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 > Bridging visa to where? > Comments

Bridging visa to where? : Comments

By Anna Burke, published 25/7/2005

Anna Burke argues asylum seekers on bridging visas E must have work rights and access to Medicare

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Anna...........Do you think John Howard knows the real meaning of the word "Cricket"?
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 25 July 2005 4:37:25 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
You have hit the nail right on the head with your comments about the Liberal Party's claim to be more in tune with Christianity than those on the left. The way in which this country has treated asylum seekers and refugees is at odds with the definition of a Christian - showing the qualities associated with Christ's teaching. (of a person) kind fair, decent- Mr Costello in particular, must have either a warped sense of humour or be living with a deep sense of personal shame.
Posted by fibol, Monday, 25 July 2005 7:17:37 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
Why would Amanda Vanstone refuse to reveal the number of VBE holders to the researchers?

The ruthless and cruel treatment of these people in our community represents a blatant disregard for international law and an absolute disgrace to Australia. The fact that there is no data to support the BVE as a deterrent to unauthorised arrivals or spurious claims only adds insult to injury.
Posted by hutlen, Monday, 25 July 2005 8:33:47 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 NGO's provideing life saving support to asylum seekers on BVE's deserve nothing but praise, every accalade, and all the assistance we can offer.
Posted by Tieran, Thursday, 28 July 2005 7:20:19 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
Fibol

using the 'your a bad Christian' argument is pretty lame. If you wish to compare to Christ, thats good, do it from scripture and specific reference please.
Jesus is not a convenient 'whacking stick' for any side to just 'drag out' at a moments notice to beat the other side over the head just because they happen to have a different view of things.

You are confusing 'responsible government' and management of national security (as the Libs genuinely see it I'm sure) with 'oppression'.

Unfortunately for your argument, Australia is a sovereign country with the responsibility of border control. Romans 13 is a good place to start before whining about how our elected government carries out its duties. If you don't like it, do what you can to vote them out.

it's clear that the majority of Australians don't see it your way, hence Howard and company have power in both houses... called a mandate.

Jesus was very unkind (deliberately) to people who 'manipulated the system' for their own selfish benefit. He did show compassion, yes, but he did not pander to evil behavior, and wrecking kitchens because you 'dont like the food' is criminal behavior, and immediately disqualifies any perpetrator for sympathy and from elegibility to UN assylum seeker provisions. (its in the 'exceptions' to the description of 'assylum seeker'definition)

As far as I can see, Jesus would have extended the offer of repentance and forgiveness to all and sundry, but the thieves on the crosses beside him were punished with the legal punishment of the day.
His love, does not exclude civil responsibility for actions.

Assylum seekers are given protection, food, clothing, etc. that's called 'Assylum'. i.e. their basic needs are being met "Our father in Heaven.... give us our daily bread" ... its not a hard concept.

The noise about assylum seekers is politically motivated as far as I can see. The groups at detention centres are more interested in 'raising their party profile' I suspect, or they would not have their party insignia on their protest signs.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 28 July 2005 7:53:32 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
BD

JESUS WAS A REFUGEE

Born in Palestine before seeking asylum in Egypt.
Posted by Tieran, Thursday, 28 July 2005 8:07:28 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
BD: “You are confusing 'responsible government' and management of national security (as the Libs genuinely see it I'm sure) with 'oppression'.”

BD, You may be confusing the issue of the 45 day rule with border control.

I urge you to read the additional text. (Article link: “Seeking safety, Not Charity”)
Posted by hutlen, Friday, 29 July 2005 1:33:14 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
Ah another bleeding heart – so people who don’t qualify as migrants and don’t qualify as refugees just need to show up on our shores or airports and demand asylum to gain free entry and acceptance to mix with Australians and legal entrants to this commonwealth?

A bridging visa is issued with some serious strings attached – like reporting and like restrictions to employment (we have skills quotas /criteria which apply to every one else who are in queue waiting to migrate).

Right to asylum is not right to employment – and a bridging visa is just that.

I bet the UK are reviewing how “liberal” their migration criteria are following the recent spate of bombings and would be bombings by Somalian / Ethiopian “Refugees” (applicant to choose whichever nationality suits easier acceptance and visa issue).

A Rubbish Article based on fanciful notions of niceness and polite acceptance of every and any potential criminal or terrorist who happens to float / fly ashore – completely ignoring the governments first responsibility - protection of Australians from crimijnals, terrorists and other undesirables.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 3 August 2005 9:43:48 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
Part 1

As Author in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on CD I have a
considerable understanding what is constitutional appropriate
in certain issues.

See also my book published 30 September 2003,

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

The Delegates of the Constitution Convention Debates made
clear that the Commonwealth of Australia was entitled to
discriminate against any race by legislating within Section 51
(xxvi) against a specific race. However, they also made clear
that once a person was in the Commonwealth of Australia, and
not subjected to disabilities applicable to a special race,
then their rights would be the same as any other “subject of
the British Crown”.

Meaning, that any denial of Medicare benefits or other kind
of denial for employment is unconstitutional!

Quotation Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. GORDON: One is that everyone born in the Commonwealth
is qualified to become an elector.
As such this is yet another indirect referral that any child
born in
the Commonwealth of Australia is an Australian national,
regardless of its parents being aliens’!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Barton;

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to
legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth
citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all
the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and,
in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what
is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Thursday, 8 September 2005 9:41:34 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
Part 2

In Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3
Peters) 99, 120-122 (1830), the question squarely arose as to
whether Americans are "subjects of the crown," a proposition
flatly rejected by the Court:
"It is universally admitted both in English courts and in
those of our own country, that all persons born within the
colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of
Great Britain, were natural born British subjects, and it
must necessarily follow that that character was changed by
the separation of the colonies from the parent State, and the
acknowledgment of their independence.
"The rule as to the point of time at which the American
antenati ceased to be British subjects, differs in this
country and in England, as established by the courts of
justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to
take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to
take the date of the Declaration of Independence."

While the US no longer relies upon the English provisions in
that regard because of its Declaration of Independence, the
Delegates to the Constitution Convention Debates to the
contrary did not want to sever ties with the British Crown,
and as such again it shows that any person born in the
Commonwealth of Australia is an Australian native , and
cannot be deported as “Stateless” as the Federal government
now does with refugee children born in detention centres.

What we need is a total rethink of what really “citizenship”
is and how franchise applies.

Ironically, on the one hand a child born in the Commonwealth
of Australia by the rulings of the (unconstitutional)
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 would be an alien while for
election purposes the child, once an adult still could have
voting right, unless of course we deny the existence of the
child all together and claim the child was never born
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Thursday, 8 September 2005 9:42:43 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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