Wouldn't genuine asylum seekers from Sri Lanka head straight for India, Myanmar, Thailand and other countries in that region? Once these countries are bypassed the group becomes asylum shoppers.

You people cannot have it both ways.

Labor has voted down laws in the Senate that would limit the avenues of appeal.

You cannot argue for quick processing of claims and support a system that allows asylum seekers to abuse the legal system and stretch out their claims for years and years in the hope that the government will eventually relent and let them in. It is absurd that asylum seekers can take their cases all the way to the High Court.

Give them one chance to appeal the decision of the refugee tribunal and if they fail, deport them, immediately.

YESS.. A depressing familiarity ..but which ? aah.. its the one where leftist, socialist 'migration industry' lawyers and advocates seem to be in fear of income loss (from Legal aid maybe ?) that they, once again trot out the poor assylum seeker mantra.

SRI LANKA

Warring parties:

1/ Tamils of Indian ancestry.
2/ Sinhalese. Control most of the country, plenty of safe areas.

So, the question arises 'which' group are the assylum seekers from ?

a) If Tamils, then they can goto INDIA which is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. India is also closest. In fact.. a STONES THROW away.

b) If Sinhalese, then INTERNAL assylum is easily obtained.
OR
if they need to find external assylum INDIA again is ok, and they don't have to goto a Tamil area.

So, on either count, these people are, as Sage wisely stated 'Country Shoppers'

They deserve no sympathy, no assistance, except to send them back where they came from.
They do not even deserve processing in any area connected with our Assylum assessment.

Even if they are Sinhalese opposition members who feel they are targeted by the Government, they can STILL goto India. Even if they are Christians they can goto Kerala India which has huge Christian population.

Send em back ! and Greg and Howard can find other more worthy reasons to exist and obtain an income. Greg can continue his representation of the downtrodden, and it would not surprise me if we start seeing articles about 'poor misuderstood Muslims' being trotted out by Greg in the near future.

“Refugees and asylum seekers no threat to our national security”

Yes they potentially are!

At the time of the Tampa incident in 2001 there was an escalating build-up in the number of people preparing to come to Australia on precarious boats. If nothing has been done regarding the Tampa or the boats that were due to follow, we would have had a much much bigger and more difficult issue to deal with.

The scale of the onshore asylum-seeker issue could indeed be large enough to seriously damage social coherence and hence national security.

Strong border controls are absolutely necessary. Only within this framework should we be talking about the treatment of asylum seekers.

There is not a lack of humanity with current policy. There needs to be a balance between effective border protection and humanity. Unfortunately, we just can’t exercise full humanity without opening the so-called floodgates. Effective border protection requires a strong deterrence factor and no matter which way you look at it, this means a compromised level of humanity.

A considerably harder line would have been taken by governments, with support from the vast majority of Australian citizens, if the rate of influx had become ten or a hundred times bigger than it was in 2001.

Labor’s policy regarding refugees should be to;

Double the number annually to about 25 000, but only within our formal immigration system, and perhaps a very small number of onshore refugees while being very mindful not to cause that rate of people movement to increase beyond a tiny trickle. This should be done within an immigration program that is progressively reduced over a few years to net zero. Our immigration intake would then be predominantly refugee-based, with the abandonment of the current skills-based program.

Labor should also be pushing for an increase in our international aid effort to at least 0.7% GDP, aimed at the sources of refugee issues and at family planning / population growth issues.

Labor should definitely NOT be taking Greg Barnes and Howard Glenn’s suggestion that a few thousand asylum seekers (per annum) is an acceptable thing.

Immigration what a joyous subject

not to worry

The Australian Peoples Party has now posted their Immigration Policy at

www.tapp.org.au

The Howard Government has been successful in thwarting boat people. To undo this achievement will backfire on us and we will return to the days of the Tampa with every unstable misfit from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan leaving town and heading our way. Our psychiatric services will never cope as they are so souped up and crazed by religious zeal and emotional baggage they will not respond to medication!

Don’t forget the Tamil’s refined suicide bombing to the point it has reached today.

Though refugees may not present much threat to Australia’s security, they would pose a threat to our social cohesion, especially if allowed to come here in the droves suggested by the authors. The statement about people settling here will benefit Australia economically is a blatant lie – where is the research? Analysis of our per capita income over 30 years in comparison with countries having little or no immigration proves immigration has no net economic benefit, not to mention the environmental damage.

The figures used to brand Australia as “mean” in comparison with Canada, Denmark and Switzerland are highly misleading. Surely Australia’s geographical isolation from the rest of the world is a factor? Also, no mention is made of how these other countries deal with refugees, and whether they are eventually repatriated.

Australia should accept refugees only on the condition that they are eventually repatriated. Neither should refugees ever be entitled to permanent residency or citizenship. Unfortunately this does not happen. Few refugees, if any, are ever repatriated. It would be far better, where possible, that Australia provides financial, educational and social support for genuine refugees in their home country. It is highly likely the bulk of so called asylum seekers arriving at our shores are nothing more than illegal immigrants using “asylum” as a short cut to get in here. The processing time would be shorter if it were not for the lies told by asylum seekers and the stalling tactics of refugee advocates.

John Howard is the greatest security threat to Australia aided in this by all political parties.

As Author of the INSPECTOR-RIATKTI® book on CD series, my principle issues are certain constitutional issues before dealing with emotional and other issues.

We have seen that Australians were locked up and even deported because the way it is being done is unconstitutional.
If politicians were to deal with refugees with DUE PROCESS OF LAW then you will find that people claiming to be refugees but are, so to say, rejected are faster out of this country then currently is being done, while those held to be genuine refugees will be avoided to suffer the inhumane conditions.
It is all a question of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and over the years, since TAMPA not a single political party has actually pursued to have this applied.

Constitutionally, a person can only be deported if the minister having decided a person requires to be detained/deported has the person charged with relevant offences and placed before a State Court and obtains a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION as it requires a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION to establish a person to be in breach of law.
What we now have is an ad-hoc process that Australians legitimately living in Australia can be deported with a denial of legal rights because not just John Howard but also other political parties refuse to accept a DUE PROCESS OF LAW to be applied.

Just consider if this process had been followed with Vivian Alvarez Solon, Cornelia Rau or others they would unlikely ever have been detained at all!
When politicians place themselves above the Constitution then this is what you get, they themselves are constitutional terrorist!
See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog
http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

Demand from politicians that they follow DUE PROCESS OF LAW and we might avoid having to have unconstitutional and inhumane detention centres also!

GERRIT,
I don’t believe we need lawyers involved in immigration issues. Immigration law has become a growth industry and I often wonder who is paying for all this litigation. I don’t imagine boat people would have the depth of capital to fund the endless appeals and I don’t think there are many lawyers who are not there for payday.
You refer to Cornelia Rau and how badly she was treated. I believe that local police took her into custody after a complaint. She refused to speak English and only spoke in German and gave a false name. The police had no idea who she was. There was no listing of her as a missing person. You are no doubt more familiar with her story than me but I feel she appeared above the horizon when her family and lawyers saw the potential for a damages payout.

That old liberal hater, Greg Barnes is at it again. What a lot of tripe they write, and lies too. Studies have shown that the only ones to benefit from coming here are the migrants. We get little or no financial or social benefits from allowing people to come here.

I will go along with a 90 day only detention if we scrap the appeals process and deport those that cannot validify their claims by then.

It is the continuing appeals process that keeps them in detention. they can leave anytime if they give up their claims for asylum.

Here is a part from The Australian Peoples Party Immigration policy

for the full policy go to www.tapp.org.au

• TAPP notes that immigration throughout the last century has been of great benefit to Australia; however it must be recognised that inappropriately high levels of immigration can be detrimental to employment, to national infrastructure, services and environment.
• Our immigration program is in urgent need of overhaul. An immediate hold on immigration is necessary until economic factors relating to Australia are dealt with.
• TAPP will rename the relevant government Agency by returning to its correct name "Immigration".
• Australian "citizenship" is a valued privilege. To qualify, it will be necessary to understand the Australian Constitution and laws and, after five years, pass a test in English and swear allegiance to Australia and its people.
• The carriers (airlines and shipping) who convey people to the country without documentation will be responsible for them. This includes immediate return to port of embarkation and any other costs incurred

SILLE,

Considering the harm done to Australians, such as Vivian Alvarez Solon, Cornelia Rau, and others, the lack of applying DUE PROCESS OF LAW is the culprit. It doesn’t matter if Cornelia Rau spoke German or any other language, Courts are there to ensure that JUSTICE PREVAILS, albeit I admit they often get it wrong.
Their legal status can only be determined by a Court of law, not some public servant in an office!
And, the cost of getting them assessed and possibly deported in a legal manner would by far be a lot cheaper then now having huge cost on keeping them for prolonged time.
Unlike the current system a special Court could deal much quicker with cases and more appropriate and would be a lot cheaper in the overall.
Lawyers do not necessarily be involved unless the Court holds that the accused does not have the ability to comprehend the charges and proceedings.

TAPP

You got to be joking with “Australian "citizenship" is a valued privilege. To qualify, it will be necessary to understand the Australian Constitution and laws and”
Just check out my blog; http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and you might just find that the “The Australian Peoples Party” or yourself of perhaps most people in this forum would not have a clue what their Constitution is about or for that matter their Constitution has been substituted with a fake constitution!
So, which Constitution is then relevant for “aliens” to learn?

Check the current Refugee Situation as described by the NSW
Ecumenical Council at:

http://forum.quakers.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=719

So Gerrit as i understand you would prefer to winge than give advise,
i have also tried emailing but to no avail. As i see it you are a person with a wealth of knowledge but what is need is the use of it.

And citisenship should be a privalige and not just given.
Yes maybe there have been changes but how some of us see it to have free speech which is not so free with news,choice,to be able to be who we are.

These may only be little things and not entirely written but this is what it is about.
Until such time when the people what a republic then the constitution is what we sit on.
swulrich@bigpond.net.au

That was an interesting website quiverquaker. Much information can also be found on the UN web sites.

It's a shame there are so many people with an opinion on refugees who do not know the barest of detail.

As to the threat, what a ridiculous notion that terrorists would risk their ass or their mission by coming on some leaky boats. They fly in with perfectly legal paperwork. The twin towers in New York were not brought down by illegals slinking into the US.

I've heard people carry on about asylum seekers lack of paper work or illegal paperwork. They obviously haven't even got the imagination to realise that not everywhere it is as easy as going to your nearest post-office as it is here.

Some of the countries with the most refugees in camps have a great problem with poverty as it is. Like Pakistan with 680,000 REGISTERED refugees. Goodness knows how many are not. That's a bit more than Australia's paltry number.

Europe, which is densely populated also have tens of thousands of refugees in each country.

The carry on in Australia is pathetic. Especially since we like to stride importantly on the world stage. The issue of refugees and internally displaced persons in the world is dire.

Australia has a pathetic number of humanitarian immigrants. The majority are people who probably should be staying in their countries to help rebuild because of their skills not coming here to fill the gap caused by our shocking mismanagement re Education of our own young people.

Asylum Seekers are actually a potential threat to our Border Security.

What I think the Government is worried about is the ease at which terrorist organizations could traffic their leading members or 'main men' into the country. All they would have to do is get on a boat from Sri Lanka etc. and throw their papers and identification overboard on the way.

Even though I am opposed to the current Immigration Policy I can see where the Government is coming from.

Why on Earth would a terrorist organization 'traffic their leading men' or any other men for that matter, on a boat from Sri Lanka when there are perfectly safe flights on airplanes every day? It would be lots and lots cheaper for starters and be virtually risk free. Looked up the cost of an airplane ticket lately? That part of the argument never made any sense whatsoever and surely was only for the benefit of making something unpalatable seemingly legitimate.

Neither in Europe, nor the USA have terrorist attacks been made by asylum seekers. The two do NOT go together.