The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An island fortress mentality > Comments

An island fortress mentality : Comments

By Peter van Vliet, published 25/5/2009

What it is about Australia that makes us so alarmist about our relatively small number of asylum seekers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
‘What it is about Australia that makes us so alarmist about our relatively small number of asylum seekers.’

Well that’s an easy question to answer, Peter van Vleit. In fact it befuddles me as to why you feel the need to ask it.

There is enormous potential for onshore asylum seeker movement to greatly escalate. This would be disastrous for all concerned. So arrivals have to be dealt with in such a way as to deter others from coming. If Australia is seen to be soft, we’ll be on the receiving end of hundreds or perhaps thousands of leaky boats.

This was about to happen in 2001 at the time of the Tampa incident. Howard’s strong policy shift was absolutely necessary at that point in time.

Rudd’s weakening of this policy, at the same time that there are increasing causal factors of asylum seekers heading our way, was just absurd in the extreme.

It would be nice if we could welcome asylum seekers with open arms. But of course we can’t. If we did, we would literally open the proverbial floodgates.

This line of discussion has been conducted on OLO numerous times. But it always seems to stop when I ask hard questions like:

What do you think would have happened if Howard hadn’t implemented a decisive policy change on onshore asylum-seeking at the time of the Tampa incident in August 2001, given that our intelligence sources told us that there was a rapidly escalating build-up of people heading our way on rickety boats?

What do you think Howard should have done at the time?

Do you really support Rudd’s watering down of this policy which appears to be highly significant in the escalation of boat-people numbers, especially at a time when the driving forces for this movement are increasing, as is being repeatedly expressed by Rudd and his ministers?

Surely it was vital that a strong policy be left in place if not boosted at this point in time, yes?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8841#140011
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 25 May 2009 9:13:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The notion that those in Australia that desire an end to the onshore asylum seeker saga have an ‘island fortress mentality’ is just absurd.

Of COURSE Australia should have rigorous border control!

But of course we should be playing our part in global refugee issues as well….by way of increasing international aid and increasing our offshore refugee intake.

.
Time and time again, I’ve seen articles like this appear on OLO. Apart from (former Democrats senator) Andrew Bartlett, I don’t think an author has ever come back and partaken in extended debate or defended their position to any significant extent.

I hope Peter van Vliet will defend his position here, perhaps starting with responses to the question in my previous post.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 25 May 2009 9:42:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for continuing to bring up this debate. I really feel dissappointed when people seem so threatened by assylum seekers. We all travelled as immigrants to Australia, or we were Indigenous people. We were exposed to predjudices and called names like 'wogs', because we were from Eastern Europe or looked different and we were seen as different.

Assylum seekers are families with stories and have a lot to offer Australia. We are global citizens and we are all facing adverse global difficulties. Who are we keeping out? Why do you think the people are so bad? People need homes, just as we did, when we came to this country. Many people are coming due to conflicts and lack of safety. Australia has such a small amount of people coming to our shores, yet we still worry about sharing the land.

Are you still worried about Europeans and other immigrants in this country? Are you still threatened by people from different nationalities? I can not help but see the racism that stops people accepting assylum seekers.

I love the second verse to the Australian Anthem...

"For those who've come across the sea, we've boundless plains to share..."
Posted by Till, Monday, 25 May 2009 10:11:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Hysteria” has nothing to do with illegal immigrants, refugees or whatever you want to call them. The whole business is a huge con perpetrated on weak Australian governments more interested in sucking up to the corrupt United Nations and wet do-gooders like this author than they are in the welfare of Australia and Australians.

There was no tragedy at Ashmore Reef: illegals blew themselves up with petrol. There is not an increase in asylum seeking because of an increase in conflict: the increase is because of the Rudd Government’s complete abrogation of border protection and sensible detention and return policies.

Rudd sent a clear message to all would-be illegal entrants that all they now need do is turn up with the help of people smugglers and those nice people in expensive patrol boats will escort them to Christmas Island for a short stay before they are taken to live permanently in Australia. While this is happening, the colleagues of nice people providing the tourist escort service are being killed in the country the tourists have left.

Under the Rudd Labor Government, immigration appeals from people who would once have been knocked back by magistrates have reduced to a mere trickle because the magistrates have opened the gates to just about everybody who wants to come to live in Australia.

This apologist (for illegal entry) claims that immigration makes the world tick. But, putting aside the fact that Australia now has twice its sustainable population, he didn’t start off by talking about orderly, invited immigrants; he concerned himself with illegal arrivals. And let’s not hear anymore of that rubbish about people claiming to be asylum seekers being allowed to come any way they please!

“The non-government sector must ensure our government is held to account and is fulfilling its human rights obligations.”

The non-government sector can take a running jump, along with Peter van Vliet. They don’t run Australia, and they are not answerable to the people of Australia.

All people arriving by boat should be sent back to their places of origin.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 25 May 2009 11:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It could perhaps be that both LIB and Labs are using it for a political beatup considering that the numbers involved are so small compared to the 300,000 that come in as legal migrants, each year. Purely as a supply of cheap labour for big business and to provide and wider tax base of the government of the moment.
Posted by sarnian, Monday, 25 May 2009 12:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we should recall what happened after the Vietnamese conflict?
I was working for the Health Commission at the time, and was helping
open the mail. Not my normal job, but just to help out. I opened
one from someone in the NT who had circulated the letter nationally.

'... We can expect 27,000 asylum seekers (boat people) over the next three years, and I haven't sufficient quarantine facilities or staff to cope with this number ...'

Gareth Evans the same time was quoting on TV, '...We can expect only
9000 over the next 3 years...'

Some Iraqi man was stating in the media recently he'd been in Indonesia for 10 years waiting to get legal refugee passage through the UN, and of course he had family he wished to bring over once settled. I can understand his frustration, ten years is a long time out of anyone's life. He would do anything to get to Australia.

We know that new asylum seekers need compassionate treatment. Especially women and children. But I can understand that people
are concerned, do we have the appropriate infrastructure to cope.
Can we not somehow set up better and hastier selection procedures and of course health facilities not only in Australia but in Indonesia or their expected embarkation ports.

Italy is now turning back boats. And France had problems a few
years ago with illegal immigrants trying to get to UK via the channel
tunnel.

We are not an Island and have extensive shore lines. Chinese illegals were caught on the Central North Coast, with phone numbers to call once they arrived. Some were spotted stranded on a sand bank dressed in suits and carrying suitcases waiting for low tide. One has to feel sorry for them though.

I think the concern is that one legal immigrant or asylum seeker
will then result into ten more family members arriving. And if non
can speak English, the expense of settling them in, health risks
and not letting criminals in with the genuine ones.
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 25 May 2009 12:24:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While ever the Australian Government continues its policy of using its Defence forces to invade other sovereign states,then, we, as a nation, must bear responsibility for the refugees created by these actions. The manner in which they arrive is irrelevant. The idea that we can choose or in some way influence the method by which people flee their homeland, is nothing more than self-serving fatuity, on the same degraded moral level as the invasion itself.This country was founded on the moral policy of "always blame and punish the victim." Little has changed in 200 years.
Posted by ocm, Monday, 25 May 2009 1:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ocm, when did we invade Sri Lanka..? That doesn't make sense, what about Turkish people coming in, as they have int he past, a Turkish people smuggler in Sydney was charged - now you can say we invaded turkey in WW1, but we were successfully fought off and anyway that was 90 years ago.

I get it that it's a long way around just to protest about war though, complaining we should take people from any country Australia has fought in. So what do you say to Kosovans etc who languish in refugee camps, sorry we only take people from countries we fought in. How mean is that!

Can we set up a booth somewhere to check the credentials of those hoping to come without invitation?

I know most come by plane on tourist or other visas and then overstay or apply for refuge visas then, but they do get checked into Australia, whereas those arriving surreptitiously by boat, obviously plan to sneak in.

Should we trust folks who thus sneak in, to become honest citizens? I think that's where you'll find the source of the common Australian sentiment against Illegal Emigrants (that's the government term, not mine, they also call these vessels, SIEV - Suspected Illegal Emigrant Vessel)

My family are migrants, we arrived at the invitation of Australia, we were not uninvited nor did we break any laws or put at risk any other person in our transit. We filled in all the paperwork and waited in a queue, we were welcomed.
Posted by rpg, Monday, 25 May 2009 1:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ocm,

I know exactly what you are saying, and you are correct.

This thread will inevitably attract the same posts from the same posters;-it's done so already.

As you say.., its gone on for a long time and will continue.

Thankfully there are some that will always provide a balance
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 25 May 2009 2:05:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ocm and ginx, you must be so pleased that there are other posters, to sneer at from your moral high ground.

ocm "This country was founded on the moral policy of "always blame and punish the victim." Little has changed in 200 years.", oh please - this country was founded as a penal colony, but please do rewrite our history in your own awkward view.

ginx "As you say.., its gone on for a long time and will continue.", yes it will as long as there is an opportunity to improve yourself by shoving others aside, you betcha! Or did you mean the Australian suspicion of boat people?

Your self hatred is astonishing, why not look at how you can improve the plight of refugees as the author is trying to do instead of whining about your countrymen and women.
Posted by odo, Monday, 25 May 2009 2:37:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
odour,

Have you been on the woojoo juice?
Posted by Ginx, Monday, 25 May 2009 3:19:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,
You seem to have a fixation about arrivals by boat.
No opinion about those coming by air?
Posted by rache, Monday, 25 May 2009 4:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rache,
Come on,are you going to try that furphy of 'more illegals arrive by air than by boat'again?

Just look up the Immigration Dept. website, the stats are there and easy to find.

Yes some illegals try to get here by air, but those found without or incorrect visas are promptly sent back to the place of embarkation on the same airline that brought them here. Most of them (about 95%, I think) within 72 hours of arrival. Boat arrivals, without identifacation etc. should be treated the same.

So arrivals of illegals by air is not an issue.

There have been a few in the past that have engaged light aircraft to fly them from Indonesia to northern remote airstrips where they have been met by others here. Fortunately these have been very few. Probably because the penalties for the aircrafts owners is great and includes the loss of his aircraft.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 25 May 2009 5:39:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo: << Come on,are you going to try that furphy of 'more illegals arrive by air than by boat'again? >>

Come on Banjo, are you going to try your usual lies again?

Asylum seekers are not "illegals", as you persist in calling them. They have every right under our treaty obligations to seek asylum in Australia if they can get here by whatever means. While you obviously don't like that fact, that doesn't excuse your persistent mendacity.

<< Just look up the Immigration Dept. website, the stats are there and easy to find. >>

Selective quotation of statistics is a form of lying, old son.

"Illegal immigrants" in Australia are overwhelmingly those who have entered the country on a valid visa and then overstayed.

Many thanks to Peter van Vliet for reminding us of our humanitarian moral and legal obligations to provide asylum to our share of the world's legitimate refugees, and to those who've responded in kind.

This is one of those perennial OLO topics, and some of the usual suspects have trotted out the same tired old xenophobic excuses here. However, this article provides some kind of balance to the tripe promulgated by the misanthropes and thinly disguised racists who use forums like OLO to promote the hateful agendas at every opportunity.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 25 May 2009 7:56:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Intercepted a yawl full of illegals , about a league from Ashmore
We’re fleeing firebrand mullahs, spruiking sharia & war
One can’t wait UNHCR processing, when ones house is on fire!
So I lowered the gangplank, said climb on board, I’ll take you all to shore.

Came thirty men with two bags each, and three first class flight tags a bag
and a bull someone won, in some “raffles” Singapore.
I said Ah! I see no women, where did you leave your wives?
Wives, why we have four a piece, they’re home fighting the fire.

And well rehearsed their stories were, & on and on they went,
how forty days & nights, on raging seas they spent
how bull their food water & papers , did each inturn ingest
I said ditch the bull, no said they Ozy bleeding hearts eager buyers, when presented with bull do.

Port Headland and instant-residency, with choice of no-frills-coffee or tea-bag-tea
Then three took out iphones, and one a black-berry
SMSing folk back home, “hurry catch next ferry”.
Perhaps their bull had touched me, something didn’t smell quite right.

So rang up my MP, but got a pretty poor line
Only a few needy people, they’ve had one hell of a time.
Anyone who’d turn them away, would be mean hearted swine
Besides said my MP, it wouldn’t pay to jeopardize, my post-politics ambitions of the UN kind.

They're settled now free board n keep, for husband wives n kids
But lately some been thinking, in a funda-mental way
Aussie men & women too amoral ,Aussie media too insensitive
Not a place to unveil your daughter, nor a place to khitan your son.

And those incendiary words of Mullah, now have a homely ring
We’ll bring him over the next boat, before northern spring
And with multicultural grants, build a madrassah out Camden way
And rediscovering our identity , cleave together in a ghetto, and practise the sharia way
Posted by Horus, Monday, 25 May 2009 10:08:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issues are
* Are the asylum seekers genuine refugees, or economic migrants? Europe has vast numbers of the latter, and they are threatening to destroy the priceless centre of Western civilization by shameless welfare dependence (so well described by Enoch Powell in “Rivers of Blood”) and violent Islam (see the riots a day or so ago in Athens over defacement of the Koran. Compare that with the supine reaction here to desecration of a Bible at the East Preston Islamic College a year or so ago.)

* Are the arrivers interested in assimilating into the Australian community, or do they want to bring cultural (and especially religious) baggage that is hostile to the host culture? A proportion of people granted refugee status are certainly of the latter category.

Apart from the Tamils from Sri Lanka - whose leadership has perpetrated appalling violence through assassinations and suicide bombings - nearly all of the refugees, genuine or otherwise, making for Australia come from Muslim countries. Why should the dysfunctionality, obscurantism and violence of nearly all the Muslim world be OUR problem?

The solution (for example) to problems like Darfur is political change in Sudan, NOT flooding Australia with unassimilable people. Similarly Somalia - I feel sorry for them as a failed state, but their execrable religion-ridden culture and predilection for female genital mutilation are incompatible with life in Australia.

I'm prepared to tolerate Muslims if they tolerate me. But I feel fear and loathing of those who want to rave on about jihad, and absolute contempt for those (and their supporters) who think it is OK to flood Australia with people whose cultural values are straight out of the 14th century.

I do feel sympathy for the Afghans and Iraqis. Even so, we still need to assess carefully all individuals’ claims for refugee status, and ALSO their capacity for assimilation into the Australian community.
Posted by Glorfindel, Monday, 25 May 2009 11:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the DNA of all except for Aboriginals is a sense of arrival by boat, that mixed with a nostalgic yet barbaric feeling of "We got here first", does not apply with Indigenous Australia.

For 250 years or so since we invaded, I dont think we have a treaty with Aboriginals and I dont think that we are going to reconcile our differences, we said sorry and thats enough humiliation!?.

The vietnamese, the chinese, and other Asian races may provide the long awaited key to Indigenous Sovereignty as there is growing feelings in Australia that like the US, real 360 degree change may be a prerequisite and the support of an Indigenous Prime Minister or President will ensue in order to truly close the gap first before a sound policy for non-australians can be properly quantified.

Glorfindel names the dysfunctional, sick and infirm invading, the only people worried are the ones that invaded Australia in the beggining complete with pestilence and cruel law of the sea as exists today, the only people far from interested are the first Australians that have seen this all before.

Glorfindel, Aboriginal people of Australia still loathe your celebration of Australia day when the Indigenous people of Australia mourne the same day as Invasion day?

The philosophy of Zero Hurt & Harm must come into play as experienced by Indigenous Australia since the arrival of Afgans 100 years ago. Indigenous people have always been treated with respect in relation to Muslim and I think this issue should be re thought before rants against other peaceful religions and races. Please take note that I do not support Hurt & Harm.

The Host Culture is Indigenous not Anglican, Baptist Church of England or any other English or European culture and I for one am glad that you have recognized the Host Culture as Indigenous, if not then you are in as much fault as the people youre complaining about.

What makes this country unique is not Europeanism or Asianism but the Indigenous people of Australia and their culture of great spiritualism lest we forget
Posted by One Nation, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 1:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is typical propaganda from a pro-migration activist who also has a vested interest.
I suggest to the writer that he takes a holiday from his preconceived notions,if he can,and consider the reality of Australia.

That reality is,in brief - An arid continent with unreliable rainfall and a limited area of good soils suitable for agriculture.
Large scale degradation of agricultural and pastoral land which will take many,many years to fix,even if that is possible.
Given the above alone,and there are many other adverse factors,our ability to feed ourselves in a future without ready access to fossil fuels is doubtful.Scientists,such as Tim Flannery and Jared Diamond have posed a population of about 10 million as a sustainable level at something like current living standards.This means we are already in 100% overshoot.
If we are prepared to go to a third world lifestyle I'm sure we could squeeze in a few extra millions.Perhaps the writer,and his fellow Boobs From The Burbs cornucopians would like to put their money where their mouth is and emigrate to one of the many overpopulated nations in the world. - enjoy!

Australia needs a zero immigration policy,including so called refugees.We also need a policy of gradual population reduction.
Malthus described the alternatives.
Posted by Manorina, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 8:54:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One Nation: No point in anyone here feeling hostility to the indigenous (Aboriginal) people because this is unquestionably their home. But when I talk of "host culture", I'm talking of the 98% of Australians who are not Aboriginal. I'm 4th generation British-Australian. And I react with irritation at your politically correct reference to "Invasion Day". I can't think of any permanent colonizing experience that hasn't disadvantaged those there before, but that is what history is. "Invasion Day" trashes the great achievements of our European culture in this land, and that irritates the hell out of me. We don't live in the past, we do in the present and what we do now (including BY and for the Aborigines) can make a better future. No point in wallowing in the past, and being dysfunctional because of it.

That's the tragedy of Islam - it closed the gates of ijtihad (independent critical thought) about 800 years ago and has gone downhill ever since. Result? Dysfunctionality, inability to engage with and compete in the modern world, impotent rage, violence, blaming of everyone but itself as a culture. Not a pretty sight, NOT welcome here. I'm not racist, I just like living in the 21st century, where we respect human rights (including of women) and diversity and critical thought and tolerance. When Islam (ie the modern face of it - Wahhabi, Salafi, the pox emanating from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) becomes tolerant, I'll think about tolerating it.

Refugees from Burma, China, wherever are welcome if they're genuine refugees. But NO FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM. Why import a mental, economic and cultural disease?
Posted by Glorfindel, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 9:52:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

The latest report from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees says asylum applications in Australia increased by 19 per cent last year, from 3980 to 4750.

How many came by boat?

Actually, 179 or fewer than 4 per cent.

This year the number of boat people is already higher, at 221. But it still is tiny compared with those coming by air. And total refugee flows to Australia are much smaller than those experienced by other countries.

The UNHCR statistics show the Australian increase is part of a global trend. Refugee numbers started rising again in 2007 and last year total asylum applications in industrialised countries went up by 12 per cent. The increase for Australia of 19 per cent was above the average but much smaller than Finland's 181 per cent.

There is no mystery about the reason for the increase. The world is becoming less safe.

Richard Towle, UNHCR regional representative for Australia, says: "The places traditionally looked to for refuge such as Pakistan are becoming increasingly unstable and people quite rapidly are having to look elsewhere.

Does our outrage extend to those Sri Lankan boat people or those who came from New Guinea or is it reserved for Middle Easterners only?
Posted by rache, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 11:11:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is little difference between the various ideological thoughts on this subject, they all fail to see the reality of Australia and the worlds situation in regard to human population. Ideologists see nothing beyond what they want to see and refuse to accept anything outside their beliefs, no matter what they are.

It's been pointed out the fragility of Australia's ability to support a growing human population. Considering a small indigenous population survived for about 50 thousand years in this climate successfully, yet it's taken the ideological human less than 200 years to reduce it's productivity and environment to almost zero. I'd like to know how those supporting unfettered immigration and open borders will cope with our dying country and what their remedies are for supporting refugees, who are of no use to this country, just a burden on it's economy, freedoms, security and resources.

It matters not where people come from if they are seeking asylum, what matters is the ideology and approach to life they bring with them and expect to be accepted by their host country. Even though that same ideology is the cause of their problems. There is nothing logical in that, nor is it rational to fill your house in a desert with strangers, whose beliefs and ways of life are causing so much misery in the places they escaped from. Yet when they get here, they quickly express hate for our ways of life and secular culture, demanding it change to accommodate them and their suppressive cultures.

An article like this shows how stupid humans are and how self destructive they become when their hoped for illusions fail to materialise. Maybe that's why sensible people don't want any more people here, we have enough fools determined to destroy rational life as it is, do we really want more of the same, until our country is denuded and we end up like the majority of the world, in growing ideological turmoil and chaos
Posted by stormbay, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:34:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rache,
What you fail to mention, and I suggest deliberately, is that nearly all those illegals that arrive by air are sent away again within 72 hours of arrival. So the actual number of illegal arrivals that gain entry by air is very small. The 50,000 so often referred to, by advocates for illegal entry, are mainly tourists that have simply overstayed and they leave of their own accord, to be replaced by other tourist overstayers. Considering the large number of tourists we get the overstayers are small and still spending money while here.

Sure there are a few here long term illegally but unless they can get hold of false tax file numbers and Medicare cards they are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers, etc and I feel sorry for their situation but they are criminals.

The ones arriving by boat want to get picked up by our border patrols . They are aware that after a couple of months detention they will be given permanant residence visas curtasy of the Rudd government and then they can bring the rest of their family here legally by 747. That is the reason for the increase in illegals since August last year, when the changes came into being.

By the way they are classified as 'illegals' or 'unlawfull entrants' and do not become 'asylum seekers' untill they apply for asylum.

As i said it is all on the website of our immigration Dept
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:45:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< By the way they are classified as 'illegals' or 'unlawfull entrants' >>

More lies from Banjo. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship website refers to "illegal entry" and "unlawful entrants". There is no such classification as "illegals", as Banjo persistently and mendaciously claims.

From the official website:

<< Overview

Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program offers protection to asylum seekers who have entered Australia, either without a visa or as temporary entrants, and who are found to be owed Australia's protection under the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and relevant Australian laws.

Protection visa

Asylum seekers who are found to be owed Australia's protection under the Refugees Convention, and who satisfy health, character and security requirements, are granted a permanent Protection visa. >>

http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. As I've said before, I'd be quite happy if Australia abolished its 'skilled immigration' program completely, in favour of continuing to take a fair and reasonable number of refugees as defined above.

I think that the 'island fortress mentality' is mostly a psychological hangover from the old 'Yellow Peril' and 'White Australia' paranoia that used to characterise the bad old days of yesteryear.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 1:45:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The disappointing thing about van Vleits article is its dishonesty.

We are told:
1) --“ The United States of America, an immigrant nation like Australia, has an estimated 11.5 million illegals … People there worked out a long time that immigration makes the new world tick - economically and socially”
Note its two barbs i) “PEOPLE there worked out”…(does that mean all the US people? or, is it a lesser percentage than all? is, it even a majority of US people? the intent is clearly to have us believe that Americans en masse accept immigration, in all its forms), & ii) this all happed “A LONG TIME AGO” the implication being Aussies (leastways, those who differ with Mr van Vleit’s stance on immigration/refugees) are slow on the uptake!

2) --“Another contrast to our COMPARATIVELY benign predicament is the third world country Pakistan which hosts more than 2 million refugees …”
One of the first things you learn in primary school is you can only compare like things: apple & apples – NOT apples( Australia ) & lemons ( Pakistan).
i) Does Pakistan house, clothe and feeds all those illegal’s?
ii) Does Pakistan grant these illegals -or even a sizable percentage of them- citizenship? the answer to both, NYET!
It’s a faux comparison/argument designed to shame those who don’t know the background facts.

3) – “The Government needs to begin incorporating the needs of disadvantaged migrants and refugees in the social inclusion agenda” .This is the closest you’ll get to any mention of the costs of immigration by those in van Vliet’s camp and, the solution, sweet talk for – social engineering i.e. quotas, special entry: an ethnic grading system.

4) --“NATIONAL LEADERSHIP around issues of multiculturalism, cultural diversity, non-discrimination and anti-racism IS STILL REQUIRED…”
Translation: a select few should tell the rest what they should think on these issues.

And this is from one of the men who would be in the vanguard of an Australian republic---heaven forbid!
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 9:26:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From last year's Immigration Report to June 2008-

Total arrivals/departures = 25,700,000
Visa Overstayers taken into detention = 1283
Visa overstayers who breached Visa conditions=323
Unlawful non-citizens located = 10722
Removals and departures = 8404
Clearances refused at airports/seaports = 1613

Boat arrivals = 25

Crisis?
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 9:04:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, but wobbles - you're not counting all those pernicious "illegals" that Banjo can find on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship website, but nobody else can.

Australia is under threat by literally HUNDREDS of desperate refugees in leaky boats. Man the Barricades! Repel boarders! Blow them out of the water!

We will fight them on the beaches...
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 9:13:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wholly agree with Ludwig’s response to this article.

the issue with fixing a small leak in the dam wall is because, whilst a small leak might be tolerable and accommodated , its prolonged erosive effect upon the dam fabric soon opens up the breach and turns the small tickle which passes through into a torrent which floods all before it.

Certainly, if we consider the numbers of people who would freely seek to come to Australia today and we allowed them all unfettered access, what is, presently, the population of Australia would be swept aside and reduced to a minority before them.

OF course we do have a responsibility to also ensure everyone seeking access is
Free of infectious diseases
Free of a criminal past
Able to function, assimilate and is tolerant of the wider Australian community, which it is seeking to participate in.

From the behavior of some criminally inclined individuals and ethnic gangs, it would seem a number of migrants fail on the last point and should be deported immediately their prison sentences have been served. I am of course, referring to the murderers who escaped to Thailand, after killing an Australian at the weekend, those who seek to make their fortune in the illegal supply of narcotics and of course that pathetic excuse for a human who was, properly deported back to Serbia a couple of years ago.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 9:34:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wobbles,
Without checking on your quoted stats, they sound about right. This really shows the effectiveness of the previous policy. Have a look at the previous year also. The Rudd policy came into being after your stats ended on 30-6-08. Now read article from todays Aus to see what has happened since.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25544176-601,00.html

We have apprehended 749 illegals and the Indonesians have apprehended 900. Over 1500 in total that were attempting to come by boat.

There is no doubt that the lure of permanent residency, after a couple of months paid for holiday on barmy Christmas Island, is the lure and like the Indonesians say we can expect more and more.

There is no alarm, but we simply need to make it far less attractive for the illegals to risk the trip. I applaud the Indonesians for their efforts in prevention
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 9:59:29 A
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 10:05:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The answer to Peter van Vliet's question could be that within living memory a very significant proportion of the population of a then very culturally homogenous Australia saw at first hand some of the conditions and attitudes that prevailed elsewhere in the world during a time of world war in which it was perceived Australia itself was under threat. The message passed on by these numerous eyewitnesses was pretty much unanimous: preserve the cultural homogeniety of Australia as a bulwark against the tensions that had been seen as having led to, and exacerbated, the conflict they had witnessed.

In those times Australia was seen by Australians as anything but an 'island fortress'. In attempting to create such an analogy, Peter van Vliet has perhaps conflated the perceptions of extreme vulnerability of Australia's relatively small population to cultural swamping should restriction as to who could enter the country be relaxed, with the undeniable fact that the country is an (albeit very large and difficult to patrol) island and therefore somehow invulnerable.

Contemporaneously with the threats to Australia posed by two world wars there had existed a disaffected element within Australian society that wanted political power and to set a new direction for Australian society. This element knew it was virtually impossible to force through unwanted change against the checks and balances of the British constitutional monarchical polity that was, and still is, Australia, whilst ever such cultural homogeniety persisted.

The disaffected element believed it had to change the cultural basis of Australian society in order to make its grab for power believably legitimate. It saw dramatically increased non-British immigration as the means to that end.

The big lie that has been promoted for many years now is that because there had been a natural acceptance of migrants of predominantly British origin that were perceived as offerring little threat to cultural homogeniety in Australia, Australia therefore was, and is, a 'racist' society.

The problem that this disaffected element, one that now sees itself as an elite within Australian society, has, is that it has believed its own big lie.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Thursday, 28 May 2009 7:54:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest, very interesting comments you make.

So this disaffected element that has believed its own lies .. do you mean the people who now insist we open our borders up and welcome everyone where ever they come from and by whatever means.

I note on OLO there is an element that castigates anyone who questions whether our borders should be completely open, and believe we should not be stopping boat or other immigrant peoples for even a moment. They deride others often before they post anything, I'm guessing to intimidate and bully any responses in opposition to what they believe is correct thinking for Australians, political correctness in other words. Just an observation, they clearly expect contrary views and that's their way of dealing with it.

This element insists we should welcome them all immediately into our community. Is that who you're talking about? I don't see Australia as necessarily racist, but I do see a lot of folks who are nervous and unsure how our society will evolve now with so many disparate groups.

What do you think will come out of this? I'm interested genuinely in your opinion on this.
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 28 May 2009 8:43:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo

"By the way they are classified as 'illegals' or 'unlawfull entrants' and do not become 'asylum seekers' untill they apply for asylum."

International law clearly states that all people have the right to claim asylum. Anyone who arrives by boat or plane to seek protection in another country is automatically an asylum seeker, irrespective of whether they've officially applied for asylum or not. They might not necessarily be refugees, though the overwhelming majority who arrive by boat are, but they are asylum seekers. Calling them 'illegals' is ignorant and wrong.

Horus

"One of the first things you learn in primary school is you can only compare like things: apple & apples – NOT apples( Australia ) & lemons ( Pakistan).
i) Does Pakistan house, clothe and feeds all those illegal’s?
ii) Does Pakistan grant these illegals -or even a sizable percentage of them- citizenship? the answer to both, NYET!
It’s a faux comparison/argument designed to shame those who don’t know the background facts."

Okay, let's compare apples with apples then. We can ignore the fact, if you like, that countries like Pakistan, Syria, Jordan and Iran are struggling to deal with hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees at any one time. Let's look at what other industrialised nations are dealing with. In 2008, around 49 000 asylum claims were made in the United States, 37 000 in Canada, 35 000 in France, 31 000 in Italy and 30 000 in the UK. In Australia, we had less than 5000 and as pointed out by Banjo the majority of these are plane arrivals who are sent packing on the next flight.

The number of asylum seekers coming to Australia, in comparison to the millions of displaced people in the world, is miniscule. It's nothing compared to what many other nations are dealing with. Our paranoia over a few defenceless asylum seekers is out of all perspective.
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 28 May 2009 11:39:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn “They might not necessarily be refugees, though the overwhelming majority who arrive by boat are, but they are asylum seekers. Calling them 'illegals' is ignorant and wrong.”

I am at a loss to think what else should someone be called who is not a refugee and attempts to deliberately evade Australian Migration laws other than “Illegal”

If they are not evading persecution who are they seeking “asylum” from… the boogey man?

As to “ignorant” well what is more apt and “ignorant free”

Maybe “Un-entitled”
How about “Usurper”
Perhaps “Anarchist”

I think maybe, instead of calling illegals "illegal", we could call them the

"Ignorant" - of Australian Statutes and settlement requirements and obligations.

But somehow, for me, the term “illegal Alien” seems just so appropriate and acceptable.

And speaking personally, one illegal alien is no different to another illegal alien…

commonsense declares : no one is entitled to ignore the laws of the community they anticipate assimilation into.

Re “Our paranoia over a few defenceless asylum seekers is out of all perspective.”

Already answered re…. Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 9:34:12 AM

“whilst a small leak might be tolerable and accommodated , its prolonged erosive effect upon the dam fabric soon opens up the breach and turns the small tickle which passes through into a torrent which floods all before it.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 28 May 2009 12:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking if "ignorant and wrong", good old Col weighs in with a post which is a very good example of both.

I've already quoted from the relevant part of the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship website. There is no such classification as "illegals", no matter how much Col and others of his ilk want there to be.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 28 May 2009 12:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last year illegal arrivals by boat were 25. So far this year we have apprehended 724 and the indonesians 900, that is 1500 total. A big difference and these would be arrivals set out with criminal intent.i,e. to enter Australia in direct contravention of our laws.

No matter what spin CJM and Bronwyn put on that activity and try to paint them in a better light, they are 'unlawful entrants'. It is quite right to call them illegals or illegal aliens.

One can call a thief a 'shop lifter' but by any definition he/she is still a thief.

It is remarkable that some can find nothing better than to split hairs over what these law breakers are termed.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 28 May 2009 5:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Browyn,
Re: comparing apples:
1) “ Pakistan, Syria, Jordan and Iran are struggling to deal with hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees at any one time”
Highly delusory– since the cost of housing , and feeding such “refugees” is borne largely by the UN & NGOs, who on the most part draw their funding from Western nations (& a few Arab nations, like Saudi Arabia), not the treasuries of Pakistan, Syria et la.

2) “Other industrialised nations are dealing with.In 2008, around 49 000 asylum claim were made in the United States, 37 000 in Canada, 35 000 in France, 31 000 in Italy and 30 000 in the UK ...etc”
Highly delusory – since the line you're pushing is that Aust is not pulling its weight.An argument that was well and truly debunked in a similar thread, last time, by rstuart.http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2702#60657
As I recall you were most active on that thread – so you would hardly have missed it – yet, you still drag out that tired, old, discredited argument.

And you mentioned Italy on your list of exemplars, you may like to read up on the lasted load of illegal’s, that arrived in Italy http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/268140,italy-deports-more-would-be-immigrants-to-libya.html
And we are likely to see a lot more of it and, not just from Italy.

Re: comparing paranoias:
3) “Our paranoia over a few defenceless asylum seekers”
Paranoia, may be apt, especially when applied to many “refugee” advocates, who continue -in their self deluding way - to see some of our most recent arrivals as “defenceless” despite they having employed routes and ruses to get to our shores which would have trumped some of the most hardened con-men.
Posted by Horus, Thursday, 28 May 2009 9:58:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo

"It is remarkable that some can find nothing better than to split hairs over what these law breakers are termed."

No-one is splitting hairs, Banjo. You're deliberately using false terminology and those interested in fairness will continue to point it out, not for your sake, but for the sake of others. You've been told time and time again you're wrong, but you've ignored all well-meaning advice, and now that you're again being corrected, you attempt to fob these corrections off as 'spin' and 'hair splitting'.

Labelling asylum seekers as 'illegals' is a lazy attempt to gain sympathy for your argument. Continue to do it, Banjo, and I will continue to expose your ignorance, no matter how tiresome it might be.

Perhaps an internal ABC memo might help clarify the situation. You can wallow in your own ignorance as long as you like, Banjo, but others might be interested in fairness and accuracy.

'We use the term "asylum seekers" for people who arrive in Australia (or Australian waters) without travel documents, claiming (or apparently claiming) refugee status. If the Australian authorities decide they have a valid claim for protection, they would become "refugees". Don't use inappropriate modifiers with the term "asylum seeker", such as "unlawful asylum seeker". There's no such thing as an "unlawful" asylum seeker because under international law anyone can apply for asylum.

We use the term "illegal immigrant" for anyone arriving in Australia without proper papers who is not claiming refugee status or whose claim for protection has been rejected; or anyone whose visa has expired and who is therefore not legally entitled to stay in Australia.

We do not use the term "boat people" and we do not refer to "illegal refugees".

A simple "asylum seekers" is the way to go.'

Extract from News & Current Affairs Style Guide - August 2006

Yes, simple really, Banjo, even for you!
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 29 May 2009 10:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg asks:

"So this disaffected element that has believed its own lies .. do you mean the people who now insist we open our borders up and welcome everyone where ever they come from and by whatever means[?]"

The answer is 'yes', inasmuch as such people constitute an articulate elite to whom the 'guilt' of alleged racism has been successfully peddled. I do not suggest such people have constituted the self-perpetuating core of disaffection which is arguably the source of the big lie.

Given that a disaffected element existed in Australia BEFORE the commencement of significant non-British migration to Australia, it perhaps should have been expected that its ability to influence public policy - particularly population policy - should have DECLINED over the years as the proportion of the population of non-British origin increased. Yet if anything it seems that such influence has increased. How is that explained?

I suggest one explanation is that another aspect of the big lie of 'racism' has been peddled to the non-British migrant derived community over the years, that aspect being that full and effective citizenship in Australia can only be attained by changing the British Australian polity from its constitutional monarchy to something else, since 'full and true' acceptance and assimilation into the Australian community is presented as being based upon 'racial' (that is, British) pedigree. That is not to say that all, or even a majority, of that part of the community of non-British origin have accepted this line of bull. There is much to suggest the opposite may be the case. There is also much to suggest that a significant number, although by no means a majority, of the community that is of British origin HAS been taken in by this guilt peddling line.

Such big-lie-based community division was always the purpose of 'multiculturalism'.

Continued presentation of an obligation for Australia to accept 'asylum seekers', especially when numbers are so 'miniscule', is just too good an opportunity for a self-justifying siezure of moral high ground for the elite that has believed the big lie to forego.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 29 May 2009 11:00:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn,
What style and phrases the ABC uses in of no concern to me. The Immigration Dept refer to 'unlawful entrants'.

My dictionary gives the same meaning to 'unlawful' and 'illegal'. that is good enough for me. I recognise that other softer terms are used simply to put these people in a better light and I will not accept that. Softer terms are simply spin.

Below is an extract from todays SMH. Quote

AN INDONESIAN crewman on a boat that exploded and killed five asylum seekers last month has been charged with people smuggling.

The man, believed to be 19, is accused of attempting to smuggle 47 people into Australia illegally. He was charged with crimes against the Migration Act, not murder.

On April 15, a boat carrying 49 people, mostly Afghans, was intercepted off Australia's northern coast. The following day it caught fire, killing five passengers and severely burning many more.Unquote.

Note the second sentence. "The man, believed to be 19, is accused of attempting to smuggle 47 people into Australia illegally" If the SMH can use the term then so can I.

However, I may change the term I use as I tend to think that Col Rouge's term of 'Illegal Alien' is more apt.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 30 May 2009 9:37:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good example, Banjo. It illustrates my point well. Thank you.

"AN INDONESIAN crewman on a boat that exploded and killed five asylum seekers last month has been charged with people smuggling."

I see the SMH has quite correctly used the term 'asylum seekers', and hasn't referred to them as 'illegals'.

"Note the second sentence. 'The man, believed to be 19, is accused of attempting to smuggle 47 people into Australia illegally.' If the SMH can use the term then so can I."

Smuggling by definition is an illegal activity. The adverb 'illegally' is describing the action of the alleged 'people smuggler', not the actions of those seeking asylum. You'd hardly expect anyone to 'smuggle' anything or anyone 'legally', would you?

Is this the best example you could find, Banjo?

I'm not surprised really, because most journalists in mainstream media have cleaned up their act on this. They've been advised, as have the ABC journos, to get their terminology right.

OLO is an unedited site, so you and Col are free to use whatever hateful and incorrect labels you choose. The longer you continue to do so though, the more your ignorance will be shown up for what it is.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 30 May 2009 11:41:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I suggest those apologists against Australia's present immigration policy, especially illegal immigrants (those that attempt entry by bi-passing the normal immigration and vetting procedures) or asylum seekers legal or otherwise. Open their own doors and agree to sponsor a family or two. It has been done successfully.

However, it has to be faced, how many families are arriving by
illegal transportation by people smugglers. It's the smugglers that
should be imprisoned and charged. Not the people they're trying to
get in through the back door, without any thought of how they will be
received once they get here! What are they going to do if they land
unobserved? Can you recall the Asian illegals found wandering
around in some isolated area up north, who were saved actually. They had no remorse, they were told by the smugglers that Australia is a big country very unpopulated you can live off the land without any problem. The sad thing is they believed them!

How many of these people are educated, can speak English, are
healthy by Australian standards, and will with little readjustment easily meld into the Australian culture or become employed eventually.

I can't see why some of the wealthier Arab countries can't take
in Muslim asylum seekers, maybe they do?

The Government should make a genuine attempt to educate not only
those in Indonesia that illegal immigrants are not welcome and smugglers should be denounced as criminals in illegal people trafficking.

There is no law in Indonesia against people smuggling. Maybe they
should do this. Although I do believe one has recently been extradited for people smuggling from Indonesia to Australia. And I hope when sentenced, they throw away the key.

Another thought, why doesn't Australia demand from the countries
these people are fleeing from, a huge amount of monies to cope with
the expense of treating these people 'humanely' when they arrive here.
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 1 June 2009 3:25:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The attempt to use politically correct wording is silly.
They are illegal as they do not have visas and they know that to come
in boats from Indonesia is an illegal entry mode.
If they are so legal why didn't they buy air tickets to Australia
instead of Indonesia ?

Of course they are illegal and it is stupid to pretend otherwise.

As to why it raises so much concern, I have like most of us have seen
the pictures of large ships, 10,000 ton plus packed to the gunnels with
thousands of illegal immigrants arriving in Italian ports.
If the smugglers in Indonesia could build up their business enough that
is what we would be facing in Sydney Harbour.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 June 2009 3:56:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy