9 during its transit phase,  - During the riots, self harm and threats to children became common place and were not seen to be out of the ordinary, almost a ‘modus operandi’.[1573]”

Are you getting the pattern here? Certainly NOT true refugees. These are economic migrants who have purposely exploited a loop hole within the system. How can people who have purposely destroyed any identifying documentation be assessed as bona fide refugees! If they were bona fide then why did they not fly straight into Australia? Why did they fly into Indonesia and then seek asylum by boat?  It would’nt have anything to do with the fact that less than 50% of people arriving by air are successful in claiming asylum whreas this figure increases to over 90% of those who arrive by boat now would it? Why did they not attempt this far safer option if they had nothing to fear? Answer me that my dear lefty friend otherwise apologise and start thinking straight!

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:51am | 08/06/10

John ,  why not just say ” i agree with the Liberals policy. ”  It is very close to what you have stated here.
The problem with letting this lack of control on our borders continue is that the numbers will grow to much larger proportions .
Political football ?  Yes it is , the issue gets used by both sides of the political spectrum , but neither side will take the measures necessary to
stop the flow because if they do , they lose public support one way or the other.
It is a double bladed issue , Humanitarian and Border Control.
Ultimately , it should be handled by the United Nations.

Paul Horn says:

04:33pm | 09/06/10

The why do they not simply fly straight into Australia if they have nothing to fear??? You make it sound as if they are forced to jump on a leaky boat, risk life and limb and take their chances in the land of milk and honey. But the far safer and more responsible option would be for them to fly straight into this country and then claim asylum. So why do you defend their devious and deceitful actions??

Why is the left not screaming and shouting about the much lower percentage of asylum seekers who arrive by air and are successful in thier claims???  Surely this should be a far greater hobby horse should it not seeing as the numbers are far greater?

P[erhaps you lot really are seeking nothing less than a Socialist utopia, a land with no borders and no nationality!!! 

You sir are a total hypocrite!!!

Elizabeth says:

08:14am | 08/06/10

I agree Acker, but whilever we have the Liberal Party and John Howard Jr Tony Abbott running those disgusting yellow peril ads with the massive red arrows showing the hordes invading Australia we will never have a reasonable debate.
Perhaps Labor could be stronger on the issue but it’s hard when you have the Liberals out there trying to evoke hysteria and fear.

Glen says:

09:52am | 08/06/10

Is our capacity 1/100th of England?

Damocles says:

11:37am | 08/06/10

@ Cyn…Spot on! These illegal immigrants are making a lifestyle choice and passing through other safe countries because Australia offers more freebies and is a soft touch. The bleeding hearts can rant all they like, but the majority of Australian people can see through the cloud of bull dust and know when their being taken advantage of by opportunistic foreigners. You want to immigrate to Australia? Join the queue and stop trying to jump it!

Trevor says:

01:05pm | 08/06/10

“We’re NOT the first country most of these people pass by.”

Well actually, we usually ARE the first country they pass by that has signed the Refugee Convention.  Which is kind of relevant if you’re going to quote the Refugee Convention!

Tim says:

11:35am | 08/06/10

This is an important fact.
The often sprouted 90% successful figure is simply a factor of destroying documentation.
If you are smart enough to have a prepared story of persecution it is very hard to disprove.
I believe (someone correct me if i’m wrong) that the success rate for people who arrive by plane drops to 30%.

forrest says:

11:39am | 08/06/10

Andrew i agree also large who come by boat via xmas island dispose of ID docs before they arrive which makes it near impossible for background checks. my wife used to work for the Feds doing background checks in Canberra and she says its near impossible all you have to do if your from Pakistan or Iraq or any of theese countries is just cjhange the spelling of your name. and you could be any sort of person and we wouldnt know. but those who come by plane normally have valid id and visa to do a background check.

Sammy says:

10:43am | 08/06/10

Exactly.  Most of them are not genuine asylum seekers but people using big money (by their standards) to bribe their way into their choice of countries to live.  Ask the real immigrants from these nations and they will tell you what they think of these crooks who jump the queue.

James1 says:

10:47am | 08/06/10

That does suck Peter, but it happens everywhere, every single day.  The wealthy get all sorts of perks that the rest of us do not have access to.  Some of you people really need to get over this class envy.

Tim says:

11:39am | 08/06/10

James,
sorry but can you name some of these perks that rich people have access to that poor people don’t. I can’t think of any basic service that rich people have better access to than poor people do.

James1 says:

12:14pm | 08/06/10

Tim,
Dentistry.  Elective surgery.  Housing.  Schooling.  The wealthy can afford all sorts of things that others can not.  Do we hear people complaining about the wealthy jumping the queue for elective surgery by simply paying for it?  It is one of the perks of being wealthy, so why should we expect refugees to act any differently?

PatC says:

12:48pm | 08/06/10

And who would you rather have living, working and contributing in this wonderfull, though sometimes bigoted, country.
Someone who will willing watch his wife and children suffer while he sits by hoping someone will come along and give him a handout - OR - someone with enough get up to take responsibility on his own shoulders, take risks, crash through and in the end - hopefully - build a better life for himself and his family.

Peter says:

01:05pm | 08/06/10

James I’m not sure what it is you are saying..Does your sympathy lie with the poor hopeless refugees that can’t afford to pay people smugglers or the rich que jumpers who with money can by pass the system and be escorted to Australia .

James1 says:

01:53pm | 08/06/10

Peter, I do not differentiate.  I recognise that the reality is people with money get to cut corners, and avoid queues, and that we must deal with reality rather than bury our heads in the sand.  Life is not fair, it never was, and I find it rather quaint that you are so insistent on fairness in refugee policy.  In any case, I would not discriminate against someone simply because they have more money than someone else.

Peter says:

02:35pm | 08/06/10

So James, basically what you are saying is that we should open our borders and have a first in best dressed policy .I suppose we could then adopt that attitude to when we we line up at banks or post offices and just push straight up to the front because we a bigger and stronger or have more money.Sorry mate but your argument is severely flawed.

Andy says:

11:23am | 08/06/10

No, I think you are spot on Arnold. But since I first saw this article this morning I have done some research on the “Essential Report” and I am no longer surprised by the distorted questions or results it contains. I am also not surprised to find that the author of this article is the director the company that produces the Essential Report.

I also notice that if you read the Essential Report they often quote below the table of results a figure of how many Labor voters, how many Green voters and How many Coalition voters answered the question a certain way, but on the question of asylum seeker numbers they only show how many Coalition and Green voters answered a certain way, seems they didn’t want to admit how Labor voters answered.

The irony of Peter Lewis calling his blog “unspun” is not lost on me.

Glen says:

12:18pm | 08/06/10

The question says “estimate the current number of asylum seekers arriving by boats as a percentage of our annual immigration intake.”.  It is a badly worded question, but is technically correct.

I wonder what the results would be if you asked “What percemtage of migrants do you believe are assylum seekers arriving by boat”

Andy says:

01:18pm | 08/06/10

Glen, you are right, the question is technically correct.

The real skill of a good liar is being able to construct your lies so each individual part of them is ‘technically correct’.

Peter Lewis and his “pollsters” at EMc appear to be very good at getting their preferred outcome from the surveys they conduct. You can see this for yourself in the latest Essential Report, which gives Labor a 52% lead on the two party preferred vote, compare that to all the current polls that aren’t run by ex-union employees

James1 says:

11:11am | 08/06/10

Could you expand on that second point LFG?  Where in the 1951 Convention does it say that?

Bethany says:

12:13pm | 08/06/10

“more than 90 per cent of asylum applicants arriving by boat are found to be legitimate political refugees”
This is an incredibly dodgy statistic and yet it is quoted everywhere, almost verbatim..
How on earth do you determine if someone is a ‘genuine refugee’ when they have deliberately destroyed all their identification and been coached on their story?
What’s the default position? We’re going to assume you’re genuine unless you tell us otherwise? It’s ridiculous.

Ken says:

01:04pm | 08/06/10

Correct LFG. James1, the reference to illegal arrival is acknowledged in the UNHCR convention. You can find it here: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
It is on page 31.
I’d address this to Peter Lewis as well but, really, what’s the point?

Trevor says:

01:08pm | 08/06/10

@Bethany, the ‘incredibly dodgy statistic’ came from the Howard Government.

James1 says:

02:00pm | 08/06/10

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of the illegal entry or presence, on refugees, who coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in the territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

You mean this part Ken?

luke09 says:

02:15pm | 08/06/10

Anjuli, a good point, maybe staying and fighting for a better life would be better than fleeing to spend endless years in a refugee camp. But if people stay and fight it will probably mean continuing the never ending conflict in afghanistan.

It’s a lose/lose situation, die fighting or die waiting.

Runs with Scissors says:

04:25pm | 08/06/10

@Anjuli - I recently attended a presentation by an anaesthetist about his work in a military hospital in Afghanistan. He included a photo of soldiers from around the world standing guard over farm land, so that the locals could work their farms and survive rather than be slaughtered by the Taliban. Most of us in Australia cannot imagine the horror of living like the residents of Afghanistan. Your attitude - let them fight their own battles - is nothing short of appaling.

Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

10:30pm | 08/06/10

One of my year 10 students is Afghani, wants to join our army when he is old enough to go back to Afghanistan as an interpreter, to that end he is studying Arabic to add to his Farsi & English, so please don’t tar them all with your prejudice

Dan says:

01:09am | 09/06/10

It’s not their battle. The moment we followed the US in to the war, it became our battle.

James1 says:

11:19am | 08/06/10

Just so you know, Israel does accept some UN resolutions.  The one proclaiming it a legitimate independent state, for instance.

In any case, it is also a matter of domestic Australian law, as we ratified the 1951 Convention, amongst other things.

James1 says:

12:18pm | 08/06/10

How was it cruel exactly?  I know a Afghan lady who spent nearly two years in detention in Nauru, and she said that although the wait for asylum was hard, the camp in Nauru was miles better than the one she fled in Iran.  It might not be as nice as waiting in an Australian community, but it beats a refugee camp by a long shot.

If the anti-asylum seeker people need to moderate their rhetoric and stick to facts, the pro-asylum seeker people need to at least do the same.

James1 says:

12:20pm | 08/06/10

My understanding, gained from International Relations rather than law, is that those arriving on boats are “unauthorised arrivals”.  Upon requesting asylum they are “asylum seekers”.  If found genuine, they are “refugees”, if not, they are “illegal immigrants”.  These are the terms accepted with academia, at least.

Trevor says:

01:02pm | 08/06/10

@Martin, in case you didn’t notice, the vast majority of boat people that were put into the ‘Pacific solution’ by the Howard government were accepted as legitimate refugees.  The figure was around the 90% mark.

So for you to say that ‘Not ONE of them is fleeing violence and repression’ is a bit far-fetched.  Governments of both political persuasions have accepted that the majority of these people are genuine asylum seekers.

Dan says:

09:46pm | 08/06/10

Except that countries like Indonesia have no legal obligation to accept refugees. We do. And, as the article noted, 90% have been found to be refugees.

Trevor says:

02:15pm | 08/06/10

@Cameron, that is honestly one of the MOST intelligent and well-articulated comments on this issue I’ve seen in a long time.  If the debate was actually presented properly along those lines, we might get somewhere.  These are the points that I suspect people are TRYING to make when they refer to ‘queue jumping’, but you’ve added a key element that those comments miss - prioritisation.

Having said that, I do have some concerns about the practicalities of telling people that they absolutely have to go through the UN system to get anywhere.  I think we really would have to have a serious debate about placement of camps and about resourcing.  Parties to the Refugee Convention would have to give some undertakings in this area in order for such a system to work.

Fog Badger says:

09:40pm | 08/06/10

Yes, good comment, @Cameron.

Wayne says:

06:04pm | 08/06/10

And here lies the problem.  No one mentions it, but isn’t this just immigration by default?  If at the end of conflict in a country, the refugee no longer wishes to return now that it safe, isn’t that immigration by default.  As you say, they should be given a temporary visa until it is safe for them to return home.  We are after all only providing a safe haven for these people, not a permanant home.  They should be returned back to their own way of life as soon as it is practicable.

marley says:

07:44pm | 08/06/10

Our obligation, legally, is to grant genuine refugees on our shores “protection.”  That includes giving them rights to education, medical care, employment and social services. It also includes giving them access to citizenship. That’s in the Convention, and we signed it.

Now, I don’t know how you define permanent residency, but the above seems to me to pretty much fit the bill.  If you don’t give genuine refugees the right to residency, employment, and the chance to support themselves or their families, what happens if their home situation doesn’t resolve in a few years?  They’re still here, living on the dole, with no prospects.  Wouldn’t it be better to bite the bullet and have these people become productive, employed citizens, rather than have them collecting benefits while waiting for some hoped-for ceasefire back home? 

I once met an elderly Russian lady who had been sitting in a refugee camp in Italy for 45 years.  That’s 45 years of her life wasted, and 45 years of potentially tax-paying citizenship lost to the Italian state.  Do you really think that’s the best option?

James1 says:

01:54pm | 08/06/10

That is not irony.

Peter says:

03:20pm | 08/06/10

James its ironic that in our society the bleeding left (which I assume you are one of) bang on about the injustice in our system that discriminates against the poor and benifits the rich and then in the case of refugees, as you say yourself ,accept that its OK to bypass the system if you have the money to do so.
Irony (from the Ancient Greek , meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance)

James1 says:

05:02pm | 08/06/10

The definition of irony is the use of words with the opposite of their literal intention.  We speak English, not ancient Greek.

And I am not a member of the “bleeding left”, I am simply a rational citizen that looks at things in the cold hard light of facts, not the kind of emotive stuff that you and your opposite numbers on the left seem to love so much.  I would assume further that, if you have no problem with the fact our society benefits the rich, you would take this to its logical extension.  But no, instead, you decide to find some common ground with the left…

Eric says:

05:50pm | 08/06/10

Casey, the article doesn’t seem to have clarified anything in your mind. You still seem embarrassingly ignorant of the real issues.

Adam Diver says:

11:39am | 09/06/10

The only ignorance here is you casey thinking that the loaded questions which I, and several others have discussed above, have in fact clarified anything.

Sherekahn says:

11:01am | 09/06/10

Acker, dear old Tim Fischer is a rampant Christian, even if he is not a Catholic, they are the last people to be ruthless enough to control population.
Does anybody really think the world can expand its population further?
Hideous!
Allowing 10 million Indians plus 10 million Chinese plus 10 million Africans into Australia is only going to create more pollution with their needs.  Factories=Pollution etc.
We must stop immigration to Australia to bring our own Carbon footprint down.
It is not selfish:  We would be doing the world a favour!

Crash says:

05:20pm | 08/06/10

So if someone broke down your back door and said ‘I’m cold and hungry and someone is trying to kill me, please help me’  you’d turn them away if they didn’t have a passport?

Eric says:

05:52pm | 08/06/10

Crash, I’d turn them away because they broke down my back door. That isn’t a good way for them to introduce themselves.

They’ve already proven to be vandals by destroying my property - they are probably liars as well.

Eric says:

05:53pm | 08/06/10

So much ignorance from the bleeding hearts. This isn’t about fear or cynicism, it’s about fairness and realism.

iansand says:

06:40pm | 08/06/10

Nonsense.  What are you afraid of Eric?  Have you any evidence for any of your concerns?  If so, wheel it out.

acker says:

06:58pm | 08/06/10

Rural Australia is grown up enough to constructively deal with this issue, Urban Australia appears to be an infitile nanny dependent xenophobic basket case. The only fear I sense is people, the same type of people in the song “little boxes” that surprisingly Kevin Andrews thread was talking about last week. Urban rednecks who’s knowledge often fails to stretch further than 50-100km from where they live their insulated existenZe..

Dan says:

09:43pm | 08/06/10

Except, Eric, you can not demonstrate which of the facts in the article are not facts.

Nicole says:

08:26pm | 08/06/10

Spare me!!!

stephen says:

06:00pm | 08/06/10

They sure do bro. They’re real smart. They been struggling for a home for 4000 years.
That’s how long it will take for Tony Abbott to win an election.

Sherekahn says:

10:14am | 09/06/10

Michael may I suggest a better idea?
Let them all land on our mainland without help or hindrance to take their chances.
This would sort out the true gamblers and cost nothing.