The point is frequently made that we tend to know who visa overstayers are, we do not know who these people are who arrive on boats.

They evidently can afford to pay thousands of $ to people smugglers, but cannot, for some reason, arrive by plane in Australia.

Why is that? Airfares from Indonesia to Australia are not expensive, they can get a tourist visa and overstay, but we'll have some idea who they are.

They get to Indonesia, we are told, mostly by airtravel - in the case of Afghans they would have to wouldn't they? Some of them spend many years in Indonesia before trying to get to Australia by boat - seems an odd choice surely?

It's not that we don't want to extend the hand of humanity and friendship, it's just the way it is sought, seems to many to be, well, suspicious. We have a large migrant intake every year and try to do our best for people who have been living in "hellish conditions" in many refugee camps worldwide.

I'm not moved by complaints of the Indonesian detention centers, as the people who end up in them have probably entered Indonesia uninvited. That's how they deal with it, and we should just shut up, or are you going to try to reform all parts of the Indonesian legal, penitentiary system, or just the bits you pick and choose when there is a bit of publicity.

We should not have an open door policy for all and sundry who want to come to Australia, we should grow at a reasonable rate if that is the decision of the majority. Where we take people from is in the hands of the Dept Immigration, as it should be, with reasonable policies. We should not be bullied physically or emotionally into doing what the majority do not want to do.

This is after all, a somewhat democratic country, at the moment.

quote "The vast bulk of journalists honestly try to get it right. But the media does distort. And the distortion costs Australian society dearly in the way of poor policy making by politicians who keep a warier eye on the ballot box than on the overall long-term public good."

And your article is different how?

The argument rages because one extreme comes out against the other other. This is no different.

Do we go and pick asylum seekers up from various countries when they request to come here? That is absurd. Especially from a nation that is rebuilding and trying to stop the discontent fed by foriegn journalists not understanding the situation in Sri Lanka. Doubt any knew where is was on the map a month ago, both sides.

>>It's not that we don't want to extend the hand of humanity and friendship, it's just the way it is sought, seems to many to be, well, suspicious.<<

rpg,

The judgement in the eye of the beholder. When we treat people with suspicion, we are really reflecting on our own motives if we were in their position. Our suspicion/judgement/asessment of any particular asylum seeker could be fully right, partly right or fully wrong. That, at least in theory, is why we have a Department - so they can look into the issues in more detail and make the right call.

>>They evidently can afford to pay thousands of $ to people smugglers, but cannot, for some reason, arrive by plane in Australia. Why is that?<<

It's probably got more to do with who they know and the logistics of the situation than anything else. It depends on what path is open to them.

>>I'm not moved by complaints of the Indonesian detention centers, as the people who end up in them have probably entered Indonesia uninvited.<<

Asylum seekers, almost by definition, are uninvited. So that attribute alone isn't sufficient to determine the worthiness of their claims.

Crispin Hull is correct about the small numbers of boat people compared to the huge migrant intake and the serious problems that the sheer numbers of people are causing for our environment and quality of life. As rpg said, though, there is no comparison with visa overstayers. Airlines and shipping lines are held financially responsible if they bring people in with invalid travel documents. We know who the visa overstayers are and can return them to sender once they are caught. The same goes for rejected asylum seekers who arrive through regular channels. Countries know that they cannot get away with refusing to honour their own travel documents.

One reason why there is so much drama about the boat people is because there is already widespread opposition to the government's mass migration strategy. According to the latest Nielsen poll (see p. 2, Nov. 11 Sydney Morning Herald) 43% of the people surveyed think that immigration is too high, the same proportion think it is about right, and 9% too low. When asked about Rudd's goal of 35 million in 2049 (less than we will have then at our current rate), 40% say it is too high, 30% about right, and 2% too low. 26% have no opinion. There is nothing better calculated to shift people to the low immigration category than a perception that the government has lost control of our borders.

A second reason is that numbers of asylum seekers blew out in Europe from the 1980s. Germany alone got half a million asylum claims in 1992. The UN High Commission for Refugees has admitted that by the early 1990s, the vast majority of asylum seekers in developed countries were economic migrants.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

There is no reason to believe that the same thing couldn't happen here. Sending failed asylum seekers back can be difficult or impossible if it can't be established where they came from or if the home country won't cooperate. See

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

rpg: "They evidently can afford to pay thousands of $ to people smugglers, but cannot, for some reason, arrive by plane in Australia. Why is that?"

I do wonder how many people posting this question have actually done any overseas travel by plane. I hope the answer is none. As anybody who has travelled by plane overseas knows, it is dammed near impossible to get onto one without the correct documents - like visa's and passports. Most countries have customs controls in both directions - ie both out and in. You can't even get on a connecting flight without going through the dammed things.

As RobP points out, a refugee by definition isn't invited, and thus can't get the required documents. That is why we have special conventions covering refugees who just arrive. It is an acknowledgement they can't do it any other way.

In the case of Tamils there was 5% acceptance in some western nations and 85% acceptance in others. They are political pawns without doubt, there is no reason to accept claims of being a refugee unless you have some agenda against the Sri Lankan government. This is the case with Hillary Clinton and others who view the bigger picture of the unholy alliance between Iran. Pakistan, China, Russia and Sri Lanka from politcal viewpoint. There is country shopping as the huge discrepancy between acceptance rates attest and it is politically driven.

I am sure in my own mind that tensions in the Middle East would have been resolved decades ago had it not been fed by global politics and interference.

Now we have people wishing to re-ignite tensions between Indonesia (hell hole?) and Sri Lanka (genocidal?) for political purpose.

The whole problem is that the boat people are media stars. This makes them the ideal ground for political motive to be aired. Otherwise why worry about mainly males of "getting themselves into trouble age".

Some boat arrival may have or have had good reason. They are all different yet we get the same rhetoric from both sides cut and pasted from their bible.

I am sure the Tamils will enjoy quicker reconciliation with the Sinhalese if turned over the reponsibility of their protection to the Sri Lankan government. Any other outcome will only fuel further hostility. This is their only chance of peace. Not sure why people want to ruin it. If so there is another several million of them, best arrange mass evacuation rather than just allow tensions to simmer over the next 30 years. Take full or no responsibility, not just enough to fill your political ends.

In the first sentence the author notes distortion of the media, yet he is doing exactly the same thing.

By ommission he fails to say that the figure of 47000 overstayers is a figure at a given time and is not an accumulative figure. We get over 10 million arrivals each year.

Most of the overstayers are very short term as they are tourists who like the place and decide to see more or to enjoy our hospitality. They leave and are replaced by others who decide to stay a bit longer. While here they are still spending money and contributing to our tourist industry and the economy.

If it does become a problem then we can tighten up and impose visa checks and restrictions.

Of course there are a few that are long term and are illegal. They either work underground, or must purchase false identies, thus are criminals. Some get caught up with from time to time and i suspect the immigration dept. knows the most likely places to find them.

Unless we are prepared to employ far more immigration officers and nightly check the visas at all hotels, motels, resorts and boarding houses, etc. we cannot do much about it.

I do not see the overstayers as a major problem As we have records of their details and most leave within a short period.

Divergence: "Sending failed asylum seekers back can be difficult or impossible if it can't be established where they came from or if the home country won't cooperate."

The link you gave doesn't say that. What it does say is the UK government has no idea who was rejected, where they are or what to do about it. Having just returned form the UK, I can assure you this is high on the list of the UK citizens pet peeves. I think "gross incompetence" would best describe their complaint, although some call it "criminal negligence".

Banjo: "Most of the overstayers are very short term as they are tourists who like the place and decide to see more or to enjoy our hospitality"

Unlike other assertions you have made elsewhere Banjo, this one sounds right. And you are also right in that it undermines the entire premise of the article. Well done. But as always it would make it much easier to believe if you provided a citation to back it up.

TheMissus: "I am sure the Tamils will enjoy quicker reconciliation with the Sinhalese if turned over the reponsibility of their protection to the Sri Lankan government."

Yes. I am sure you are. Just as you are sure the boat people can "Just call for a pick up service". http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9658#155108

RobP - Yep, so what? The points I made are what most Australians think, which is why the politicians react the way they do - if they did not, they would react differently, correct?

RStuart – you missed where I said "They get to Indonesia ... by airtravel .."

They can get documents to travel to Indonesia by air, but cannot use them to come to Australia, why?

Many admit that’s how they got there. So some start out with legal documents, some don’t.

If they are dealing with the criminal elements to get on board boats, getting false documents is a trifle.

So why, if they can get false documents, do they still try to come by boat? Possibly because if they come in a group all claiming the same "story", they believe they can thus hide a negative background? Why not go to a refugee camp and go through the process?

Do they come by boat as there is a belief out there that if you touch down on Australian soil, you will get in. (which seems to be correct, how many do we actually reject once they get to our system?)

Or because they want to get here and get on with life and having money they expect to be able to pay to do it and rely on our charity to get them through? Seems plausible?

Trying to twist it such that Australians are the bad guys here, doesn't cut it - we're not going to cop that, some of you might, the majority do not accept that it is our fault or problem.

That’s the country you live in, has barely changed since PM Keeting's days, when the ALP introduced mandatory detention.

rstuart,
This is a place where ones opinion can be posted. I do not normally present how I formed my opinion unless it is queried by others.

My opinion on the overstayers was formed after reading about them on the DIAC website. If someone has a different point of view they are welcome to look up that website, I do not feel inclined at this point. They may even find some numbers of the long tem overstayers and the length of overstaying. My main point is that most are short term.

In relation to the illegal entrants, the reason they attract media and peoples attention is simply because they are frauds, liars and cheats who impose themselves on us and con us into giving them permanent residency. People do not like being taken for a ride by those falsely pretending to be what they are not, and using any sort of act to get to our shores.

They fly to Malayasia, for which they need a passport and visa, and there is no reason why they cannot get a visa to enter Aus legally and then apply for protection. We issue thousands of visas a year to many coming from the same countries. The simple fact is that the illegals do not because they know they will not qualify as refugees and we can send them back, as we would have their identies.

So they take the more expensive and perilous route by sea, to enter via the back door, destroying their identies en route, thus their home countries will not accept them without valid identity. Some even put their families to this risk. They are not people of good character.

If you want to see the type of antics they get up to when confronted by our security, look at the link below.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm#top

TheMissus,
you are absolutely right.
The problem in Sri Lanka needs to be understood . What really happened?All this talk of genocide is purely inflammatory.
There are 3 million Tamils in that island state. 2million are happy and doing well .They didnt support the breakaway Elam revolution. They arent discriminated against. It is even possible for them to occupy high positions of authority in government.One of them rose to be Foreign Minister no less and that fairly recently but he was assassinated. Guess by who? A Tamil acting under the orders of Vellupillai Prabhakaran, the LTTE supremo.
How would we react if suddenly any community living in the north claimed the NT and parts of northern Queensland to form a breakaway independent country? It wasnt all that long ago when we heard Ali Bashir of the JI actually make that claim.
Well, in Sri Lanka the northern Tamils began to tear that small island state to bits by assassinations and civil war that lasted over 20 years. and took tens of thousands of lives and depleted the economic reserves of that poor country that fought tooth and nail to preserve its territorial integrity. Genocide indeed!!
What is happening now is that the Sri Lankans are carefully processing those likely to have been involved . Thousands have already been released to go home. The LTTE cadres with their families have fled the country and those with the money are using LTTE transport to reach other countries asking for refuge. They started it all and lost and now their propoganda machine has begun to put their own spin on things. Many guerrila chiefs like the so-called "Alex" are very dangerous criminals. His real name is Sanjeev Kulaendrarajah. He was deported from Canada where he was arrested for running criminal extortionist gangs and street fighting. The Mounties are looking for his brother who is on the run. He too is to be deported. How many others like them are there? We need to process them all VERY CAREFULLY.

Sorry rstuart,

The link doesn't discuss why failed asylum seekers are not being removed, but it does show that only about 20% of claimes were recognised as genuine in the UK for that time period, even after appeal, and a failed asylum seeker only had about a 20% chance of being deported. The UK's National Audit Office is saying that it now might be as low as a 10% chance for a newly failed asylum seeker.

I should have linked to this briefing paper

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/110

"66% of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted the appeals process require emergency travel documentation", i.e., the home country has to be willing to cooperate. "[An additional] 12% are not removable at all for policy and practical reasons (Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Burundi)".

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/110

Sheer incompetence may indeed be a factor, but this Guardian column discusses just the sort of case I am talking about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/18/failed-asylum-seeker-iran-detention#start-of-comments

"But Rostami can't be removed, because he has no passport or ID card, and Iran will not take him without some proof of his identity and that he is in truth, Iranian." There is an impasse because Rostami is refusing to cooperate with the redocumentation process.

You might also think of the Cornelia Rau case here. Rau is an Australian permanent resident and thus entitled to live here, although no one in the Immigration Department knew that at the time she was detained. She is also a German citizen, but the German consular officials refused to take her because she had no papers.

Doesn't anyone remember that these Tamils tried to take a chunk of their last host country, for their own, by force of arms. Not a great recommendation for them as suitable citizens.

Now they refuse to get off the boat, & there the thing stays, at great cost. If we let them in it will show, better than anything else, that Ruddy is a bl@@dy idiot, who has about as much idea, as my my cattle dog. No that's not fair to the dog.

WE will have to start thinking about weather we should be running off to rescue any more people from boats in Indonesian waters.

Those overstaying their visa, don't come hand out. They earn their keep, & probably send a little back home, rather than bludge. They would probably make great citizens, if we really wanted any more.

Isn't it interesting that most of those calling for us to let all these people in regardless of cost to our less wealthy, are mostly like Crispin, busily getting their sustenance from the public teat, with the expenditure they want us to bear, unlikely to cause them any pain.

I wounder where this character and others get the idea that objection to illegal arrivals by boat has anything to do with fear. It's a matter of principle. Anyone who thinks it's OK for illegals to rock up without any papers when others who have been processed have to wait until they are invited to come, is not much of a person in my book.

Illegals with the money to pay smugglers are not very good people either - sneaky liars with no proof that they are genuine. They are coming here for the good life, not to escape anything dangerous. Particularly Tamils who were the bad guys and the losers in the Sri Lankan civil war.

rpg,

>>RobP - Yep, so what? The points I made are what most Australians think, which is why the politicians react the way they do - if they did not, they would react differently, correct?<<

Sounds about right. But, in the context of the debate, the issue IMO is not so much what the public wants as what is the fair thing to do. Anyhow, by your logic, does what Australians wanted 20-30 years ago not have any currency in Australia today? At all? Do we fully expect Australian policy to turn on a threepenny bit? The truth is, that couldn't be achieved no matter how hard you tried. Not now with the momentum that is already in the migration system. The only thing that can be done now is steer the process and ameliorate the unfair aspects in it when they manifest themselves.

Hasbeen,

>>Isn't it interesting that most of those calling for us to let all these people in regardless of cost to our less wealthy, are mostly like Crispin, busily getting their sustenance from the public teat, with the expenditure they want us to bear, unlikely to cause them any pain.<<

Maybe so, but they are still a sizeable part of the population with a legitimate point of view. And they vote too. It's called balance.

RobP, it's not called balance for me mate, it's called grandstanding.

It's so easy to be generous, when someone else has to pick up the bill. It seems that those all ready ensconced in their tax payer funded cocoon, have a belief that the funds are inexhaustible.

Hasbeen
Grandstanding to me is making hollow pronouncements like the others don't do it? come off the grass so people can see you. Of course he's grand standing show me a politician who doesn't? It's the only way to get the mug voter to take note. Sensation personality clashes sells to fools while police on both sides is either gone missing or vague.

All
Meanwhile we as a nation are getting behind the eight ball with the looming population or Climate wars.
We are spending copious amounts on military hardware to fight wars in far off places but ignoring the local i.e. 'border control'.

The US is working on it now so why aren't we especially given the lead times.

I don't agree with Fortress Australia preferring to deal with the issue at source once the refugees are on the move it's largely too late. Clearly those who do aren't thinking their strategy through.
The superficiality of many Australians' thinking never ceases to amuse. Many are fearful of 78 boat people because of what they represent but don't think any further. Instant fixes have consequences too

*Many are fearful of 78 boat people because of what they represent but don't think any further*

Not so Examinator. Many realise that Australia is being blackmailed
and we are mugs enough to go along with it. To some, principles
actually matter.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/asylum-boat-had-holes-drilled-in-hull-20091021-h911.html

I remind you what we know from the press so far: These 78 hire
people smugglers, some holes are round drilled in their boat,
they use their satelite phone to ring Australia for help, even
though off Indonesia. Now they are blackmailing us, refusing to
get off the boat, if not taken to Aus.

I can assure you one thing, if we do take them, we'll be the laughing
stock of Asia and will deserve the title of "Dumb Australians".

Examinator,

“The superficiality of many Australians' thinking never ceases to amuse. Many are fearful of 78 boat people because of what they represent but don't think any further.”

[ Fearful is perhaps not an accurate description –a better one might be -- not keen]
As in :Many Australians are--not keen-- on the 78 boat people coming here.

And, it seems to me that the Indonesian govt is not keen on them either !
In fact , I’d wager that if you took a poll Asia-wide, very few countries would be keen on having them come ashore.

But then of course there is something called the higher moral ground: the right thing, that only far sighted beings –like you.– can perceive.We are lucky indeed to have such (highly amused) seers in our midst to show us fearful superficialites the way.

PS: the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi always had a smile on his face.I imagine that's how you must look-- ceaselessly amused as you are --by our lesser concerns!

A visa overstayer isn't a residence seeker. When you catch a visa overstayer you fine them and throw them out. Not long ago the 'Cougar girl' was one such, she was from Canada. They locked her up and sent her packing. If these people who come on rickety boats didn't claim asylum then they'd be immediately tossed out just like anyone landing here on a plane with their papers out of order; they are not being treated differently in this respect. It's the asylum seeking bit that makes them unique as that carries an intention to make Australia their permanent home. So this isn't about who we allow to "overstay" here but rather who we allow to live here as permanent residents, and whether people that have by-passed our formal channels should be afforded that priviledge. False comparison.

Stupid article for someone who does not understand the issues

The issue is Australia accept the same number of refugee, not matter the number of asylum seeker who arrive by boats
- so the more people who arrive by boat, the less we let in through official means. This makes the boat people cue jumper, who pay smugglers thosands of dollar to jump to the front of the cue

Your point of migrant intake is completely useless, if I was looking to become a refugee, I would choose Australia too, with the higher pay, medicare, training scheme and dole.

Other issues are
- people die on these leaky boats
- the only winner in this are people smugglers
- there have been many cases of refugees being killed or raped by smugglers

I cannot believe there are still clueless people, who thinks we should encourage people to come to Australia by illegal means

Yabby,

>>These 78 hire people smugglers, some holes are round drilled in their boat, they use their satelite phone to ring Australia for help, even though off Indonesia. Now they are blackmailing us, refusing to get off the boat, if not taken to Aus.<<

And, if they do come anyway, your solution is what? Throw then in the sea? Offload them to a country with lots of problems? Process them for years on end at Christmas Island? At some point, your bluff will be called and your argument gets mugged by reality. There's no one easy solution to this despite your I'll-huff'n'puff-and-blow-you-back-to-where-you-came-from approach.

>>I can assure you one thing, if we do take them, we'll be the laughing stock of Asia and will deserve the title of "Dumb Australians".<<

Despite your hyperbole, we've only taken 1800 boat people in the past 2 years versus the tens of thousands of unannounced arrivals that European countries have. So, dumb's not the right word. Lucky is a better - lucky that we have a sea border and we're so far from most of the humanitarian hotspots. Which is why, back in the 70s and 80s, we took a better share of the refugees around the world so as to better pull our weight internationally.

RobP, if I do as I please on an Australian aircraft, or anywhere
in Australia for that matter, the cuffs are put on me and I'm
marched off. Blackmail is not accepted in Australia. For some
reason, you've thrown every principle out the window here. I remind
you that under the UN Convention, Australia has no responsibility
to take those 78 and awarding blackmailers first prize, of a cushy
lifestyle in Australia, speaks of spineless and unprincipled
Govt to me.

How many boat people we have accepted in the last two years, has
nothing to do with it. It is our very own Govt, fighting the
boats off with sticks, if you remember correctly.

How many asylum seekers Europe has taken, has nothing to do with it
either. Even the UNHCR concedes that most of them are in fact
economic migrants.

*So, dumb's not the right word.*

Dumb is the right word, if Australia gives in to being blackmailed,
as in this case. What do you suggest, if another boatload ring
Australia for help, whilst in Indonesian waters? Keep sending more
Australian boats and go along with the new ploy for gaining quick
entry?

Most of our asylum seekers come in fairly, ie from refugee camps
etc. If you think that 13'000 a year is too low, well let any
political party suggest it be increased, at the next elections,
so that people can decide.

To just give in to what is dangling in front of you, on today's
tv, to satisfy the bleating heart brigade, is hardly sound Govt policy

I think the only way to get these people off the ship is to pull the plug out and sink it, in Indonesian waters off course.
Then there will be no problem.
These people are no better than pirates.

The overwhelming opinion of the Australian public has long suggested that the Commonwealth Government should cease to be a signatory to UN refugee policies. Australian interests, and those of nearby neighbours, may be better served by a multi-lateral agreement within the local region. Most Australians seem to agree that all people entering Australia by any means, who then claim refugee status, should be promptly transported to a location that is not in Australia or its territories. There also seems to be general agreement that no type of visa should ever be issued to these persons because of a likely risk of abscondment.

Banjo: "the reason they attract media and peoples attention is simply because they are frauds, liars and cheats"

The boat arrivals attracted a lot of attention in the Howard years. But most of them were not as you describe - so that could not have been the reason.

rpg: "They get to Indonesia, we are told, mostly by airtravel"

I went looking to see if this was true of the current crop. Googling only turned up posts like yours. Can you give me a link?

That aside, Indonesia's and Australia's border security setups are very different. For a start landing in anything but a well secured airport over here is well neigh impossible, and we don't accept bribes.

Divergence: "You might also think of the Cornelia Rau case here."

Actually, it is an excellent example because it illustrates how lax the Brits were for a while. We eventually found Cornelia Rau's papers. The Brits have no idea how many came into the country - let alone who they were. We have a relatively well run border. We actually police it. The Brits didn't for a long while.

Divergence: "But Rostami can't be removed"

What to do in that case is the discussion you have after you have decided someone is here illegally. This is not that discussion. This is ultimately a discussion about whether we remain signatories to the UNHCR and allow some people in, or whether we instead just declare unexpected arrivals illegal.

socratease: "We need to process them all VERY CAREFULLY."

Indeed. But this is normal - some dislocated Germans were Nazi's. We knew to expect that when we signed UNHCR, and since we did sign it we can't refuse all Tamils just because there may (will?) be some LTTE war criminals hiding among them.

dovif2: "I cannot believe there are still clueless people, who thinks we should encourage people to come to Australia by illegal means"

Not clueless. Just aware we agreed to do just that when we signed the UNHCR. That includes Howard who chose to remain a signatory despite his grandstanding on the issue.

rstuart, I remind you that the 1951 Convention is voluntary,
for there is no international court that enforces it.

In the case of the 78, even under the Convention we have
no obligation to take these people.

As I have stated many times, the UN Convention is 60
years out of date and needs updating, to close the many
loopholes.

Even the UNHCR concedes that most people applying under
asylum laws in places like Europe, are in fact economic
migrants.

Banjo says: "the reason they attract … attention is simply because they are frauds, liars and cheats"

RStuart (hereafter abbreviated to RS) responds: “The boat arrivals attracted a lot of attention in the Howard years. But most of them were not as you describe”

How was Stuart able to arrive at the conclusion that Banjo’s description was wrong ?
Now , let me guess… they must have been bona fide refugees since our STRINGENT PROCESSES passed them ---don’t make me laugh!

Yabby: "rstuart, I remind you that the 1951 Convention is voluntary, for there is no international court that enforces it."

I am proud to be a citizen of a country that honours its promises, Yabby. Australia promised to implement the 1951 UN Refugee Convention on on 22 January 1954, which is when we ratified it.

We are not forced to continue with this promise. We can withdraw from it any time by just saying so publicly. So far we have not done that, and until we do I think we are obliged to implement the convention as written. Mind you, we could probably implement the convention anyway we choose, provided we again said we were going to do that publicly. I think that was the basis of Ken Parish's proposal.

Yabby: "Dumb is the right word, if Australia gives in to being blackmailed, as in this case."

We aren't being blackmailed by the refugees, Yabby. That implies the refugees on the boat are threatening us with something. They aren't. If anybody is taking advantage of us this time it is Indonesia. We did Indonesia a favour and rescued people in their territorial waters - and they effectively refuse to let the them land. What is with that?

Actually, I'll tell you what is with that - it is pay back. Under the Howard government, if we found boat people in international waters we would toe them to Indonesia's territorial waters and leave them only enough fuel to get to the Indonesian mainland. Or at least so Alexander Downer said on Radio National this morning.

*I am proud to be a citizen of a country that honours its promises, Yabby.*

That is very sweet of you Rstuart. But when the law becomes an ass,
its time to change the law. We update our tax code and other laws
regularly, the same should apply to the UN 51 Convention.

*We aren't being blackmailed by the refugees, Yabby. That implies the refugees on the boat are threatening us with something. They aren't.*

We certainly are, Rstuart. They refuse to get off our boat, even
though we saved their lives, ungrateful buggers. They are threatening
to stay there and keep it hostage, until we grant them a trip to
Aus. That is blackmail in anyones terms.

The Indonesians are not stopping the people from getting off the boat.

Cart them back to Sri Lanka I say. Blackmail is not acceptable

*Mind you, we could probably implement the convention anyway we choose, provided we again said we were going to do that publicly*

Exactly, and that is what we should be doing.

Yabby: "That is very sweet of you Rstuart."

So nice of you to say so.

Yabby: "The Indonesians are not stopping the people from getting off the boat."

I look at it like this, Yabby. If the Viking King were moored at Christmas Island the refugees would be frog marched off. They aren't being frog marched off now because Indonesia says we can't. Well OK, they say we can't unless the refugees agree. But given that the refugees have been complaining of being beaten and drinking faeces laden water in Indonesia and they know that in Australia they would get equivalent of 3 star hotel accommodation, methinks the Indonesians knew this was the equivalent of saying no.

The refugees must of thought all their Christmases had come at once. They went from being stuck in some sh!t hole in Indonesia, to thinking they had blown their life savings on a boat with dud steering, to be being virtually guaranteed asylum in Australia. All because the vaguarities of international politics. What a ride.

In a statement posted online after talks with his Australian counterpart, Chris Evans, the New Zealand Immigration Minister, Dr Jonathan Coleman said: "The New Zealand Government does not believe that an ad hoc approach to dealing with individual cases like the Oceanic Viking will send the right message." Recent polls indicate that the Australian public agrees.

*If the Viking King were moored at Christmas Island the refugees would be frog marched off*

You look at it wrongly rstuart. Firstly I thought the name of the
boat was the "Ocean Viking", so you are clearly not paying attention
to details here. Secondly, everyone knows that the press if filming
and the the Australian Govt is promoting their "humane approach". That
would hardly be the case, if they were frog marching people around,
in front of the cameras.

*But given that the refugees have been complaining of being beaten*

The refugees complained about their treatment on the Ocean Viking
too, by the Aussie crew.

*They went from being stuck in some sh!t hole in Indonesia,*

rstuart, hundreds of millions of Indonesians live in what you call
"sh!tholes in Indonesia". Should they all claim refuge in Australia
now?

I remind you that most Tamils, ie those without money behind them,
either stayed in Sri Lanka or went 35km across to India.

*to be being virtually guaranteed asylum in Australia. All because the vaguarities of international politics. What a ride.*

The evidence points to it indeed being a clever ploy! Satelite
phone handy when required, holes drilled in the boat, they don't
ring Indonesia close by, but the Australian Maritime Authrority etc.
Sounds to me like one of the smugglers who was paid by them,
understands his politics.

You of course, heart on your sleeve, focus on the 78. Me,
I think about the ramifications on other boats that are really
sinking, the fact that Australia was blackmailed, ie the bigger
picture. Next time some boats are in trouble, the Australians
might not go to their rescue in a hurry.

Your emotional engulfment is clear rstuart, but that is hardly
intelligent.

Yabby: "Firstly I thought the name of the boat was the "Ocean Viking""

Since we are being picky it is the "Oceanic Viking".

Yabby: "You of course, heart on your sleeve, focus on the 78."

It is you who are making all sorts of pronouncements on what should happen to them, based purely on sensationalised newspaper reports. You seem to be very keen to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner of these 78.

My position has always they should be handled without our existing rules and laws. Unlike you I am perfectly happy to trust our bureaucrats to do a thorough investigation and make a fair determinations according as they are now.

Why is this? Because it is the laws that matter. Australia is a nation that strongly believes in the rule of law, and will try to follow the law regardless of how many Yabby's are yapping noisily in the background. Whatever you may say, as far as I can tell the behaviour of these 78 isn't unreasonable under the UNHCR, as the UNHCR makes the assumption these people are running for their lives and thus are allowed to break a few eggs on the way. While we remain signatories to the UNHCR, we are fairly constrained in how we can handle them.

So give up focusing on these 78 Yabby. Instead read the UNHCR handbook, and look at the lay of the political land between us and Indonesia and then decide what we should do. Not about these 78 - they are a lost cause as we can't change the laws retrospectively, but about those that might follow them. Right now the 78 have done a much better job of this of you and thus have completely outflanked you. As a consequence, if you look at what we have offered them to get off the boat, it seems their wildest dreams have come true.

Hell,I want to know why the same rules dont apply to all peoples from all over the world regardless who they are and from where they come.

I know professional people, eg doctors accountants and physiotherapists from South Africa waited 3 years to be called up for their immigration suitability tests. Each was given an argumentative essay to write, a tough comprehension test, listening to a pre-recorded CD and asked to make answers and then a face to face oral interview of 1/2 hr duration and then they had another year to get clearance. How many of these Sri Lankans would pass these requirements I wonder. Dont you?
We shouldnt discriminate against those who fully qualify in such a rude and blatant manner.
After all, who would have more to offer our country?

socratease

Good point, Socratease

Tell your friends they shouldn’t have gone to all the bother of earning degrees and learning English,as that’s all old hat now –now, all they need do is board any OZ ship in the nearest harbor and refuse to leave till they get a promise of OZ citizenship.

I have heard that the refugee coaching schools in the South Asia have already added an additional subject, along with such core subjects as i) How to dispose of papers, and ii) How to manipulate the media, they now have a subject called iii) How to hijack a ship ( & hold a nation to ransom).

*Right now the 78 have done a much better job of this of you and thus have completely outflanked you.*

Err not me rstuart but you. As a skeptical observer, I simply
point out that lack of rationality. The fact is, these 78
have made the Govt look like complete idiots and you seemingly
gullible enough to go along with it all.

* based purely on sensationalised newspaper reports*

Indeed rsuart, I believe in a free press! On this story, the Govt
spin machine is free to deny the findings made by the press,
which they normally do rather quickly when claims are wrong. Not
in this case!

I am politically issues based not party based, but on this one I think
that Paul Kelly has it sewn up in today's Weekend Australian,
when he says that Rudd's gap between rhetoric and his deeds is
widening. On this issue he's trying to appease various interest
groups and frankly made a complete stuff up of it.

*Unlike you I am perfectly happy to trust our bureaucrats *

Hehe. The minister is their boss, so they have to try and dig
him out of this one, with all the normal Govt spin! Ask
bureaucrats, that is what they do, few ever rock the boat, their
careers could be affected.

Even the UNHCR concedes that most asylum seekers are in fact
economic refugees, under the present laws. So we get shafted twice.
Firstly our refugee intake is hardly humanitarian, if its not going
to the most deserving. Secondly we could find far better economic
migrants, our current account deficit urgently needs it.

What kind of idiot is rstuart? He doesnt seem to fully cope with the situation. You have shown him up very clearly Yabby

socratease

So, Yabs, why the animus?

Did ya get thrown out of ya cot when a toddler or something?

Brutalised in the army and want to give it back to someone?

Been out in the hot WA sun too long with them anti-anyone-from-WA types - you know, the ones who back in the 80s were anti the eastern states?

Or just run out of people to pick on?

rstuart and Robp,
My PC has been down for a couple of days so am just catching up.
Geez, you blokes take some convincing or should I say 'There are none so blind as thoses that will not see' with all the evidence right before you.

Whether it was in the Howard era or now in the Rudd era, the illegal entrants are frauds, liars and cheats that set out with the intent to deceive us and impose themselves upon us with the aim of gaining permanent residency in Aus. Yet you are now asking rpg to come up with a link to show the illegals first stage is to come by air.

It has been well known for years that the illegals firstly fly to Malayasia thence by boat to Indonesia. In the last 12 months some have even drowned on that trip.

They need a passport and visa to get to Malayasia, so could get a visa to Aus. They lie about their intentions to Malay officials as they do not disclose that they are to enter Indonesia illegally.

They organize their passage to Aus and set sail and then destroy their identities and more lies to our immigration officials when apprehended.

I see a need to post this link again that shows how they act when aprehended by our security, it is an eye opener.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm#top

Can either of you show me one instance where any illegal entrant has acted honestly and honerably, without bribing anyone or lieing?

Can either of you explain why they would destroy their identities, if not to prevent them being sent back home?

Can either of you logicly give a reason why they would come by sea when it is cheaper, quicker and much safer to come to our mainland by air and then apply for asylum?

The only logical answer to the latter is that they know they will not qualify as refugees and will be sent home.

They are not honest people. Their intent is to cheat the system and gate crash our community.

So much hatred.

So few facts.

Such little knowledge.

This thread's a veritable advertisment for Fox News.

Animus RobP?

Lol, because I make valid points of reason, because I am a skeptic,
because I have a sense of justice, it must be animus?

Don't ever trying earning a living in psychology :)

I certainly admit to having a hobby interest in neuroscience,
especially in separating emotion and reason and noting the inability
of the emotionaly overwhelmed to do so. There is no shortage
of them on OLO!

OTOH OLO has some great posters, whose opinions I respect and
whose way of thinking I respect. We always have more to learn,
each of us.

One thing that we see in this whole asylum seeker story, is the
ability of Canberra to pee money up against walls, for the
sake of Govt spin and rhetoric. Money which would be far better
spent on helping some of the most disadvantaged Australians.

Meantime the tax office lets another 500 million $ slip through
its fingers, as the Texans take off, after the Myer sellout.

Next thing they will be out bullying some small Australian over
a few pennies.

Are you sure that you don't work for the Govt, RobP?

Yabby,

I thought it was obvious I was being cheeky and having a lend of you. Yes, your argument has some merit, but the deeper point underpinning my view is you're nowhere near 100% right like your writing style would suggest. There are always elements of doubt, as well as a balance of right and wrong, in every situation of this type.

OK, someone may have drilled holes in the bottom of the boat or something equally silly, but it may have been out of desperation or just a little bit wrong because they were worried sick they were going to be left out in the wilderness otherwise. This is a plain human emotion at work – and if that’s all it is, it should not be a hanging offence.

Banjo,

You suffer from the same disease as Yabby - that of only thinking in your terms and not understanding that everyone is different and their motivations are not the same as yours. I bet people coming here in leaky boats would be very thankful to be here and would make good citizens. I'd suggest your venom could be better directed at other migrants that come here by more conventional means (ie by plane). Eg, I remember back in the 80s, the Kiwis that came here thought they owned the place and were hanging out at the local dole office demanding this and that payment. Now, if you ask me, bringing those types of people here is like importing a flock of mynah birds into your backyard. Yours is a classic case of reacting to yesterday’s problems and associating all asylum seekers with them. This is wrong as there are some genuine ones amongst them.

Space constraints don’t permit me to answer your questions, other than to say that I’ve already answered some of them on this and the http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171 thread.

RobP,
You are the one with screwed up standards or are simply gullible.

While I think our immigration rate is far too high, I have no argument with those that are legal immigrants or those that come here legally and then apply for, and are granted, refugee status. My argument is against those that lie and cheat to impose themselve upon us.

You are now saying that I should be against legal migrants and legally arrived refugees but welcome the unscrupulous people who act in a deceitfull manner. Just where are your standards of fair play.

I will remain against the illegals until such time you, or anyone else, can demonstrate that their actions are honourable.

Your link did not answer the questions I put to you and I will add another.

In view of the fact that we annually issue many thousands of visas to people from the same countries that the illegals come from. can you give reason why the illegals would not get visas to enter Aus legally?

Press reports say 75% of Sri Lankans have been deported as failed asylum seekers. So wonderful. They spend fortunes that could have kept them a nice life but have risked life and limb plus been detained...for nothing. Nothing, another knife in their back.

yet people support this? I don't understand. I guess they really wanted some slave labour to work the fields or something.

*This is a plain human emotion at work – and if that’s all it is, it should not be a hanging offence.*

Sheesh RobP, are you now suggesting that people should not be
held responsible and accountable for their actions?

I remind you that a good % of people are in jail, because plain
human emotions were at work!

People around the world get themselves into all kinds of trouble,
then are held accountable and have regrets. That's life.

Around the world there are people who apply to migrate to Australia,
potentially great migrants, who respect our rules and play by
them. They too, commonly have extremely sad stories to tell.

There are millions of refugees in camps, doing it really tough.
Our 78 clearly did not have those problems, for they had plenty
of cash to pay the smugglers, lived in Indonesia, some seemingly
having married Indonesian women. Their country is no more at war,
things are stabilising.

Banjo's link made for interesting reading, in just how violent
and rude, some of these people are. Yet you excuse it all,
never mind the real refugees in camps, never mind the migrants
playing by the rules, politely and respectfully.

Sorry, but I have a sense of fairplay and blackmailing Australia
is not part of that. There are frankly far more deserving cases
out there, then the 78 which the tv cameras are dangling in front
of you.

Give me airline asylum seekers any day. They are commonly out
of here within a few days, at their own expense, papers and all,
if shown to be frauds. Its high time that we closed down the
boat trade for good and only accepted people sailing here from
immediate neighbouring countries, not country shoppers who
want a cushy lifestyle at our expense.

The next federal election would be a timely, long overdue, opportunity for a referendum to clarify majority views about asylum seekers and immigration. Has public opinion about such sensitive matters ever been directly sought by an Australian Government? However, most political parties seem to crave indefinite maximum economic growth, although ultimately unsustainable, so population growth is necessary fuel for that furnace.

I have enjoyed these posts and learned an awful lot about the subject. Since the episode about the Oceanic Viking two more boat loads of refugees have arrived with about 200 more demanding to be taken in.Is there no end to these invasions?
Something has to be done soo to end it all.
How can we not show but prove that enough is bloody well definitely enough and only those whose status has been verified and accepted will be admitted.
The first shots have to be fired across the bows as a first warning. The Indon naval police have just recently as yesterday shown they have the balls to do it so why cant we? Are we too civilized and humane that we are locked in to our inertia grandstanding?

socratease

>>Sheesh RobP, are you now suggesting that people should not be held responsible and accountable for their actions?<<

Yabby,

Another quote of mine you've cherrypicked and where you've gone and made a mountain out of a molehill. I bet if the hole was drilled in the boat, it was done by a small handful of them. The rest would have been in a situation where they couldn't do anything about it. So, are they all guilty of pulling a swifty? No way.

It's like being at a bad school. When you actually go to that school you know that there are the really bad few, a few hangers-on and a lot of quiet types that try to keep their head down and stay out of trouble. It's the same in any group, including a group of asylum seekers. That doesn't mean the quiet or modest ones are bad just because they go to a bad school, does it? Your argument is tarring everyone with the same brush.

As for our system for vetting asylum seekers, it is designed with the convenience of Government and the best interests of business in mind as much as it is for really deciding whose asylum claim is kosher and whose isn't. So, this idea that we get genuine cases *only* when they are processed through our system is pure tosh.

>>There are frankly far more deserving cases out there, then the 78 which the tv cameras are dangling in front of you.<<

Probably true, but yet another glib Yabby-quote. A lot of the people you speak of will probably never get asylum in any country. And guess why? Because they're not pushy enough. Nasty Catch-22 that.

Banjo,

I'm sure there are some bad applicants out there. And hopefully they'll be screened out. But the cases you hear about are the worst ones. I'll bet that with 90% of asylum seekers that come here by boat, they'll be no trouble to anybody and the ratio of bad eggs in the asylum-seeker community is no different to what we already have in this country.

socratease: "I want to know why the same rules dont apply to all peoples from all over the world"

I'll assume you genuinely don't know the answer and have an enquiring mind. This may your later question "What kind of idiot is rstuart?". A naive one apparently.

There are two ways we take refugees. One is we go scavenging the best from the various refugee camps around the world. The other arises because we ratified the 1951 UN Refugee convention. It says in simple terms if refugees arrive on our shores we will provide them safe haven until whatever they were fleeing from disappears. Thus there are two sets of rules.

socratease: "Is there no end to these invasions?"

In the short term yes - this current episode will end when the situation in Sri Lanka settles down. In the long term no. While we remain a signatory to the Refugee Convention we have made an standing offer to all genuine refugees in the world. That offer is: if you can make your way here we will take you in. You probably don't like that off, which is something I can completely understand. What I can't understand, and in fact dislike intensely is those here that blame the refugees for taking advantage of our offer.

Banjo: "the illegal entrants are frauds, liars and cheats"
Banjo: "It has been well known for years that the illegals firstly fly to Malayasia thence by boat to Indonesia."

Given the first statement is at the best a wild distortion of the truth I don't think asking proof of the second is unreasonable. To put another way, your hyperbole undermines your credibility.

TheMissus: "yet people support this?"

The 1951 Refugee Convention was put in place so people fleeing for their lives would not be turned away at gun point. It fits my "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" test. Obviously miscreants try to game the system, but we filter them out. That they may drown or die while trying to game our system isn't something that worries me overly.

The evident national sensitivity about unscheduled arrivals of asylum seekers suggests the necessity of a referendum question at the next Federal Election: ¨Should Australia continue to be a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol?¨

Banjo: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm#top

You can't simply accept that if people are genuinely fleeing for their lives, they are going to pull every trick in the book?

We aren't above blame ourselves. We out put this 1951 Refugee Convention welcome mat, saying if you come to our shores we will protect you. Then when people try to take advantage of the offer we send out war ships to stop them.

What happens next is fairly predictable. The refugees fishing boats and our war ships play a high-stakes game. This game has fairly well understood rules that boil down to "no-one attacks anyone, or allows others to get hurt through inaction". These rules pretty much eliminate any advantage our war ships would normally have. So much so that you'd think we would always loose, but apparently towing back to Indonesian waters and removing most of their fuel was a bit of a winner. However, I can just imagine what Indonesia thinks of this tactic.

Yabby: "As a skeptical observer, I simply point out that lack of rationality."

My apologies Yabby. I went back through your posts and that indeed appears to be the case. The only exception I could see is your calling people who refuse to disembark hijackers.

You repeatedly call for an overhaul of the 1951 Refugee Convention. What did you have in mind? It seems to me the major problem you have with it is it allows refugees to go shopping for the nicest safe haven. That is only partially true: they can only do that until they are granted asylum. Until that happens they are allowed to go knocking on doors to find someone that will grant them asylum. Given the intent of the convention that provision seems necessary to me. It also seems reasonable that if they are in a state that doesn't honour the convention (such as Indonesia), they are allowed to move onto one that does.

RobP,
You take the cake for being niave and gillible.

The illegals have lied and broken laws all the way from their home country and our laws in entering Aus illegally, and you say there is just a few 'bad eggs' amongst them.

They ALL are dishonest and deceitfull.

You still have not answered the questions I put to you!

rstuart
Banjo: "the illegal entrants are frauds, liars and cheats"
Banjo: "It has been well known for years that the illegals firstly fly to Malayasia thence by boat to Indonesia."

As pointed out to RobP above. The illegals have broken laws and lied from the moment of leaving their home country. They have made false declarations to obtain visa to enter Malaysia, they enter Indonesia illegally, and they have criminal intent to enter Aus illegally. they then hide their identities to avoid being sent home. As I have said before, if they were fair dinkum refugees, they would come to Aus by air and seek asylum when here.

You still have not answered my questions set out in earlier posts. I believe you cannot.

if you want proof that the illegals fly firstly to Malaysia and then come by boat to Indonesia. Todays news, our PM has got an undertaking from Malaysia to make people smuggling a criminal offence in Malaysia. Why, to thwart the people smuggling traffic to Indonesia. And, Indonesian coast guard shot two illegals while trying to escape apprehension and detained a boat load of illegals bound for Aus. This took place between Malaysia and Indonesia.

>>You take the cake for being niave and gillible.<<

Banjo,

You take the cake for getting a little idea in your head and pretending it's true for ever and a day. To paraphrase an old adage, you've made your bed and you're determined to lie in it.

Like a lot of people that have a fairly narrow life experience, you've pounced on an example of bad behaviour and extrapolated onto all when that's not warranted. To label someone in a derogatory manner when they have done nothing wrong is actually an example of injustice. (Take note, Yabs).

*As for our system for vetting asylum seekers, it is designed with the convenience of Government and the best interests of business in mind*

Sheesh RobP, there was silly me thinking it was a humanitarian
programme, to help the truly destitute. Now we all know how
downtrodden women are in places like Afghanistan. We know of
150'000 Burmese in camps in Thailand, mainly women and children.
Yet there we are, taking in many fit and healthy young Afghan and
Sri Lankan males in their 20s, not those really in need. So your
point could be correct and Australia should be ashamed of itself for
not having a claimed humanitarian programme that is humane!

*A lot of the people you speak of will probably never get asylum in any country. And guess why? Because they're not pushy enough. Nasty Catch-22 that.*

Yet you support a policy which willingly supports the pushy,
to the detriment of the destitute. Hardly humane eh?

*You repeatedly call for an overhaul of the 1951 Refugee Convention. What did you have in mind? *

I certainly do rstuart. It needs an agreement which lets Govts
close loopholes, as they arise, to avoid abuse of the system, as
occurs now. In Australia's case, take all refugees from refugee
camps, apart from nationals of adjoining countries.

I remind you that Pakistan has large refugee numbers from Afghanistan,
India has large numbers of Tamils. Thailand has large numbers of
Burmese, all in need of aid and genuine refugees, or they would not
be in a camp.

For reasons of diplomacy, Australian politicians won't withdraw from
the Convention, yet fight off boats with sticks. So they are guilty
of creating the problems we now have. It needs fixing once and for
all.

rstuart,
Yes, righly or wrongly we put the welcome mat out by signing the refugee convention and 1933 people, that arrived LEGALLY, took advantage of that and were granted asylum in 2007-8, and good luck to them. I have no argument about that.

Have you any rational reason as to why the illegals would choose to take the hazardous route by sea, when it is cheaper, quicker and safer to arrive legally by air.

Logic tells me that the illegals know they would not qualify as refugees or they have something to hide, like a criminal record.

RobP,
You state "To label someone in a derogatory manner when they have done nothing wrong is actually an example of injustice. (Take note, Yabs)"
Yeah, right, butter would not melt in their mouths!

They lie on visa application to enter Malaysia.
They engage people smugglers to take them to Indonesia
They enter Indonesia illegally
They engage people smugglers to convey them to Aus
They enter Aus illegally
They sabotage the boats so we will pick them up
They destroy their identities and lie about that to our officials.

Yes these desperate, broke, starving poor buggers have even been known to threaten our security, threaten themselves and their kids, just to get their own way. According to you they have done nothing wrong, the poor little lambkins, they are pure as the driven snow.

Come on Rob don't be so naive and gullible for the rest of your life.

There are thousands of refugees in camps that could do with your sympathy and support. These illegal frauds are taking the places of proper refugees

Good on ya,Banjo.Sock it to him.
Starving illegal newly arrived illegals.Indeed
RS take another look at the faces of the men women AND children and tell me where you see a single immaciated face.
Turn the buggers around and send them off back and in their place double their numbers and ask the Sri Lankan govt.to let us air lift the REALLY starving and destitute people. We'll take of them, educate the children and give those who want, work to feed their families.

socratease

Banjo,

Nice. Find all the negatives you can and lump it on all of them. And, that was in response to a call to justice! Nothing exceeds like excess in your case. I suggest you get out of whatever hole you live in and meet some of these asylum seekers. It might open your eyes to what they're really like. It might surprise you or even make you realise your own weaknesses and prejudices.

Yabby,

I know you understand the nuance I've tried to bring into this debate mostly by what you've decided to answer and what you haven't. Unfortunately, you've wimped out and taken the side of the "winners". Nothing like keeping your bottom dry, eh Yabs? At least for the time being anyway.

Banjo: "The illegals have lied and broken laws all the way from their home country and our laws in entering Aus illegally"

Persecuted people usually have some charge levelled against them in the country they are fleeing, so that isn't significant.

As for the rest - the Australian government calls the boat arrivals unlawful, not illegal (eg see http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/MIG/detention/subs/sub129d.pdf ) Since they wrote the laws I'll take their word over yours. I presume the same applies in all other countries. The difference between unlawful and illegal is "not expressly allowed by law" and "expressly forbidden by law". In other words, as far as our government is concerned they aren't doing anything illegal.

Banjo: "Can either of you show me one instance where any illegal entrant has acted honestly and honerably, without bribing anyone or lieing?"

The question does not deserve to be dignified with an answer. Everyone has lied at some stage in their lives, and bribery is a part of normal life in the countries they come from. On top of that your argument doesn't meet the same standard: you can't prove they all did lie and bribe.

Banjo: "You still have not answered my questions set out in earlier posts."
Banjo: "Can either of you explain why they would destroy their identities"

You have asked this question before, and I have answered: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#75727

Banjo: "can you give reason why the illegals would not get visas to enter Aus legally?"

Because we say they don't have to.

Banjo: "give a reason why they would come by sea when it is cheaper ..."

The airlines are libel for return air fares if they are rejected, and so won't take them.

Banjo: "I will remain against the illegals until such time you ... demonstrate that their actions are honourable."

Your definitions of honour, lie, cheat and deceive are wildly different from the norm. If they are allowed to stay, according to our laws they have not lied, cheated or deceived about their reasons for coming here. If they aren't allowed to stay who cares?

RobP,
You made the claim that the illegals have 'done nothing wrong'. I have respondedby giving you what i consider they have done wrong and why my conclusion is that the illegals are of poor character.

If you think otherwise, then state your case. Demonstrate that these people are of good character and deserve respect. Show me their 'good side'. That their actions are correct and their intentions honourable. It is no argument to say I am only looking at negatives, you provide the positives!

rstuart,
Yes,as shown to RobP, the illegals break laws all the way to here.

You are really grasping at straws in trying to show a difference between the words 'unlawful' and 'illegal'. My dictionary uses one word to describe the other, so there is no difference. You perfer unlawful because you think it sounds softer.

I have provided evidence where illegals have not acted honestly.

You have not given any logical or valid reason as to why the illegals destroy their identies.

Aus law requires every non citizen to hold a valid visa when entering Aus. We can, and do, detain those that do not have a valid visa. the refugee convention makes a point that asylum seekers must obey other countries laws.

The airlines are only liable to return a person if the person does not have a valid visa. If a peron enters with a valid visa, applies for asylum, and is rejected, that person is responsible fo rhis own cost of return journey.

You both should simply admit that the illegals you support are unscrupupous opportunists who take advantage of our generousity, to the detriment of genuine refugees.

Banjo: "You are really grasping at straws ... My dictionary uses one word to describe the other"

I have other definitions. But with regards as to how the government saw it it appears you are right - my apologies. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm So we sign a convention that allows them to come, then we pass laws that say they can't come, then if they are true refugees ignore the laws. Just wonderful.

Banjo: "Yes,as shown to RobP, the illegals break laws all the way to here."

You did not show Banjo, you asserted. The difference being you have not provided any links to back up your assertions. Your earlier defence to this was "this is Online Opinion" and thus you are just expressing your opinion. Quite so. But equally, I think your opinion is a load of hog wash, and you have made no attempt to show otherwise.

Banjo: "I have provided evidence where illegals have not acted honestly."

You imply _all_ asylum seekers have acted dishonestly, and your basis for this is some have? But again you didn't show even that. As far as I can see you have provided just one link: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm#top It described some pretty outrageous behaviour on both sides, but not the sort of dishonesty you alleged. You just assert, over and over again as if repetition will make it true.

Banjo: "The airlines are only liable to return a person if the person does not have a valid visa."

True. And it was you who have been repeatedly pointing out they don't have one, are unlikely to get one, but if genuine will be allowed in anyway. QED.

Banjo: "You both should simply admit that the illegals you support are unscrupupous opportunists"

Heh. And you should wait for the department of immigration to do their investigation and make a determination rather than making wild accusations at people you don't know from a bar of soap based on flimsy newspaper reports. But what is the odds of either of us taking the others advice, eh Banjo?

>>If you think otherwise, then state your case. Demonstrate that these people are of good character and deserve respect. Show me their 'good side'. That their actions are correct and their intentions honourable. It is no argument to say I am only looking at negatives, you provide the positives!<<

Banjo,

It's hard to point to positives when you are talking about people whose history and culture you know very little about. But how about we look at the history of migration in this country? How about the good work ethic that was introduced to Oz during the time of the Snowy Mountains Scheme? How about the hard-working Greeks and the small-business entrepreneurial culture that brought with them? What about the hard-working Vietnamese and their restaurants, etc. Remember what we had before then - meat and three veg, meat pies, beer, snags and shrimps on barbies (and caricatures throwing shrimps on barbies), milk bars, fish and chip shops and pubs. Then there were our cultural icons: Zig and Zag, Hoges, Bert Newton, Rolf Harris, The Leyland Brothers, Dame Edna. That was about it. Ugh. There's much more variety today which is a good thing. And that's been brought about because of migrants - the "marauding" Vikings of the age - thank goodness.

What's to say the current crop of asylum seekers won't also similarly add to Australia once they find their feet? There's absolutely no evidence they won't.

*There's much more variety today which is a good thing. And that's been brought about because of migrants*

RobP, this is where you lose the plot. I have seen nobody suggest
that we take no refugees. I have seen nobody suggest that your
variety is a bad thing.

I am sure that you have met an asylum seeker who is "a very nice
person".

You are bogged down with the little picture, rather then looking
at the bigger picture.

So lets look at the big picture. Would you agree that a "humanitarian
progamme" should focus on being humane, helping those least able
to help themselves? Would you agree that Federal Funds should be
spent as cost effectively and wisely as possible? Would you agree
that a programme should be structured, so that rorting is kept to
a minimum?

I put it to you that the present boat trade fullfills none of those
criteria and that there are far better ways of doing things that
do.

That does not mean that that your "variety" will be lost. That
does not mean that the same or more people cannot be helped.

What it does mean is more effective Govt expenditure, a better
outcome in terms of helping those with the most need, far less
rorting of the system that we now have.

I put it to you for those reasons we need to change our present,
out of date programme, which leads to much misery and sorrow, as
we all can see. Nothing is going to change, until we change
the present system

The new refugees certainly will make big contributions to Austyralia.They already are..The Tamils and other Indians from Hyderabad and Bangalore just to name two areas in India, the Chinese and Afghan Hazaras etc all will.The important point that I wish to make is that they got here once we had screened them. They followed the established rules of immigration, like those European migrants after WW11 who made this country richer and stronger.I have no trouble with that at all.
What we are talking about are those who are the cheats, blackmailers criminals like Sanjeeva Kulaendrajah alias "Alex" and his ilk, queue jumpers, who have been booted out of Canada and other countries but who use their guile and wealth from people smuggling to eneter Australia.
They should be keept away from our country.

socratease

Yabby,

>>RobP, this is where you lose the plot.<<

Not so. The point I was getting at is that migrants who were once treated with suspicion when they first landed on our shores – whether they were Europeans after WWII or the Vietnamese boat people – have managed to fit in well. Just because someone “jumps the queue” or does something unorthodox to get here, does not mean they won’t similarly make a good contribution to the country. You could say it’s a case of “Who dares wins”. In other contexts, like in business, that’s seen as a very desirable quality. Why not with migrants?

>> Would you agree that a "humanitarian progamme" should focus on being humane, helping those least able to help themselves? Would you agree that Federal Funds should be spent as cost effectively and wisely as possible? Would you agree that a programme should be structured, so that rorting is kept to a minimum?<<

These are all desirable outcomes. But they can only occur in a perfect world. As has been said, the boats are still going to come because people are fleeing some form of repression and can’t make it into government-authorised or conventional migration streams. I would agree with your statement provided the time is right. The question is, if you tighten up the migration system now, what effect will that have on genuine asylum seekers?

>> I put it to you for those reasons we need to change our present, out of date programme, which leads to much misery and sorrow, as we all can see.<<

You could just as much blame the former Government for this sorrow (for taking a hardline approach in the first place) as you can the current Government (for increasing the pull factors given that the hardline defensive wall is there). The whole system is complicated, in a state of flux and responding to the gamut of conflicting political stimulus in the debate. You aren’t going to quickly solve this problem via a bit of idealism on the fringes of the debate, however desirable the ideal is.

"Just because someone “jumps the queue” or does something unorthodox to get here, does not mean they won’t similarly make a good contribution to the country. You could say it’s a case of “Who dares wins”. In other contexts, like in business, that’s seen as a very desirable quality. Why not with migrants?"

It is not a good quality for business, it maybe good for bad business but not for effective management and long term outcomes. They are only getting into international or Australian waters then being rescued, by calling ahead for pick up. This is gross inefficiency and not a good quality for business. It maybe be good for corrupt organisations or mafia type goings on, thats about it.

Want open borders then you have to have personal responsibility. No pick up service. Do away with minimum wages (has happened anyway), consider cutting back medicare and pensions only for people who have contributed for at least 10 years, like the US social security scheme. High migration countries cannot maintain social benefits unless there is criteria in who can apply for migration. Even now we have a shortfall for the baby boomers retiring so immigration exists only so younger people can come with money, work for money and support older Australians. So if we replaced with open border then ability to service these pensions would not be available without huge tax hikes. Or even better expectation for children to look after their families as should be the case really. I never understand why someone is paid a pension when their kids are 50 year old multi-millionaires.

Plus they come here for permanent residency and we never signed any UN convention to provide that. So perhaps best to do Howards way with Temporary protection Visa. Especially Sri Lanka, a war of propoganda if ever I saw one.

Anyway when you introduce social benefits you curb free movment across borders. Times have changed. Want it your way then it would need to be pay your own way. Which will happen anyway, no need to rush though.

*You could say it’s a case of “Who dares wins”. In other contexts, like in business, that’s seen as a very desirable quality. Why not with migrants?*

For very good reasons RobP. The refugee programme is about being
humanitarian, that is its purpose. We do have a separate business
migration programme, where business criteria apply. You are
confusing the two.

*But they can only occur in a perfect world.*

The world will never be perfect, but silly me did think we were
at least working towards a better world, improving on the present.

*The question is, if you tighten up the migration system now, what effect will that have on genuine asylum seekers?*

Overall, you'll land up with more genuine refugees, at far less
expense to them, as well as to the Govt of Australia. No more
flawed and confusing signals, as we have now, so less confused
people. No more people smugglers either.

*You could just as much blame the former Government for this sorrow*

I do indeed blame both Govts, for rather then find a realistic
and bipartisan solution, its been a political football for years.
The present Govt kicked that political football as hard as they
could for years, now its come to bite them in the arse.

So its time for a bipartisan and practical solution, to end the
dilemma once and for all.

Let's consider a new approach to the issue of providing Australian refuge to those who are the most vulnerable? Now there are a great many orphaned babies in desperate need a loving home who would thrive if fostered in Australia. Let these little innocents be the only immigration intake and, with the government and community backing them, they will be the productive and loyal citizens needed for a sustainable future.

Yabby: "For reasons of diplomacy, Australian politicians won't withdraw from the Convention, yet fight off boats with sticks. So they are guilty of creating the problems we now have."

Agree 100%, but it is not just diplomacy. I strongly doubt Australian voters would stomach unconditionally sending people home if some were cut up and thrown in a well on a regular basis.

To me all this daemonising of refugees - claiming they are all cheats, liars only worth of being left in the ocean to drown is not just obnoxious. Since it ain't going to happen (for the reasons you gave) it is also utterly ineffectual. This is what I meant when I said in another thread all the people saying that are pussy footing around. (Take note Banjo: you're being a pussy.)

The reality is there will always be people arriving who we won't turn away, regardless of how they get here, or what rules they broke to do it. Howard's words "we will decide who comes into this country and the circumstances under which they arrive" set up some unrealistic expectations. Howard himself could live up to them, as his government ultimately gave residency to all genuine boat refugees. Rudd doesn't have the guts to say "this is all lie" and so is perpetuating it. It is costing him dearly.

Yabby: "It needs an agreement which lets Govts close loopholes, as they arise, to avoid abuse of the system, as occurs now"

Closing loopholes - we more can we do? We and just about every other signatory to the convention ignore article 26 ("refugees may roam around") and set up refugee camps. We take up to 2 years to check out their stories, and send the frauds back home.

If you want to dissuade them, how about this: all Aussie asylum applications take a minimum of 2 years to process. If you need safe haven while we do that we provide off-shore refugee camps. Beware we only accept bonda fide refugees in our camps, we will check out your story and will send you home if conditions change.

rstuart
"To me all this daemonising of refugees - claiming they are all cheats, liars only worth of being left in the ocean to drown is not just obnoxious"

True of both sides, Each country has a different set of pushes. I am far more sympathetic to the plight of Afghans than to Sri Lankans. Maybe because I believe 100% that the Sri Lankan crisis is more one of propoganda readily accepted by the west that make "allegations " nothing more, due to geopolitical reasons. So I find it obnoxious that some claims are made against Indonesia being a hell hole and Sri Lanka being gencoidal. I see no difference in generalisations. Nobody has moral highground.

TheMissus: "I am far more sympathetic to the plight of Afghans than to Sri Lankans."

Your (and my, or anybody else's) sympathies don't come into it. The UNHCR has a definition of a refugee. We have bureaucrats who do their damnedest to check the people coming in match the definition, and if they aren't send them home. This is a good thing. If you were a refugee and say Saudi Arabia was a signatory, I'd hate for you to be rejected just because the Saudi's have no sympathy for women who don't wear a hijab.

I have my quibbles with the UNHCR definition, but it seems to be one most countries in the world can accept and that trumps my quibbles as far as I am concerned.

TheMissus: "So I find it obnoxious that some claims are made against Indonesia being a hell hole"

Assuming the reports of refugees being beaten because they were trying to leave camps whose water supply had human faeces in it are true, I'd say there was calling them a hell hole wasn't stretching things much. Certainly it is true that refugees were shot when trying to leave. The truth can be obnoxious I guess. But if that truth helps explain why people might be desperate to leave, I think it needs telling.

TheMissus: "and Sri Lanka being gencoidal."

I thought you were exaggerating, but I see Bronwyn did use the word genocide. I agree it was the wrong word. I also agree the LTTE were just plain atrocious.

However you do seem to reluctant the Sri Lanka government were at least a wee bit naughty at times. For example, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

- UN spokesman in Colombo, Gordon Weiss, said more than 100 children died during the "large-scale killing of civilians" and described the situation in northern Sri Lanka as a "bloodbath"

- US President Barack Obama urged Sri Lanka to stop "indiscriminate shelling" of civilians

Going back further we have this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_attributed_to_the_Sri_Lankan_military

If I were a Tamil living amongst LTTE at the end, I would be running for my life too.

In response to RS :

---“Agree 100%, but it is not just diplomacy”
Agree too, with the politicians it’s probably about 50% diplomacy; it’s wise not to offend those who you have aspirations of seeking employment with after domestic politics.But the other 150% is just plain idiocy . They are too spineless to make a stand so they bribe Indonesia or Malaysia to do it for them.

---“To me all this daemonising of refugees - claiming they are all cheats, liars”
Now, surely they have largely demonised themselves.
Hijacking vessels – of which we have solid evidence of at least two: The Oceanic Viking & The Tampa ( though there are statements by some of the illegals that indicate that at least some of the boats from Sri Lanka were also stolen) is hardly something that would enhance ones reputation.Use of bribery to secure passage or further ones interests, is again usually seen as not conducive to a positive reputation.

And as for:
- --“you should wait for the department of immigration to do their investigation and make a determination”
You may as well be waiting for godot!
We should all know by now that any determination that any OZ govt body will make, on such an issue, will be suitably neutered and filtered so as not to find anything conclusive lest it offend or vilify the illegals and their advocates’.

---“I strongly doubt Australian voters would stomach unconditionally sending people home if some were cut up and thrown in a well on a regular basis.”
Well, you’re certainly doing your utmost to peddle the urban myth—talking it up at every opportunity.

Though I suspect, if we were to visit that legendary well, all we’d find would be a big fat frog ( species unknown, but probably a cane toad) looking up the narrow aperture and croaking out his repetitive & boring manta –and, he’d be wearing green tights with the initial RS brazened across the chest ala superman.

>>For very good reasons RobP. The refugee programme is about being humanitarian, that is its purpose. We do have a separate business migration programme, where business criteria apply. You are confusing the two.<<

Not at all, Yabby. The point I'm making is that refugees show initiative. In that sense they are like business is. They don't want to get into business per se - at least not yet - but to make a better life for themselves. This quality is extolled as a virtue in business, but thought badly of when people use it to try to extricate themselves from a bad spot. They are then portrayed as jumping the queue.

Anyway, this thread is coming to a close for me. We seem to be doing a lot of thrashing around but not really getting anywhere. I guess the cards will fall wherever they may on this issue.

*Agree 100%, but it is not just diplomacy.*

So call it politics rstuart. Imagine if the Liberals had done it.
I would have heard the howling from the oppositioin, all the
way to WA! That is exactly why its time for a bipartisan
solution, to a problem that simply won't go away for any party
in Govt, as Kevie is learning the hard way.

*I strongly doubt Australian voters would stomach unconditionally sending people home if some were cut up and thrown in a well on a regular basis.*

Well yup, they pulled your emotional strings on that one, as
politicians do. I put it to you that far more backpackers have
been murdered in Australia, then returned asylum seekers thrown
down any wells. So should all those backpackers avoid Australia
now? The debate needs to be realistic, which the well incident was
not. Most Afghans simply go to Pakistan, if they really need
asylum. Mostly fit young males with money, seem to come here.

*The reality is there will always be people arriving who we won't turn away*

So why don't they turn up in Singapore or Japan for instance?

*If you need safe haven while we do that we provide off-shore refugee camps*

Yup sure. Not only Australia, but all countries could do more to
improve conditions and establish refugee camps in various parts
of the world. Some third world countries would actually welcome
that as an economic stimulant and it could be done far cheaper then
we can do it in Aus, with free i-pods and all the rest of the
luxuries that we have provided for asylum seekers.

No frigging wonder they stream here!

rstuart,
You really are unimformed about this issue. You said "So we sign a convention that allows them to come, then we pass laws that say they can't come, then if they are true refugees ignore the laws. Just wonderful".

Once again I say the refugee convention makws a point of 'asylum seekers' having to obey a countries laws. Australian law is that it is illegal, for a non-citizen, to enter Australia without a valid visa. That is the sole reason we can hold the illegals in detention.
Everyone but you knows this

Lets list a few more 'facts' that you apparently are unaware of.

a. The illegals enter Malaysia by air
b. They lie on visa application to do so
c. They engage people smugglers to get to Indonesia
d. They enter Indonesia illegally
e. They engage people smugglers to get them to Aus waters.
f. They enter Australia illegally

These FACTS which have been known for years. Even the most ardent 'refugee advocate' does not dispute these facts. That you call these facts 'assertions' and want evidence shows just how ignorant of the subject you are. I am not going to waste time on the obvious that is akin to 'water runs downhill', if you dispute them you can research.

Oh, I do assert a couple of things, based on logic.
1. The illegals do not come the cheaper, quicker and safer legal way because they know they are not refugees.
2. They destroy their identities to prevent being sent back home.

You claim some outragous behaviour by our border security personel, show me where that happened, or is that your lie.

You also claim I stated the illegals were unlikely to get a visa. Another lie, I said there is no reason why they could not get a visa, given that we issue thousands annually to their fellow countrymen.

You also said "To me all this daemonising of refugees - claiming they are all cheats, liars only worth of being left in the ocean to drown is not just obnoxious". Nobody has ever said that, You lie!

Some of the commentators to this topic think they can debate when they can't even argue. Repetitive one-upmanship is tedious. It's not all about who has the last word, or the biggest post.

native,
Yes, I agree and I am one who finds it necessary to repeat things because the 'refugee advocates' try to twist known facts to make out that the illegals are victims, when in fact they are shysters who use every shonky means to acheive what they want. It never seems to occur to many that the illegals create the demand for people smugglers. I feel sorry for the poor fishermen that are lured by big money offered to convey the illegals to Aus and end up being in jail and losing their boat.

In this thread, rstuart trys to twist the fact that it is illegal to enter Aus without a valid visa. Earlier he asked rpg to verify that the illegals flew into Malaysia, which has been known and accepted as fact for, at least, 10 years. Not to mention the illegals destroying their docs and sabotaging boats.

There is this continuing effort to portray the illegals as victims and those of us ,who can see through that, find it sometimes necessary to repeat facts until the advocates abandon that part of argument.

It is all a pity as far more deserving refugees are sitting in camps waiting to be placed, while the gate crashers get preference. Not fair!

Banjo: << I am one who finds it necessary to repeat things >>

We've noticed, Banjo. Unfortunately for you and the other haters, however, the repetititon of a lie doesn't make it any truer.

<< ...find it sometimes necessary to repeat [hateful lies, suppositions and distortions] until the advocates abandon that part of argument >>

No, Banjo. It's more that we humane and compassionate types have better things to do with our time and energy than waste them on providing a soapbox for haters like you.

Oh, and 'mea culpa' to you all, too! Now seriously, the so-called evil "people smuggler" label does appear to be a device for some politicians and self-styled "humane and compassionate types" (as described in the comment above), to create a credible scapegoat for unthinking folk to demonise. It's the old, selectively 'blame the victim' ploy. It is obvious that all parties involved are victims of their situation, be it one of poverty, hunger or violence. We know fear will drive people to extremes. The Australian people are also victims of the asylum seekers' fearful situations. Perhaps the problem will no longer be a global issue when the UN, or more suitable bodies, assume responsibility for stabilising the situations around the world causing the fear that makes refugees flee their homes.

Yabby: "I put it to you that far more backpackers have been murdered in Australia, then returned asylum seekers thrown down any wells."

And I put it to you the only reason the number is low is because we do our level best ensure all genuine refugees stay. I sincerely hope that if we sent all of the accepted ones back the vast majority would be badly persecuted when they got there, with perhaps a few of them haunting us with their dead eyes staring from the bottom of wells. If not the bureaucrats doing the evaluating have done a really poor job.

Yabby: "they pulled your emotional strings on that one"

Hardly, but I do enjoy rubbing your nose in such a graphic illustration of what would happen on a large scale if we just refused all entrants.

Yabby: "So why don't they turn up in Singapore or Japan for instance?"

Singapore isn't a signatory to the UNHCR, http://www.unhcr.info/refugees_farm/Signatories.htm
and thus turns away refugees http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/417415/1/.html I don't know what is up with Japan - maybe this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8342898.stm

Banjo: "the refugee convention makws a point of 'asylum seekers' having to obey a countries laws."

I thought you were just playing dumb, but I am beginning to think you really don't get it. Up to WW2, the standard way to handle people running away from a meat grinder with nothing but the shirt on their back was to put a gun in their face and tell them to piss off, preferably back into the meat grinder. Possibly because it happened to a fair chunk of the citizens in Europe in WW2, this came to be thought of as really poor form. And so the 1951 Refugee Convention was born. The whole point of it is to say what you can do with people who turn up on your door step with nothing but a sob story and their shirts. It makes no sense to ratify the thing if you explicitly exclude the very people it is meant to cover. And thus Banjo we accept such people despite our laws. Got it?

CJ Morgan

Well howdy if it aint couzin CJ . Must be that old Ludwig and Col are makin it too hot for you on tather thread, so you hightailed it cross the bijou to seek asylum with us kinsfolk ?
I gotta tell yah cuz –we ain’t hitched to no refugee convention in these parts.So don’t you go preachin that city folk stuff bout “compassion” and “humane treatment” here.The last preachin man who came here pah cut up with a tada knife and fed to the gattors.
And we dont serve grits or moonshine neitha. And if Ludwig & Col come around huntin for yah with them hound dogs and shot guns ,we ain’t going to hide you with the hogs eitha – ya yaller liva varmint.

CJ Says: “ Unfortunately… the repetititon of a lie doesn't make it any truer.”
Horus responds: Well, now you’ve learnt the principle, how about putting it into practice.

CJ says: “ we humane and compassionate types have better things to do with our time and energy than waste them on providing a soapbox for haters like you”
Horus responds: [LOL] Yes, you sound very humane and compassionate … & humble too.

Banjo: "These FACTS which have been known for years"

Oh, I see. You don't understand why I keep questioning your facts. Perhaps an example would help.

Let us say someone is trying to show the refugees arriving by boat today are in fact not refugees at all, but merely liars and cheats. An argument for this is that it is well known they fly to close to where ever the boat is, toss away everything bar the shirts on their backs, and then hope we will believe their sob story. The point being: they must of had visas, passports and what not to get on the air plane. So this boat thing was just a ruse. Sounds like a reasonable argument at first glance, doesn't it?

But when politely asked to provide a link that these refugees did in fact fly, he refuses. Instead he loudly and repeatedly claims it is common knowledge, insinuating the other person is a bit of a dill for not knowing it. At this stage this merely seems impolite. After all, if it is such common knowledge surely it must be easy to provide a link.

Anyway, much later on he lets it slip it has been common knowledge for 10 years. Hold on. 10 years. You mean we aren't talking about the current refugees at all? In fact, wasn't 10 years before 9/11, when airport were relatively easy to breeze through without documents? See - when more context is supplied, the argument falls apart.

Now you wouldn't think the nice people we have on OLO would try such an underhanded debating technique. In fact perhaps they wouldn't - perhaps this sort of thing happens because they were unaware of the significance of the information they are relying on being 10 years old. Nonetheless, if they had of provided a link to back up their assertions all this confusion would have been avoided.

I hope this makes it clear why I generally provide links to the facts I rely on, any why I think it would be a good think if you did too, Banjo.

*This quality is extolled as a virtue in business, but thought badly of when people use it to try to extricate themselves from a bad spot.*

Once again RobP, a programme based on humanitarian principles, should
not be selecting the most pushy, who might do well in business,
but the most deserving. Your little story on this one is that this
way we get better migrants, but that is not the point of it, its
about being "humane". Otherwise, those best able to come to Aus
from Afghanistan, would be heroin growers and traders, for that
is where the money is.

*Hardly, but I do enjoy rubbing your nose in such a graphic illustration of what would happen on a large scale if we just refused all entrants*

Ah but you are failing rstuart, for of course two million refugees
returned to Afghanistan when the Taliban were defeated. How many
landed up down wells?

*I sincerely hope that if we sent all of the accepted ones back the vast majority would be badly persecuted when they got there,*

Err is that why so many boat people seemingly later return to their
homes countries on holidays, pockets stuffed with money, the envy
of their old friends that they left behind?

Rstuart, I am sure you are a lovely fellow, but you certainly
are a sucker.

One good thing about the internet, its slowly teaching people
to become a bit skeptical, but it takes time. People seemingly
need pain to learn.

Re RStuart :

RS says :1)” The only reason the number [ of murdered rejectees ] is low is because we do our level best to ensure all genuine refugees stay.”
As has been pointed out repeatedly , RStuart wouldn’t know a genuine refugee if he fell over one – nor would most of our officialdom.In a previous post he was asked to show us the –stringent processes /procedures that ensured that only genuine claimants were passed –and he failed dismally

RS says: 2) " [ Banjo ] I thought you were just playing dumb, but I am beginning to think you really don't get it. Up to WW2, the standard way to handle people running away from a meat grinder with nothing but the shirt on their back was to put a gun in their face and tell them to piss off, preferably back into the meat grinder. Possibly because it happened to a fair chunk of the citizens in Europe in WW2, this came to be thought of as really poor form. And so the 1951 Refugee Convention was born. The whole point of it is to say what you can do with people who turn up on your door step with nothing but a sob story and their shirts. It makes no sense to ratify the thing if you explicitly exclude the very people it is meant to cover. And thus Banjo we accept such people despite our laws. Got it?”

No, it's RStuart who doesn’t get it!

One of the points that Banjo is making --and which RStuart is either wilfully ignoring or simply unable to comprehended—is that asylum seekers are NOT above/ exempt from Australia immigration law. And thus if they arrive here without proper papers they are illegal until we process and accept them . Unable to counter that point RStuart wanders off on a tangent waffling on about history and compassion.
TBC

Such acrimony and dissension about this topic does suggest that Australia needs to take a new approach to all immigration. To create a larger population, most politicians view high immigration levels, including refugees and asylum seekers, as an integral part of their pursuit of greater economic growth. Because this policy is ultimately unsustainable, let's consider a way of providing refuge to only the most vulnerable. Forget former controversial immigration policies. While not repeating mistakes of the past, Australia could absorb a small portion of the world´s doomed orphaned babies. They would thrive if carefully fostered and supported, and with government and community backing, they would provide the productive and loyal citizens needed for a sustainable future.

Horus,
One wonders if rstuart and others will take any notice of the information you gave in relation to illegal entrants not being exempt from our laws. They seem to claim this often. Are they really ignorant or are they feigning ignorance?

It seems rstuart was completely ignorant of the route the illegals take to reach the southern coast of Indonesia. Did he think they walk, ride camels, coach tour or simply materialise there. Amazing that they can form any opinion with so little knowledge.

Earlier RobP stated "they do nothing wrong" and when one points they do wrong and gives examples, he then claims one is being negative but cannot provide any good or positive characteristics of the illegals.

They all claim we are 'demonizing' the illegals, when in actual fact the illegals give themselve a bad reputation by their own actions. The most casual of research reveals poor character traits.

Anyway I will continue to point out that the illegals are not the poor victims they are portrayed as, but opportunists who take advantage of our easy going nature and that genuine refugees suffer because of this.

>>The most casual of research reveals poor character traits.<<

The most casual of research gives you whatever the populist media happens to be serving up at the time, Banjo. You just latch onto whatever report accords with the predetermined idea you have in your head at the time. Hardly conclusive.

In your case, you should stop being so casual and go meet some of them. Then make your mind up.

Let's through in another sort of post on the same subject - what about the two new arrivals, Trishna and Krishna?
I'd ratgher have them than all the other drop-ins. They have my vote to be able to become Aussies if they want to when they grow up.What say you?

socratease

Let´s have an immigration policy that is only for babies, unlike Trishna and Krishna, who have no one to care for them. This could be be done by arrangement with governments and agencies around the world. With Australian government and community backing, these previously doomed babies can be fostered to willing carers. As a humane and sustainable immigration policy, this would be in the national interest and a preferable alternative to accepting those already dangerously tainted with graft and hate.

Native,what a wonderful idea!!
Then no babies need starve to death or be brutalised and the hate merchants and people smugglers can be kept out

socratease

Banjo: "Horus, One wonders if rstuart and others will take any notice of the information you gave"

Banjo, Horus supplied "information" without any evidence to verify it. But given Horus has also suggested I am connected with people smuggling, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171&page=0#75927 I'd be an idiot if I just accept anything Horus has to say at face value. Right now, given your complete refusal to back any of your claimed facts with evidence it is entirely possible you are playing me along just like Horus; making up facts as you go along just to justify your view of the world. You may be happy to discuss what is happening in such a fantasy world, but I am not. Personally I think such discussions should confined to a psychiatric ward, not held in a public forum. So is goodbye for now.

Yabby: "two million refugees returned to Afghanistan when the Taliban were defeated."

You will get no argument from me that refugees should return to their homeland once conditions have settled down, Yabby. But there are all sorts of ambiguities in your statement. For a start, I'd doubt the mothers of our soliders recently killed in Afghanistan think the Taliban or whatever we are fighting over there are defeated. A link to give context perhaps?

Yabby: "Err is that why so many boat people seemingly later return to their homes countries on holidays, pockets stuffed with money, the envy of their old friends that they left behind?"

First a request: a link. Secondly, if it happened while they were refugees they would not be accepted back. Thirdly, once we give someone asylum it's normally final. But sometime later (maybe a couple of years or maybe decades) their country will become safe to visit again, and when it does I can well imagine them wanting to pay their family and friends. I don't begrudge them that.

Remember when I said "I wish the old Yabby was back"? It was this sort of rubbish that prompted it - you dressing up some harmless fact in a bit of bile and hoping no one would notice.

RStuart

Re “making up facts as you go along just to justify your view of the world. You may be happy to discuss what is happening in such a fantasy world, but I am not.”
Are you telling us laddie you are not happy doing what you do best!
If there was a Guinness-Book-of-Records category for fiddling & fabricating , you’d be sitting up there on top, smug & sovereign ---like an asylum seeking Leprechaun on an aberdour beach.

Below is what I wasn’t permitted to post lasted night –due to the quota system:

RS says : 3) “Singapore isn't a signatory to the UNHCR”
But depending the origin of the “refugees” there are anywhere from a few, to dozens of signatory countries in their path, which they chose to ignore.
You might recall the -short list- that the occupiers of the Oceanic Viking provided – they would not be satisfied with any old haven , It had to be one of the three or four affluent Western nations.

RS says: 4) "Oh, I see. You don't understand why I keep questioning your facts. Perhaps an example [ of non-genuine refugee would been accepted ] would help."
I seriously doubt that any number of facts would HELP you RStuart .
But here’s a tit bit for someone who seems to need a bit of tit.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#76100

But RStuart if you want the mother lobe ,and it has been pointed out to you before –and I will point it out again . Have enough gumption to do a little primary research for yourself. Visit some of these –refugees—after they settle in –you might be surprised by the number who are off on the road to Morocco or Mandalay visiting the old country.Perhaps you might even have a road to Damascus experience, yourself –though somehow, I think not –that would be too big a miracle to hope for.

If [ Yabby has been ] insinuating [ you are ] a bit of a dill for not knowing it. Judging from the above, he probably has solid grounds.

Socratease: ¨Then no babies need starve to death...¨

Dear Socratease, I suggest that in your above observation, the ¨no¨ should be ¨fewer¨. Otherwise, I´m glad you see merit in the plan. As for Trishna and Krishna you mentioned in an earlier post, the media reports their relieved mother in Bangladesh said that she wishes the children to stay and be educated in Australia, "We don't want them back because we don't have the ability to take proper care of them." So, dear Socratease, in answer to your question in that post, we can now welcome both babies aboard!

*You will get no argument from me that refugees should return to their homeland once conditions have settled down*

But this is what you are ignoring rstuart. Fact is that under the
Geneva Convention, when things improve, people can go home again.
Our bleating hearts felt that this was inhumane, so temporary
protection visas were dropped. So the pull factor is a permanent
residents visa in Australia, something that millions hope for
and scheme to achieve, one way or another. You just make it
easy for them.

At least RobP shows some realism, acknowledging that there is no
way that our bureaucrats can accurately determine, who is here
for economic reasons and who is genuinely in need of asylum.
Even with documents, its difficult enough to get valid information
from the third world, let alone when people ditch documents.

20 million people live in Afghanistan. The Taliban arn't shooting
them all, but mainly military who are shooting at them, like
Aussies. Yet you have no problem giving mainly fit young Afghan
males a visa, never mind the women and kids who really need help.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/tamils-ride-their-luck-20091030-hptc.html

That is where alot of the Tamils are coming from. Hardly men
in need of asylum.

Once again, your beliefs are neither helping the most needy,
nor are they cost effective. They create loopholes that anyone
with half a brain can jump through, but they do help the Bronnies
and rstuarts of this world sleep a bit better, thinking that they
are "helping those poor people". All emotion and no reason is
sometimes quite dangerous!

Yabby: "Our bleating hearts felt that this was inhumane, so temporary protection visas were dropped.

Here you go again Yabby, spouting crap. The law hasn't been changed - TPV's still available. The "bleeding heart" that decided not to renew most of the TPV's was Howard. The reason for having them in the first place was so we could arrange someone else to give them safe haven - as if that was ever going to happen. At the end of 3 years the broad conditions in Afghanistan hadn't changed, so I presume those responsible for deciding whether they were still genuine refugees came to the conclusion they had to stay.

I happen to think TPV's were a bad idea. There is nothing so permanent as a temporary immigrant on the mainland. They put down roots, get jobs, friends, married, and have kids (who are Australian). At that point only a Yabby could send them home.

Yabby: "The Taliban arn't shooting them all"

True. But why does this matter?

Yabby: "never mind the women and kids who really need help"

So, you would be in favour of accepting boat refugees if they were mostly women and children?

Yabby: "there is no way that our bureaucrats can accurately determine, who is here for economic reasons and who is genuinely in need of asylum"

Whether you are correct or not, that is what we agreed to do when we signed the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Yabby: "Once again, your beliefs are neither helping the most needy, nor are they cost effective."

So now it is my beliefs? You said earlier "For reasons of diplomacy, Australian politicians won't withdraw from the Convention".

You obviously don't want to be in the situation where we are forced to give safe haven to all refugees that arrive on our shores. Fine. But in that case what we have to do is obvious - we must to withdraw from the convention. But for some reason you can't bring yourself to say that. In fact, have you said what you would change? I can only recall you throwing mud.

The increasing heat outdoors, apparently reflected on this page, appears to be aggravating contributors' passions. May I suggest to them: for the sake of others who are trying to follow the threads here, please chill out, don't take yourselves quite so seriously, and don't let other fractious participants bother you into loosing your cool. "When emotion steps in the door, reason flies out the window."

* But for some reason you can't bring yourself to say that. In fact, have you said what you would change? I can only recall you throwing mud.*

Rsuart, methinks you must be getting a bit long in the tooth,
slowly losing your memory and a few marbles. I have many times
listed what I would change, that would include withdrawing from
the Convention, or simply naming Australia's terms, for its a
volutantary Convention after all and our pollies are too piss weak
to withdraw completely.

* I happen to think TPV's were a bad idea*

Not so rstuart, for it makes it harder for economic migrants trying
to cheat the system. We grant 4 year permits to 457 workers after
all. If a conflict is over, there can be good reasons to send
people home. Like now for Tamils.

*But why does this matter?*

Read your own previous post about Aussies being shot. Of course
soldiers are shot at, duh.

*So, you would be in favour of accepting boat refugees if they were mostly women and children?*

I would be in favour of taking more women and children from
refugee camps. There would be no need for them to sail here, besides
they would not have the bribe money handy, for they would be those
in real need.

* So now it is my beliefs?*

You are the one promoting the virtues of boat people.

*You obviously don't want to be in the situation where we are forced to give safe haven to all refugees that arrive on our shores.*

Quite correct, Australia can take its share of refugees, but
Australia cannot save the world by trashing Australia.

Howard was correct. Australia should decide who comes here. It
should not be decided by a boat race bsed on bribery.

Yabby,
“At least RobP shows some realism, acknowledging that there is no way that our bureaucrats can accurately determine, who is here for economic reasons and who is genuinely in need of asylum.Even with documents, its difficult enough to get valid information from the third world, let alone when people ditch documents.”

Spot on - --here’s another one they let through [ though, this was on the liberals watch]:
www.abc.net.au/.../printfriendly.pl?...abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s879582.htm

Two things are of note:
1) What does it say about our processes that we apparently didn’t know the background of such a high profile individual ? &
2) Here we have the classic case of someone being granted asylum and returning to the old country.
Note the wimpy comment: “ Philip Ruddock acknowledges that the former Prime Minister returned to Bangladesh a couple of times, but he argues that doesn't mean he was safe”

ROFL

Saturday the 21 November. By next Saturday there'll be another 5 boatload of refugees/asylum seekers.. And then the following week therte'll be more of the same and we'll still be here saying the same things all over again and they'll still keep coming. The pity is that these's nothing we can say or do (AS YET) that'll make the slightest difference.

All I can say is: "When we elect the next government let us never forget.Let's kick the lot of these miserable failures out and bring in the Libs."

socratease

Further to the above:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s879274.htm

Note these:
---“A former Bangladeshi prime minister now living as a refugee in Australia ON A DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION is denying newspaper claims published here today that he's corrupt and that he stole food from his people.”
---“My life was endangered and I could not get any justice and so for that reason I could not go back”
Yet we know from the first/above report, he did go back -- TWICE!

How about some imaginative plans to improve the Federal immigration policy? The level of community dissatisfaction demands reform. Anyone thinking out of the box? Let´s hear some fresh ideas. No more ridiculously pointless arguments. Please speak up.

Yabby: "Rsuart, methinks you must be getting a bit long in the tooth,"

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black. The kettle isn't dening it, BTW.

Yabby: "I have many times listed what I would change, that would include withdrawing from the Convention"

Maybe you did Yabby, but if so I missed it. I went back through your posts, and evidently missed it again. I guess it is unimportant as you have definitely said it now. It is a relief. Finally the negative side of the argument suggests a course of action that would actually address their concerns.

But not always realistically. You claim the convention has loopholes, and we should be naming Australia's terms. But sadly you don't (can't?) name the loopholes, or say what terms we should change.

Yabby: "its a volutantary Convention after all"

What is your point? We are a sovereign country. Signing anything is voluntary.

Yabby: "We grant 4 year permits ... if a conflict is over ... send people home."

I am discussing Howard's implementation of TPV's. Instead of setting up refugee camps we integrated them into our society for 4 years. If you think sending home is easy after doing that Yabby, you're kidding yourself. It is not something a nation of bleeding hearts does. So if sending back is what you want to do TPV's are a bad idea.

Yabby: "Read your own previous post about Aussies being shot."

My previous post wasn't about Aussies being shot. It was pointing out Afghanistan is still a dangerous place; in answer to your implication all Afghan refugees could safely go home.

Yabby: "You are the one promoting the virtues of boat people."

Did I? Quote where I made such a claim.

Yabby: "Australia cannot save the world by trashing Australia."

I agree population growth risks trashing Australia. But you clutch at straws if think our intake of boat people would. If it was several times the numbers we now accept we would still be in serious population decline. Right now blaming boat people for our population growth isn't even vaguely tenable.

*You claim the convention has loopholes, and we should be naming Australia's terms. But sadly you don't (can't?) name the loopholes, or say what terms we should change.*

Oh but I've named both, rstuart. Economic refugees claiming to
be asylum seekers, is the huge loophole that even the UNHCR accepts.
All that "humanitarian" bleating has caused enormous social problems
in Europe, with the majority of asylum seekers being economic
refugees. Open the gates and they flood in. So genuine refugees
land up missing out, Western countries pay an enormous cost, its
a lose lose situation.

Australia should take all refugees from refugee camps around the
world, and none from the boat trade. If people arrive by boat,
transport them to the nearest refugee camp or set one up somewhere
in the third world, with costs shared by developed nations, including
places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. Economic migrants will soon
lose interest, not so with genuine refugees.

*It is not something a nation of bleeding hearts does*

I seem to recall that we flew quite a few Kosovars into Australia,
later on, when things died down, flew them home again.

*It was pointing out Afghanistan is still a dangerous place*

Its a dangerous place for Australians who shoot at potential
Taliban members, for they tend to shoot back. Meantime 20
million Afghans live there every day. If we risk living, then
we risk dying, rstuart. Would you flee Australia if a few shots
were fired here, or would you stay and defend your country?

*Right now blaming boat people for our population growth isn't even vaguely tenable.*

But you refuse to name an upper limit rstuart. 1 million, 10 million,
20 million? What is your upper limit? The world is becoming more
crowded, its a growing issue, not one that will simply vanish.
Its at the very core of the issue about who decides who comes here.
Just anyone on a boat, or Australia.

Spare a thought for the time when because of global warming people from devasted low-lying areas of the world suddenly flee in vast numbers to Australia which will make the numbers of illegals arriving now look small by contrast. What happens then to any limits we may set today to counter the continuing arrival of economic and undeserving so-called refugees? With the deserving cases will arrive the same number if not greater numbers of illegals.How do you, my erudite readers, propose to the government an intelligent and effective plan to save the trashing of Australia? We dont have a navy or airforce to deal effectively to cover the east, north and western coastlines.
Has the time come to start sinking as many as possible to deter the unwelcome whilst saving others whose lives have been affected by the inability of the advanced countries to act cohesively to prevent such natural disasters?
Dont we have a moral responsibility to form humane policies of discriminatory handling of the situation?

socratease

If a sea level rise creates refugees, here´s a plan:

1. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement with the governments of only those threatened Pacific islands closest to Australia for the orderly arrival and settlement of refugee populations.

2. The Commonwealth will use its External Affairs powers to designate where the settlers will initially be placed with provision for ongoing health, welfare, education and employment by arrangement with the States.

3. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement for the safe transfer of all other irregular arrivals to a designated United Nations refugee facility in another country.

4. The Commonwealth will refuse future entry into Australia to all those it has transferred to a UN facility.

Re RStuart

"[ Yabby] You claim the convention has loopholes, and we should be naming Australia's terms. But sadly you don't (can't?) name the loopholes, or say what terms we should change”
Here’s a hint : the Whitlaw govt was able to put in place provisions that excluded PNG from OZs commitments under the convention.

“If you think sending home is easy after doing that Yabby, you're kidding yourself. It is not something a nation of bleeding hearts does”
Funny thing, RStuart, but I do recall you make that very same suggestion [sending them home, that is] in one of your earlier posts on a different thread. Strange isn’t how the worm turns. Leastways, that’s one thing you’ve learnt.

“Did I? Quote where I made such a claim [ promoted the virtues of the boat people]”
I would put it this way RStuart you are promoting their character by refusing to acknowledge any defects.
--Someone points out they sabotage their boats – you refuse to believe unless (Apostle Thomas-like) you can put your finger in the holes.
--Someone points out they destroy their papers – you make excuses.
--Someone points they hijacked the Oceanic Viking –you sidestep it.
It sounds a lot like advocacy to me –If we could deny anyone’s wrong doings –we’d likely to end up with pretty virtuous/blameless characters.

“I agree population growth risks trashing Australia…our intake of boat people would. If it was several times the numbers we now accept we would still be in serious population decline. Right now blaming boat people for our population growth isn't even vaguely tenable”
Three points are pertinent here.
1) There is a principle at stake here--many feel we are being conned.
2) One boaty doesn’t amount to one extra citizen – there will invariable follow many relations via sponsorship.
3) It may have missed your notice –a lot of things apparently do – but the same groups that are advocating for the boaties/ UNHCR sanctity are also warming up to deliver their spiels on AGW refugees, and that roadshow eagerly anticipates ticket sales in the tens of thousands.

Yabby: "Economic refugees claiming to be asylum seekers, is the huge loophole that even the UNHCR accepts."

The UNHCR doesn't accept them. A quote from the UNHCR handbook on handling refugees http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf : "If he is moved exclusively by economic considerations, he is an economic migrant and not a refugee." Nor is it Australia policy is to accept "economic refugees".

But I don't recall you claiming any of this before. If you did say something specific, point out where. All I recall is a lot of hand waving about how the system was full of loopholes, without you pointing to a single actual loophole in the regulations.

Yabby: "I seem to recall that we flew quite a few Kosovars into Australia, later on, when things died down, flew them home again."

Given the standard of debate on this topic "I seem to recall" isn't going to persuade anybody. A link giving some background?

Yabby: "Meantime 20 million Afghans live there every day."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) and other pages, civilian casualties rose around 30% this year. There are still 1.7 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, and 1 million in Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_refugees . Most people would find your assertion that Afghanistan is safe laughable.

Yabby: "But you refuse to name an upper limit rstuart. ... 20 million?"

Refused? No one has asked before. But since you asked: the absolute limit is determined by our population policy. Right now we are growing it by some 300k/year, most of it via aspiring cook and hairdresser immigrants apparently. I would not have a problem with replacing these "non-essential skills" immigrants with refugees of any sort. If my numbers are right, that would limit refugee intake to the 100k-200k range.

However I think our population should be stable. If we changed our immigration policy accordingly, I would be strongly opposed to allowing asylum seekers to subvert it. At the current numbers of boat people it would not. But if there was a surge and it did, I would be all in favour of ditching the 1951 Refugee Convention.

*A link giving some background?*

You really can't remember anything rstuart. Here is one link of
what the story was about, but its 10 years old, when the internet
itself was not yet so common.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s37081.htm

Basically a few thousand were flown in, later a few thousand were
flown out again.

*Most people would find your assertion that Afghanistan is safe laughable.*

Yet 20 million still live there. In Iran 30'000 people a year die
in car crashes, as they are bad drivers. Iran is not safe either!
You are using Australian standards to decide what is safe, they
simply don't apply in the third world.

*that would limit refugee intake to the 100k-200k range.*

So there we have it, you do have an upper limit and would ditch
the UN Convention if it posed a threat. Its just numbers you
are arguing about, not principle.

*The UNHCR doesn't accept them*

The UNHCR knows very well that is virtually impossible to prove
that somebody does not fear something. If you claim a fear of
spiders for instance, if the onus on me is to prove you wrong,
it is virtually impossible, except if during questioning I can show
that you are contradicting yourself and lying.

Next thing, if they lose appeal after appeal, as here and in Britain,
it is still extremely difficult to move them, if they refuse to
go. Special planes have to be chartered in some instances, prisoners
handcuffed and forced to go, not a pretty sight and not cheap either.
This stuff has all be documented on BBC TV etc. Are you totally
unaware of what is going on in the real world out there?

Several commentators to this topic seem conflict addicted. I challenge those individuals to include an email address with their next post so they can go hammer and tongs at each other at a frequency not limited to two posts every 24 hours.

Yabby: "Here is one link of what the story was about"

My point was that we would find it difficult to send back anyone who has lived among us for 3 years. From http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1361074.htm I see they were here only 7 months, and were told at the start they would be unconditionally sent back, yet the resulting outcry forced us to give 150 permanent residency. And you tell me it will be easy to send them back if they stay 5 times longer?

Yabby: "Its just numbers you are arguing about, not principle."

My principles were about daemonising refugees, about claims we are being taken for suckers, about you saying everybody who disagrees with you is weak/emotional, about keeping with international agreements we ratified, about sticking with verifiable facts rather then fantasy's dreamt up to support a position, and about suggestions having to work within those constraints. It was never about the principle of having to reject refugees. Long ago I agreed with you that will have to happen in the end. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#75297

You on the other hand seem to find it very easy to ditch those principles if they get in the way of whatever hobby house you are riding on the day.

Yabby: "The UNHCR knows very well that is virtually impossible to prove that somebody does not fear something."

Fortunately fearing something is not sufficient for them to be a refugee, otherwise we would be forced to accept every paranoid schizophrenic on the planet that applied. To quote from http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.pdf :

"it is not only the frame of mind of the person concerned that determines his refugee status, but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation".

The phrase "must be supported" means the onus is on them to prove it. If they can't prove it, eg because they threw away their papers, then we can reject them. At times I get the impression you are saying people can rock up on our shores claiming to be a refugee, and we can't disprove it we must accept them. The truth is the reverse.

Native,
Oh Omego I feel your pain but what can I do.
I offered to meet senor Stuart at noon in the square, many times, to settle this once and for all
Weapons of his choosing –si senor, even hammer an tongs
But what he do, he runs away.
Well he can run like a jack rabbit but he no can hide.
He’s wanted both north and south of the border and I mean to bring him in –dead or alive

Look what he write just now:
“The phrase "must be supported" means the onus is on them to prove it. If they can't prove it, eg because they threw away their papers, then we can reject them. At times I get the impression you are saying people can rock up on our shores claiming to be a refugee, and we can't disprove it we must accept them. The truth is the reverse.”

He must have been smoking that loco –weed again.
Ether that, or he’s been bitten by a Gila monster.
One crazy hombre.

*yet the resulting outcry forced us to give 150 permanent residency.*

Ah of course rstuart. Our officials would not want an "outcry", so
just give in and it solves it, the easy option. I admit, city
Aussies have become piss weak.

* but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation".*

Wow, that sounds so tough rstuart :) Let me see. I am Hazara,
the Pashtuns are after me, I am Tamil, the Singalese are after
me, I am Afghan, the Taliban are after me, I am an athiest, they
are all after me, I am gay, so persecuted in an Islamic State,
etc.

Not hard at all rstuart. Now you disprove my claims or accept
my appeal for asylum, or we'll take it to court, where my clever
lawyer will fix it. I want my cushy Aussie visa after all.

*If they can't prove it, eg because they threw away their papers, then we can reject them*

Nope rstuart, you have to prove that they are lying, for an asylum
seeker does not need papers. I can claim to be somebody else, you
need to prove it.

*about claims we are being taken for suckers,*

Well of course we are being taken for suckers. They hijack our
ship, our PM fastracks their settlement in Australia, to get them
out of his hair.

Meantime if I was desperate and hijacked a ship or plane, they
would throw me in jail!

Yabby: "I admit, city Aussies have become piss weak."

Spin aside, so now do you agree we will end up taking refugees TPV's in? It is a bit hard to argue really, because that is what we did do.

Yabby: "you have to prove that they are lying"

You have a link to prove we must rely on their word alone if we lack other evidence? In other words you aren't making this up as you go along, are you? I find it hard to square your claim with the fact that we have taken up to 2 years to verify some claims.

Yabby: "Now you disprove my claims or accept my appeal for asylum, or we'll take it to court, where my clever lawyer will fix it"

We prevent access to lawyers and media http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.htm

Even if we assume what you say is correct and if all else fails we just take their word for it, surely the fix is simply reject those cases - not reject all simply because we can't verify a few.

Yabby: "They hijack our ship"

Only for some warped definition of hijack. Look up a dictionary. When you hijack something you forcibly control of it, typically to steal cargo or to redirect it. The boat people refused to get off when asked. Force wasn't used, they didn't take control of the vessel, they steal anything and they didn't force it do go somewhere else.

Of course you know all this, but persist with lie anyway.

In an earlier post, in response to 'socratease' prediction of "the time when because of global warming people from devasted low-lying areas of the world suddenly flee in vast numbers to Australia", with the question "Don't we have a moral responsibility to form humane policies of discriminatory handling of the situation?", I wrote:

If a sea level rise creates refugees, here's a plan:

1. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement with the governments of only those threatened Pacific islands closest to Australia for the orderly arrival and settlement of refugee populations.

2. The Commonwealth will use its External Affairs powers to designate where the settlers will initially be placed with provision for ongoing health, welfare, education and employment by arrangement with the States.

3. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement for the safe transfer of all other irregular arrivals to a designated United Nations refugee facility in another country.

4. The Commonwealth will refuse future entry into Australia to all those it has transferred to a UN facility.

Any comments? What say you 'Horus'?

Myth Busters Report [ subtitle: debugging RStuart’s befuddled logic ]

RStuart says: “You have a link to prove we must rely on their word alone if we lack other evidence?... I find it hard to square your claim with the fact that we have taken up to 2 years to verify some claims”

The trick here RStuart is your use of the qualifier SOME.
[I’ve told the readers before, RStuart has a real problem distinguishing “some” from “all” – Have a geeza at his earlier posts about Sri Lanka , he implies ALL Tamils were incarcerated when he should have known it was SOME –and he still hasn’t corrected it]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#76005

PS RStuart : SOME people live to 130, too!

RStuart says: “We prevent access to lawyers and media http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.htm”
Read the attached reference to Gerry Hand, and then tell us that one about preventing access to lawyers, again. ROFL
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#76003
And anyone who thinks they don’t have media access must have been living in a box, the asylum seekers advocates/ silks are some the most media savvy hacks around.

RStuart says: “Only for some warped definition of hijack.. The boat people refused to get off when asked. Force wasn't used, they didn't take control of the vessel, they steal anything and they didn't force it do go somewhere else”
In modern parlance to hijack means: to usurping control.
Though for dinosaurs like yourself, bought up on Erol Flynn movies, if you were to study the transcript of The Tamper incident –you’d find that the rescued asylum seekers did indeed force a change in the vessels direction/destination.

It may be a fun game of semantics for RStuart, but I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of needy could have been fed or housed with the money wasted pandering to the very discriminating guests who --hijacked--the Oceanic Viking.

Come now RStuart, admit it, you’ve been imbibing in your heritage beverage between posts, haven’t you---I mean, how else would you have such addled thinking?

*so now do you agree we will end up taking refugees TPV's in?*

That depends on the Govt and the politics of the moment. If a Govt
thinks that they can win a few votes somewhere, all principle is
commonly thrown out the window.

* You have a link to prove we must rely on their word alone if we lack other evidence*

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html

Ok go to section 8.1, to get an idea how it works. There are really
two systems at play, onshore, then excised territories, where
a different standard applies. This was one way for the Govt to
get around all those legal appeals, which blocked up the courts.

At the end of the day, an asylum seeker needs to tell a story which
fits in with the UN Convention, that they fear persecution because
of etc. The onus is on the Govt to prove that they are lying.
You try writing to Afghanistan for credible information! The asylum
seeker only needs to tell the story, not provide documented evidence.

Onshore asylum seekers can indeed appeal to the courts.

*Only for some warped definition of hijack*

They tried to force the captain to sail for Australia! Just because
they never pulled a gun, does not mean that it was not a hijack.

Yabby: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html

That is a good link Yabby, better than any I had found on the subject. Unfortunately it still doesn't resolve the issue we are discussing one way or the other. I gather the person seeking refugee status filling in a statement of claims, saying why they should be considered a refugee. Then some DIAC officer (quote) "assesses their refugee claims and makes a determination". That last step could be anything from just accepting what is on the form, to insisting the refugee makes verifiable statements on the form that are then verified.

In any case, I suspect verifiable claims most of us are likely to accept (like "I come from village X, and belong to group Y. 10 people form group Y were killed and tortured in my district") you would reject along the lines of "well other people managed not to be tortured there, why can't you?"

Yabby: "At the end of the day, an asylum seeker needs to tell a story which fits in with the UN Convention"

Your link doesn't say that, Yabby. The UNHCR doesn't say one way or the other. We could, and I agree should, demand verifiable information, like "give the name and contact details of your Mullah, school teacher, people you worked for" and take whatever time is required to contact those people. As for whether we do that - who knows. But since they are detaining people for 6, 12 and sometimes 24 months if they aren't doing that, one wonders what they are doing that takes so much time.

Yabby: "They tried to force the captain to sail for Australia!"

They asked. He said no. I did the same thing with a bus recently. I was the only person on it, so I asked him to make a small detour. He said no. It seems by your definition I hijacked the bus.

*That last step could be anything from just accepting what is on the form, to insisting the refugee makes verifiable statements on the form that are then verified.*

Rstuart, all the asylum applicant has to do, is make their case,
as it states in the UN Convention. There is no mention of verifiable
evidence in that. Here is a URL with some of the defintions.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html

What they do do, is check things like accents. When a Pakistani
applies, they can then challenge the claim, based on accent.
But the burden of proof remains with Australia, to show that the
story being told, is not accurate.

With your examples, you are making it up as you go along. It the
definitions of the Convention that matter, certainly in the case
of onshore asylum seekers.

*But since they are detaining people for 6, 12 and sometimes 24
months*

That would depend, if the case was reviewed by the RRT, then an
appeal to the Courts, yup that could stretch it out. That
HRC website I linked to yesterday, stated that very few are on
Xmas Island for more then 6 months. Only 15, IIRC.

*They asked. He said no. I did the same thing with a bus recently*

Nope, not the same thing. You did not move in with your family,
then camp on the bus for a month, until it took you where you wanted
to go. You accepted the drivers decision, not so for the 78, who
defied the captain and stopped him from returning to his normal
business. Big difference!

Yabby: "You accepted the drivers decision, not so for the 78, who defied the captain and stopped him from returning to his normal business. Big difference!"

Err he didn't take them to where they demanded to go, and they did accept that. He took them to another country, and asked that country if he could let them off there. The country said "only if they want to get off here". Given they had already said they didn't want to, things went downhill from that point.

Yabby: "Here is a URL with some of the defintions."

But not with any definitions that help.

Yabby: "all the asylum applicant has to do, is make their case, as it states in the UN Convention."

Yes. But before relying on that statement to draw the conclusion we must allow anyone with a good story in, read paragraphs 193..205 in http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf

We get to ask whatever questions we like. We can use whatever methods we like to verify the answers. The only requirement is, after doing all that, we can not verify some answers we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Another way of saying the same thing is we are free to use whatever methods we like to remove that doubt.

And finally, there is a general requirement they supply a plausible, detailed and consistent story. Something lines "I came from a village in Afghanistan, but I don't remember is name or where it is, I don't remember the names of prominent people in it, I was in a religious sect but can't tell you the place of worship or the name of the priest, I was persecuted but can't tell you the names of others who were" just isn't going to wash.

Who's getting married? Yes, you all guessed it... congratulations to that sorry pair of furious battlers, rstuart and Yabby! Commiseration to the other suitors. Now, to show how much they really care, they've been practising hard, ferociously fighting like cats and dogs (as anybody who has followed this thread will surely know), just like any long married couple. Holed up at home, sweating over a hot Word doc, they've honed their nastiest posting skills, arguing off several other contenders (we also know). When will they tie the knot (online, naturally)?

At RStuart:
RStuart claims a consistent story is part of our test:
He overlooks the fact that many of these claimants have been practiced and drilled and coached before they come to us.
Details of our interview techniques and questions are readily available on the black market.You might recall that during investigation of the studying-for-residency-scam it was revealed that immigration tests and documentation was readily available at a price.

RStuart claims: “We get to ask whatever questions we like. We can use whatever methods we like to verify the answers”
Having seen how govt agencies are constrained by human rights provisions and the need to pander to cultural sensitivities and peculiarities, in OZ .I would wager this claim is well wide of the mark.

RStuart claims they must have sound knowledge of their claimed place of origin:
How many villages/hamlets/camps would there be in Afghanistan or Sri Lanka?Where would WE get our information to verify THEIR stories!
This mornings Australian had a story of refugee advocates calling foul because OZ immigration had tried to source information from Sri Lankan govt sources. And,you might recall the case of the former Bangladeshi PM given asylum though apparently minimal was know of his past
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s879274.htm
And, so what, if I know the village chief or the name of his dog—so what?
It is evidence of nothing.
It doesn’t mean I lived there.
It doesn’t mean I was subject to persecution

OZs system is full of holes:
--We have Afghanis claiming that amongst the acceptees are many Pakistanis masquerading as Afghanis ; they have never lived in Afghanistan –where did our system fall down?
--We have this ABC report: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2715237.htm that indicates there are many criminal elements amongst our intake –how did our stringent checks allow that?

No RStuart, our immigration personnel are NOT as smart as an asylum seeking fifth grader –and nor are you!

Native
Apologies ,I wasn’t ignoring you.

I think that I look at things from a different angle .
It seems to me that if you’re got fairdinkum concerns about your island sinking --one of the first things you would do was limit population growth; maximise what living space you have left.Instead what is it we see all across the pacific is a population boom

AGW as it been popularised is has done great damage to the concept of self sufficiency /responsibility – the world is now divided into climate victims & villains.If you’ve won official classification as a victim, all the woes that befall you are someone else’s fault –and that someone (cargo-cult like) is protocol-bound to bail you out.

And, I suspect if a proper study was done, it would be more the case that the most islands were sinking rather than sea level rising.Before AGW became all the vogue --and in popular culture , the root cause of all woes-- it was not unusual to hear of islands sinking, now all we ever hear about is seas rising.

RStuart again:
Stop your primadonna-ish pouting about your hurt my feelings because Horus associated you with people smugglers.You’re a laddie not a lassie –least ways you more resemble Les Patterson than Dame Edna –though, it’s a bit hard to tell with that tartan you’re wearing.

You remind me of the high society woman at a dinner with Oscar Wilde.
It is reported that when Oscar asked if she would have sex in exchange for a large sum of money she said she would. But when Oscar asked if she would do it for a much lesser sum she took offence and said :what do you take me for a common pro. His response was: we have already established you’re a pro, all we’re doing now is haggling over the price.

We already established RStaurt you are prepared to excuse away any fiddle or fabrication the asylum seekers may employ.
So , it follows that when we question your people smuggling links all we’re doing is determining your price

*Err he didn't take them to where they demanded to go, and they did accept that.*

Err they eventually got off the boat, after many were promised
a trip to Aus, in writing, from the Australian Govt. Their blackmail
clearly paid off!

*We get to ask whatever questions we like. We can use whatever methods we like to verify the answers*

You certainly can rstuart, but a I remind you that there is no need
for a person to have been persecuted, to claim asylum. They only
need to fear persecution. Have Hazara's, Tamils, gays, athiests
etc been persecuted? Indeed some have and it is you who has been
telling me what a dangerous country Afgahnistan is. As a clever
applicant I would of course remind you that I did not want to land
up down a well, and a sucker like you could well be a pushover :)

Horus is correct, some Afgahns did claim on TV, that some Pakistanis
had got through the system, pretending to be Afghans.

Given our 90% acceptance, compared to the UNHCR figures in Indonesia,
we seemingly are indeed the suckers that I have claimed!

No doubt there is a huge difference between interviewers. Some
would be spectical and smart, your more bleating heart types
would be a pushover for a good story teller.

*And finally, there is a general requirement they supply a plausible, detailed and consistent story.*

Sheesh, if you can't do that and are paying people smugglers good
money, then you are clearly wasting it. Given how easy it is in
this world to con hard working people out of their life savings,
it happens all the time, there are clearly plenty of smart story
tellers out there and also plenty of suckers who believe them.

Yabby: "Their blackmail clearly paid off!"

I don't see the word "hijack" in that reply, instead you introduced a new derogative: "blackmail". Does this mean you now accept they didn't hijack the vessel?

Do we really have to go through this entire dictionary definition, metaphor thing again to show it wasn't blackmail either?

Yabby: "Given our 90% acceptance, compared to the UNHCR figures in Indonesia, we seemingly are indeed the suckers that I have claimed!"

You keep quoting Paul Sheehan's figures which are dubious as best. I can't find any stats I consider solid on the subject. I see various mentions of 10% acceptable to 50% acceptance for all claims - but none anywhere near 90%. As I have pointed out to your before, to get to 90% you have to cherry pick the data, a technique I gather Paul relies on heavily. It seems he has managed to convince a few people with that technique - including you. Here is the annual report from the IMMI for 2008-2009 http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2008-09/html/outcome1/output1-6.htm#table47

Number of IMA clients ... 985
Number of clients granted visas and settled on the mainland ... 206

Yabby: "No doubt there is a huge difference between interviewers"

No doubt this is a piece of wild speculation on your part.

Yabby: "clearly plenty of smart story tellers out there and also plenty of suckers who believe them."

So you now accept my assertion that we are allowed verify the stories given to us in whatever way we want - contrary to what you said earlier?

Yabby: "some Afgahns did claim on TV, that some Pakistanis had got through the system, pretending to be Afghans."

Both you and I have used high profile mistakes to argue for our side of the case, so there is no doubt mistakes in assessing refugee claims are being made. It would be a bit of a worry if all mistakes went in one direction or the other - but they aren't. This is yet another reason to doubt your claim that all refugees have taken us for suckers.

Yabby,
I have not seen any figures on the success rate for refugee appliacants in Indonesia, but in an interview of Phillip Ruddock, by Greg Sheridan, the former minister said that the rate for the UNHCR in the ME was 10% and the rate here for the illegals was 90-95%.

Many 'refugee advocate' claim the rate is 90-95% for illrgals in claiming they are 'obviously' refugees.

Figures from the DIAC show the success rate for refugee status of those that arrived here legally was 46% in 2007-8. I put the higher rate for the illegals down to the fact that they destroy their identies and as we now have to make a deterimination within 90 days, we simply accept them.

Banjo, You are indeed correct. The 90% is constantly bandied around
by the bleating hearts, as a justification for them all being
"real refugees". I would assume that this figure applies to the
days when most asylum seekers were "onshore", so had access to
appeal after appeal etc, which is what people like Bronwyn are
stil advocating. They even want Xmas Island shut down.

Rstuart, it seems to me that you are taking figures out of context.
Quoting one year which had few boats, is hardly a way to judge the
story. Sheehans figures were from some years ago and no doubt
because some of us are protesting at our slack system, they have
to improve it.

Hijack and blackmail both applied to the boat of 78. Your bus
comparison was frankly quite ridiculous! But then I realise that
you are trying every avenue to try to score another brownie point,
never mind the truth. Just because a gun was not pulled, does
not mean that the principles of a hijack and blackmail, do not
apply. The word blackmail was commonly used in the press too.

*So you now accept my assertion that we are allowed verify the stories given to us in whatever way we want - contrary to what you said earlier?*

I have never claimed that our authorities are "not allowed" to
verify anything. I have claimed that in practise they have no
hope of doing so, for getting information out of the third world
is rather hopeless. Sage made a valid point on another thread.
When asked about a criminal record, asylum seekers simply have to
claim that they don't have one. Any other migrant has to produce
police evidence to prove that they don't, from countries where they
have lived.

*This is yet another reason to doubt your claim that all refugees have taken us for suckers.*

Another misquote from you rstuart. I have never claimed "all",
but it would certainly be a great many.

Yes, Banjo, get between rstuart and Yabby, even if you have to take a few glancing blows yourself. Hortus, strap on the groin protector. Gotta break them up before this post is shut down on grounds of unending repetition, unconvincing argument, straying from the topic, or, worst of all, irrelevance.

Banjo: "an interview of Phillip Ruddock, by Greg Sheridan"

Again no link Banjo, but I am begining to think the reason is you aren't too comfortable using search engines. Googleing for "Philip Ruddock Greg Sheridan UNHCR" revealed what I am presume you are talking about on the first hit.

Banjo: "as we now have to make a deterimination within 90 days, we simply accept them"

90 days is just a benchmark the department has set itself. As Yabby pointed out some have currently been there for 6 months. But more to the point, in the period Philip Ruddock is talking about when he was managing it, he set no limit.

Ruddock says UNHCR staff approved 10%, yet his staff approved 90%. You take that to mean he is saying the other 80% suckered him. I don't think so. If he really thought so there was a simple cure - ask the UNHCR how they were doing their evaluations.

Yabby: "I have never claimed that our authorities are "not allowed" to verify anything."
Yabby: "all the asylum applicant has to do, is make their case...no mention of verifiable evidence"

So you were saying we are allowed, but don't? Why don't you argue we just do that then? Say if they arrive with documents we try to process them in 90 days, but arrive without and you could be in camps for years while we physically verify your story. Sounds expensive, but we spent billions on the pacific solution.

Yabby: "but it would certainly be a great many."

Yeah, I probably was confusing your rhetoric with Banjo's. Apologies if so. 1, 10%, 50% - what does a "great many" mean?

Yabby: "Rstuart, it seems to me that you are taking figures out of context"

How so? There are no figures for 2009.

Yabby: "Your bus comparison was...ridiculous!"
Yabby: "You accepted the drivers decision, not so for the 78,"
rstuart: "he didn't take them to where they demanded to go, and they did accept that"

That was your attempt to show it was ridiculous. Are you now saying you can do better?

>>Any other migrant has to produce police evidence to prove that they don't, from countries where they have lived.<<

There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, how do you successfully produce police evidence to prove a negative? Another glib Yabbyism.

And secondly, if these asylum seekers are on the wrong side of the authorities, how silly would it be for them to ask for verification of their claim from those very authorities that would harm or impede them. That would be like Kurt Fearnley shooting himself in one of his remaining legs and then trying to do the Kokoda Track. Or like Allied soldiers in Colditz Castle asking their prison guards to review their escape plan. Haha, that's a goodun.

Sorry Yabs, but asylum seekers, or people on the wrong side of authority in general, do not need to handicap themselves before they even start.

Yabby
“Their blackmail clearly paid off”
AND, we can expect a lot more of it to follow.
The consequence of our “leaders” seeking a quick fix to limit electoral damage. It’s basic psychology: whatever behaviour you rewarded gets repeated. Which is why many other countries refuse to negotiate in such situations.
It’s a pity our leaders can’t apply the same –long term perspective – to refugeeism , which they claim to apply to climate change.

RStuart
“don't see the word "hijack"… instead you introduced a new derogative: "blackmail". Does this mean you now accept they didn't hijack the vessel?”
Noooo, I’d say it means that everyone else got the point the first time –only YOU’ve seemed missed it.
PS here’s some related material (similar emotions but different situation) :www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-skys-the-limit-when-it-comes-to-feral-children-20091125-jrse.html

“ Do we really have to go through this entire dictionary definition, metaphor thing again to show it wasn't blackmail either?
Go for it, if you think you can convince yourself.

“ 2008-09 …number of IMA clients ... 985 Number of clients granted visas ... 206”
Your stats are for the wrong measure .It’s NOT a once or nothing proposition.A number will be knocked back the first time, hold up in some third country for a-year-or-ten, all the while perfecting their “story”/technique till its just right, and
be admitted on the second third, fourth or twentieth try.
Or, after some regional event occurs, is picked up and sensationalised by our media, which then makes their group, flavour-of-the-month.

“ there is no doubt mistakes in assessing refugee claims are being made.”
No its NOT mistakes --- it’s systemic failure!
If our refugee policy was a motor vehicle, all models of its type would have been withdrawn from the road as unsafe.

Banjo
“the rate for the UNHCR in the ME was 10% and the rate here for the illegals was 90-95%”
It sounds like one of those adds for the electrical retailers: “If you can find a comparable group citizenship offer with another country –come to OZ and we’ll better it by 85%”.
LOL

Look, if the Australian government wants to prevent boat people from successfully transitioning to asylum seekers, it can apply this rule:

People arriving in Australian waters will be promptly removed to a UN refugee facility, automatically becoming ineligible for future entry.

Pretty soon the message will spread: if you try to get in, you loose any chance.

Whatever any international convention may say, Australia must have a straightforward policy that's humane, clear and consistent.

*Another glib Yabbyism.*

Not so RobP. Police forces around the world will verify that the
applicant has no criminal record, if that is the case.

Your second point in fact makes my point for me, to rstuart. ie.
obtaining accurate information from the third world is extremely
difficult, so in practise, verification can become virtually
impossible.

* If he really thought so there was a simple cure - ask the UNHCR how they were doing their evaluations.*

Ah Rstuart, the UNHCR of course does not have to contend with
a whole pile of lawyers and appeals, as is the case with onshore
asylum seekers. No wonder that Ruddick went on to dream up the
Pacific solution, to deal with this problem. Smart Ministers
would be all too aware that they only think they run the show.
That would depend on the agenda of higher level public servants,
who commonly, effectively do run things.

*So you were saying we are allowed, but don't? Why don't you argue we just do that then? *

I've been arguing that all along! For a start, verifying things in
the third world is extremely difficult. I think it was RobP who
also pointed out, the short staffing is often a problem. Next we
now have pressure on time, to get things done in 90 days. Staff
under those kinds of pressure will take the easy option, just stamp
"approved" on the application, problem solved.

*How so? There are no figures for 2009.*

So what was the average approval of boat people over 10 years?

*Are you now saying you can do better?*

Oh I could have tried much harder on that one. But IMHO you are no
idiot, simply arguing on this one because my comments pissed you
off. So you landed up using a very stupid argument, which even
you would/should be aware of. With 350 word limits in place,
there are frankly more important points to make, then arguing
about the ridiculous

Arent you guys tired of this topic?
Where's it going?
Like a cat chasing its tail.
Lots of peripheral truths in all your blogs for which many thanks but lets go to another topic.

socratease

rstuart,
I don't know why I bother, but it was handy. Article by Greg Sheridan

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/let-jakarta-take-the-odium/story-e6frg76f-1225794491666

One thing to also note. Ruddock said that in the interests of openness, etc. they provided tapes of interviews to applicants. then found that these tapes were copied and sold in the ME on the black market. Just another item showing the integrity of the illegals.

Yabby: "as is the case with onshore asylum seekers."

Onshore asylum seekers? We have been going at it for days now just talking about the boat arrivals. Lets just stick to them for now. The idea of repeating this marathon give me the willies.

Yabby: "For a start, verifying things in the third world is extremely difficult."

Difficult, but not impossible, and comparatively not that expensive. We will easily spend $100k helping new non-English speakers transition into Australia. Pay someone $20k per refugee to check out the stories of say 50 in a year - so they get $1M for a years work. The Sri Lankan's will all claim to come from the war zone which is a small area, so it isn't a huge ask. Break even is proving 1 in 5 is a fraud. If you are right and most are frauds you have a winner.

I'll lay odds no one thinks the rate is 1 in 5. Unlike you, I don't believe all refugees just throw away their documentation. The conditions in Sri Lanka at the end are an example. The LTTE rounded up entire towns to use as human shields, the government then ignoring the shield and shelled the lot. To suggest that most Tamils fleeing from that mess will arrive with passports, visa's and so on is simply absurd. Not having such documents makes legal forms of transport between countries impossible, so they arrive by boat.

Yabby: "So what was the average approval of boat people over 10 years?"

What figure you are after? Ruddock says 90% of boat people were approved. From http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/stats-02.html 45% average arrivals are by boat. Assuming 40% acceptance for air arrivals, that would put overall acceptances at 65%, roughly.

Yabby: "a very stupid argument, which you would/should be aware of"

I'm not aware of it, so humour me and shoot it down. Or agree it wasn't so stupid after all.

Banjo,

Thanks. I found that www page. I do look. The problem arises if I find nothing, and you claim it's common knowledge but don't provide a link.

*Onshore asylum seekers?*

Rstuart, I thought that the Human Rights Commission website that
I linked you to, made the difference rather clear. It is an important
part of the debate. Over your head perhaps?

*The Sri Lankan's will all claim to come from the war zone which is a small area *

Oh they openly admit to the press, that they come from fishing
villages along the coast, not from a war zone.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/tamils-ride-their-luck-20091030-hptc.html

Under the UN Convention, all they need to do is to fear persecution.
They are Tamils after all. So no need to come from a war zone.
Those from the war zone, would have hopped across to India,
which is just a very few miles away. 130'000 did exactly that.

*Ruddock says 90% of boat people were approved.*

Exactly and the argument is about boat people here, not other forms
of arrival. So 90% it is, the commonly quoted figure.

*Or agree it wasn't so stupid after all.*

Hehe rstuart, at least you try to be amusing :) So rstuart, did
you threaten the bus driver with anything at all, when you asked
him to deviate from his normal route, if he did not comply with
your wishes? Did you threaten to stay on the bus, until he
complied? Any even vague threats at all?

Of Course It’s Not Extortion!

You buy passage on a ship to the fabled spice islands, but when you get there the accommodation isn’t up to scratch –it’s little better than the facilities back home.Understandably you feel let down –you’ve paid good money for this!

You give your agent an earful.He upgrades you to another destination– by way of introduction he hands you a video: “So where the bloody hell are you?”.

You book another ship & head off –suddenly, mysteriously, holes appear in the hull. You signal SOS , and are rescued –but taken back to the spice islands. Things’ look lost, but your agents unperturbed – something tells you he’s done this all before.

He hands the port authorities a letter – “Please sir, a five star destination, or we go no where & we no eat.”.
For the next four weeks authorities grovel & plea– while you get free-on board ethnically appropriate meals , & views of the sea.
And each night the children audition for “Tamils Got Talent” before fawning media.

On the fifth week, your ticket is confirmed. On the Sixth , you’re barbecuing on Bondi beach, courtesy of Centrelink.

[Anyone wanting to connect overseas relos with this travel service call : (0011 ) (62) (21) REFUGEEXPRESS --and ask for Alex.]
...............................
extortion
n. obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=709

How might this be extortion ?
1) --“False claim” – pretending to be something you’re not
R, particularly r just arrived from S R

2) threatening to embarrass/damage ?
Hunger strikes – “you’ll be responsible for our deaths/suffering”
(Greatly embarrassing for our pollies in front of their international peers)

Yabby: "Under the UN Convention, all they need to do is to fear persecution."

Wrong. We went though this on Monday. From http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.pdf "this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation". Would you accept those fisherman had an objective reason to be fearful? No? It should come as no surprise we didn't when they last tried it, as pointed out in your link.

Yabby: "Exactly and the argument is about boat people here."

My complaint is the 90% was boat poeple only, and it was being compared to the Indonesian figure of 10%, which was for all types.

Yabby: "did you threaten the bus driver with anything at all"

No, but as it happens the refugees didn't threaten the ship or its crew either. The ship didn't deviate from its normal route - it always intended to take them to Indonesia, which is what happened. They did threaten to harm themselves, but even if you are desperate to count that as a "threat", it was ignored. So at best you have "attempted hijack". They didn't refuse to get off. They are illegals remember, without papers, so the Indonesians have to let them disembark. But Indonesia says only if they wish to - knowing full well they had just hopped into a leaky boat with bung steering to escape the place. What would you have them do Yabby - tell and obvious and transparent lie?

Yabby: "*Onshore asylum seekers?*"
Yabby: "Exactly and the argument is about boat people here, not other forms of arrival."

Precisely. And that was my problem with the Indonesian 10% figure - it was for all types, not just boat people.

rstuart: "If he really thought so there was a simple cure - ask the UNHCR how they were doing their evaluations."
Yabby: "the UNHCR of course does not have to contend with a whole pile of lawyers and appeals, as is the case with onshore asylum seekers"

Ruddock was also talking about boat arrivals to Australian and he had banned lawyers and appeals. And you start on about onshore asylum seekers!?

*this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation".*

Ah rstuart, but that objective situation is open to subjective
opinion! I have had enough bleating hearts tell me that Afghanistan
is a dangerous place and that Sri Lanka is dangerous for Tamils.

On that basis a case can clearly be made, that all these people
deserve protection under the UN convention. As long as they are
not Indians, or Pakistanis, posing as Tamils or Afghans, in which
case there would be no "objective situation". I remind you that
the UNHCR suggests that if unshure, to err to the benefit of the
applicant.

*and it was being compared to the Indonesian figure of 10%, which was for all types.*

AFAIK nearly all asylum seekers in Indonesia opt to come by boat.
A few might fly, but hardly more then a handfull. So the UNHCR were
basically checking out the same types of applicants as those
who sail to Australia. No Chinese Falung Gong applicants etc.

*No, but as it happens the refugees didn't threaten the ship or its crew either.*

Not so, they threatened to stay on the ship, until they were taken
to their destination of choice, then complained about treatment by
the crew. A month later, they finally got off, after being bribed
by the Govt. They made threats, you made no threats. At least
you admit that it was an attempted hijack.

As a matter of interest, "onshore asylum seekers" is a reference to
those who make it to the mainland. They are processed under the
Migration Act, unlike those processed on offshore islands, who
never made it to the mainland.

*Ruddock was also talking about boat arrivals to Australian and he had banned lawyers and appeals.*

Not as far as I am aware, for under the Migration Act, they still
have those rights today, if they make it to the mainland. What
he did was come up with the Pacific solution, which means the
Migration Act does not apply to excised territories. That is
exactly what the HRC and the bleating hearts are now on-about.

Yabby: "On that basis a case can clearly be made, that all these people deserve protection under the UN convention."

Wild speculation. Wild because the fishermen tried to make that case and as your article pointed out, failed. Wild because the war they are fleeing from is now over so if it didn't succeed before they have no hope now.

I didn't expect you to resort to this sort of drivel instead of conceding the point.

Yabby: "AFAIK nearly all asylum seekers in Indonesia opt to come by boat."

Lets just stick to what we can show is true. I don't trust your "AFAIK" as far as I can kick it, and I imagine the feeling is mutual.

Yabby: "they threatened to stay on the ship"

Assuming they did (you have a link?), it would have been as effective as me threatening to stay on the bus. I imagine the response from the bus driver would have been "thanks for letting me know, I'll arrange for the police to greet us when we arrive". If, when we arrived, the police say the council rules require the bus to make short detours like I requested, then asked "do you still want to go home?" the situation changes completely. Suddenly I am in control. This is pretty much the situation the 78 found themselves in. And you claim this remarkable turn of events turns it into a hijack? Utter nonsense.

rstuart: "If [Ruddock] really thought so there was a simple cure - ask the UNHCR how they were doing their evaluations."
Yabby: "the UNHCR of course does not have to contend with a whole pile of lawyers and appeals, as is the case with onshore asylum seekers"
Yabby: "Not as far as I am aware, for under the Migration Act, they still have those rights today, if they make it to the mainland"

True. But we are discussion boat arrivals, and stuff all made it to the mainland before being assessed. This makes any discussion about appeals and whatnot a best a complete red herring. At worst, see my first response above.

This is RStuart at his twaddling best:

“No, but as it happens the refugees didn't threaten the ship or its crew either. The ship didn't deviate from its normal route - it always intended to take them to Indonesia, which is what happened. They did threaten to harm themselves, but even if you are desperate to count that as a "threat", it was ignored. So at best you have "attempted hijack". They didn't refuse to get off. They are illegals remember, without papers, so the Indonesians have to let them disembark. But Indonesia says only if they wish to - knowing full well they had just hopped into a leaky boat with bung steering to escape the place. What would you have them do Yabby - tell and obvious and transparent lie?”

---“ the refugees didn't threaten the ship or its crew either”
NO, they effectively put it out of service –god knows what it cost the Australian taxpayer for the ships upkeep alone, let alone the special services we supplied the occupiers.

--“The ship didn't deviate from its normal route - it always intended to take them to Indonesia”
The ships original route didn’t envisage rescuing their ( self sabotaged ) ship nor returning to port in Indonesia.

---“They did threaten to harm themselves…[but] it was ignored”
Does anyone really believe that that threat played no part in authorities softly-softly approach, or the inducements’ later offered!

--“They didn't refuse to get off. They are illegals remember, without papers”
This takes the cake!
We are asked to believe they didn’t know they had to get off the ship--apparently they mistook it for their new home!
We are asked to believe that after having snuck into Indonesia without papers , and after having lived-in Indonesia illegally for years, they had suddenly developed a conscience about not being properly documented.

--"So at best you have "attempted hijack”
No, you have an advertisement flashing to the rest of the world –Aussie politicians are gutless ---come-on down and give it a go

*Wild because the war they are fleeing from is now over so if it didn't succeed before they have no hope now.*

Ah not so rstuart. I remind you that 30 or so Tamils have just
won first prize of a cushy life in Aus, because their hijack and
subsequent blackmail of the Australian Govt paid off handsomely!

The war and that it is over, did not even come into the discussion.

As I pointed out, we are suckers, perhaps you should admit
it now, that it is so frigging obvious. The big losers are
of course taxpayers, who foot the bill for the whole disaster.

Even those rejected, cost us a fortune, some flown home in
special chartered jets.

*Lets just stick to what we can show is true.*

Rstuart, I thought the point was valid. If you have evidence that
large numbers of them fly here from Indonesia, please show it.

*it would have been as effective as me threatening to stay on the bus.*

Did you threaten to stay on the bus? No? So your comparison is
laughable.

*True. But we are discussion boat arrivals, and stuff all made it to the mainland before being assessed.*

Exactly, because Govts have changed tactics, much to the disgust of
the bleating hearts. The whole saga had become a joke, Ruddick had
got it right all along.

Yabby: "I remind you that 30 or so Tamils have just won first prize of a cushy life in Aus, because their hijack and subsequent blackmail of the Australian Govt paid off handsomely!"

You managed to combine a fair bit of rubbish and spin in that one sentence Yabby - well done! If it was 30, then that is 38% acceptance - a definite improvement on the 90%, and even better than our acceptance rate of people who arrive by air. And this is a bad outcome? If true, it was a very poor effort from 78 given the strong negotiating position they found themselves in. I agree they should never have been in that negotiating position of course. When Indonesia said no to allowing them to get off, they should have been taken to Christmas Island for normal processing. But I am repeating myself - as I said ages ago they would extract favoured treatment and I thought this was a bad thing.

And as for hijack and blackmail - you still haven't managed to explain how answering the question "do you wish to leave" honestly is either.

Yabby: "Did you threaten to stay on the bus? No? So your comparison is
laughable."

How does that effect the analogy? You don't give any reasoning, instead justifying your position with a laugh. A high pitched, nervous one perhaps?

Yabby: "The whole saga had become a joke, Ruddick had
got it right all along."

Since Rudd has it right all along, I presume the 90% acceptance rate was right all along as well. (Just a reminder - it was the 90% acceptance we were discussing, and now you say Rudd got it right.) And given we still process them offshore without access to lawyers and appeals, I presume we still have it right. Excellent. We are in almost in agreement then.

*If it was 30, then that is 38% acceptance - a definite improvement on the 90%*

You are digging yourself an ever deeper hole here Rstuart, but its
fun to watch :). I remind you that the rest might still be
accepted, so its far from over. But you seemingly have no problems
with the fact that the war is now over, something which you
previously conceded, is now a major factor.

So the sensible thing to do is not give in to blackmail, as you
suggested, but transport the whole lot back to Sri Lanka.
Any who first chose to disembark in Indonesia, could have done
so.

There would of course have been loud wails of protest from the
bleating hearts, but the message would soon have spread around
Sri Lanka, that Australia is not a gullible and soft touch
anymore. That is how you stop the boats.

*You don't give any reasoning, instead justifying your position with a laugh.*

So on one hand, we have a little old man meekly getting off a bus
at the bus stop, OTOH we have 78 refusing to get off a ship for
a month, accusing the crew of mistreating them, so things clearly
got nasty and you can't see the difference? How much time and money
did the bus lose because of you, rstuart? What about taxpayers
and the Ocean Viking? Come clean, your analogy is purely ridiculous!

One was a request, the other a hijack. For a month, the Ocean
Viking could not go about its business.

Yes Ruddick got it right. He changed the 90% and stopped the boats.
Rudd just caved in to blackmail, as we have all observed.

Yabby: "you previously conceded [the war is now over] is now a major factor."

There you go making things up again Yabby. I said that if refugee status is claimed by someone fleeing a peaceful village because a nearby war might overrun it, it becomes a bit hard to justify once the war ends. As for the war ending - it isn't a major factor, yet. We can only be sure refugees can be repatriated safely once foreign media has had free access for several months, and the Sri Lankan's keep their noses clean during that time.

Yabby: "So the sensible thing to do is not give in to blackmail, as you suggested"

Oi! Stop making things up! Or maybe you are instead having trouble separating your dark fantasies from reality? If so, let me help you out. I made it clear I don't believe there was any blackmail, so I could hardly suggest we give into it.

Yabby: ".. a little old man meekly ... 78 refusing to get off a ship for a month ... accusing the crew of mistreating them ... What about taxpayers and the Ocean Viking?"

The definition of hijack and blackmail has nothing to do with meekness, or whether the old man said he was mistreated. The refugees didn't refuse to get off. They refused to tell a lie (ie they refused to say they wanted to go to Indonesia when they didn't), and hence were not allowed off by the Indonesians. Taxpayers being inconvenienced by refugees is part of the deal when you sign the convention. You may not like it, but don't blame the refugees.

Yabby: "He changed the 90% and stopped the boats"

I think I am wearing you down, as you are having trouble making a point without introducing a new lie. Ruddock set the 90% benchmark - he didn't change it, as you full well know. Yes, he may have stopped the boats, but maybe there was a lull in various wars, it's hard to tell.

RStuart says: “I agree [the Oceanic Viking hijackers] should never have been in that negotiating position of course”

But [ knock, knock!], they were only perceived to be a “strong negotiating” position because people like RStuart are so ready to give in to their demands and so ready to accept virtually any pretence of refugee status. What do you suppose would have been the outcome if the asylum seekers cum hijackers had tried that caper in a situation where both the rescuing ship and the port were Asian?
Answer: they would have been promptly packed off home .

RStuart says: When Indonesia said no to allowing them to get off, they should have been taken to Christmas Island for normal processing.”
First, “Indonesia “ didn’t stop them from doing anything – Indonesian officials refused to forcibly remove them.( probably because they knew that our gutless politicians would eventual cave-in and take them off their hands!)

But it does point to some interesting future scenarios. What happens next time an Australian vessel, be it cruise ship, customs ship, take your pick, in any hala refugee zone, is boarded/occupied? do they follow the RStuart formula and without further ado high-tail it to Christmas Island?

RStuart says: “Wild because the war they are fleeing from is now over so if it didn't succeed before they have no hope now.”
This merits being added to the anthology of infamous predictions.( maybe channel 9 will run a 20-1 with it coming out as number ONE for the most idiotic prediction made!)

As Yabby has pointed out it is likely to have minimal impact –and why should it! Many of our “refugee” intake have never been near a war zone

To prevent boat people from successfully transitioning to asylum seekers, the Government can apply an unambiguous policy that's humane, clear and consistent:

Those entering territorial waters will be promptly removed to a UN refugee facility and will automatically be ineligible for future entry.

Humane: safe transport to a UN facility.

Clear: all who attempt to enter by sea will loose any chance of a future visa.

Consistent: same procedure every time an arrival is detected.

And one more thing:

In response to Yaddy’s comment about the expense of the Oceanic Vikings enforced stay in port, RStuart says: “Taxpayers being inconvenienced by refugees is part of the deal when you sign the convention.”

Well , NO it isn’t !
Neither any sea rescue protocol, nor any refugee protocol envisages that those accepting your help would then sit put on your boat and refuse to leave till they were delivered to a shortlist of ports ( i.e. affluent western countries) . And, nothing better than this act illustrates that in this case at least, it was largely about shopping for a better economic clime –not safety.

The fact that RStuart thinks this is “Part of the deal when you sign the convention” shows his limited understanding of the convention.

Native
You’ve make some good suggestions –suggestions that could be worked-and developed.
The only fly in the ointment will be that any policy that seeks to designate an ineligible zone will be seen as mean-spirited, inhumane and just pain yucky by most of the refugee advocates.How do you propose to sell it to them?

I was mulling over another approach –a contra-swap : how about we swap RStaurt for 10 asylum seekers.
We would by RStuarts account end up with 10 fine entrepreneurial types, and they (the oppressors) would get one crusty old crusader who could update them about human rights and the proper treatment of prisoners---I would feel a bit guilty though! I mean,about us ripping then off like that –surely it must contravene some trade practises act.

Horus.You are a funny man. A real hoot.Poor old Rs
Oh - one other alternative.
Sink the boats.

Socratease

In response to Horus' comment:

"The only fly in the ointment will be that any policy that seeks to designate an ineligible zone will be seen as mean-spirited, inhumane and just pain yucky by most of the refugee advocates. How do you propose to sell it to them?"

Refugee advocates will, of course, have every opportunity to publicly express their views prior to a national referendum on the issue, which could be held at the time of the next Federal election.

Shall we start a referendum petition to the Parliament?

*I said that if refugee status is claimed by someone fleeing a peaceful village because a nearby war might overrun it, it becomes a bit hard to justify once the war ends*

Sheesh rstuart, did it never occur to you that if some parts of
Sri Lanka are safe for Tamils, that other Tamils could actually
move there? No need to come to Australia, unless of course you
want the cushy lifestyle we provide. Do you have absolutaly
no reasoning skills?

* I made it clear I don't believe there was any blackmail,*

The word was commonly used by commentators in the press. It certainly
was in my book too. Or in your language, the taxpayer got screwed.

*The refugees didn't refuse to get off.*

They certainly did refuse to get off.

*I think I am wearing you down,*

Hehe, so you think so :) Only one thing restricts me rstuart and this
is only two posts per day allowed.

*Ruddock set the 90% benchmark - he didn't change it,*

Not so rstuart. He took things offshore, which meant no more
lawyers and appeals, the figures improved. No more boats improved
things even more.

rstuart: "Ruddock set the 90% benchmark - he didn't change it"
Yabby: "Not so rstuart."

This is definitely a new phase. You have gone from inventing new things to directly contradicting stuff you relied on before. If was you who first introduced quoted Paul Sheehan's 90% figure. Banjo helpfully found the link to where Ruddock said it was the figure for when he was in office. Now you claim the real figure was something else?

Yabby: "They certainly did refuse to get off."

Did they? It is a very popular way of describing what happened, but it is at odds with this quote http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/rudd-urges-jakarta-to-honour-deal-to-process-oceanic-viking-asylum-seekers/story-e6frg6nf-1225794543883

"We ban the Australian vessel carrying 78 Sri Lankan migrants from coming ashore at Kijang port. We order the navy and the police to enforce this," said Ismeth Abdullah, the governor of Riau Islands.

We could not ask them to get off - so how could they possibly refuse? Eventually Indonesia gave us some wiggle room in the form of a condition: the refugees had to want to have their claims heard in Indonesia. Once we got to that point guess what - the refugees were happy to get off! Not one refusal, Yabby, despite the word being used repeatedly in the popular press.

Yabby: "The word [blackmail] was commonly used by commentators in the press."

Yes, it was, but the same popular press said they refused to get off. They got it wrong in both cases. And rather than treating the populist crap they dished out with the disdain it deserves, you apparently lapped it up.

Yabby: "Sheesh rstuart, did it never occur to you that if some parts of Sri Lanka are safe for Tamils, that other Tamils could actually
move there?"

Err, Yabby. Sri Lanka isn't Australia. There is no centre link office in the next town. No food, no shelter and no jobs for the 256,000 that were displaced. And even if there was, if my government had just spent the last few days shelling my village I would not be stopping to see if they treated the next one any differently.

Ah Rstuart, you remain confused by the rundown of events.
From your very own article I quote you:-

*they are refusing to disembark and Indonesia has effectively argued while they remain on an Australian vessel they are Australia's problem.*

From the very moment that the 78 were rescued, the crew would
have made it plain for where they were sailing, ie not to Australia.
Once aware that their little ploy had failed, the 78 made it plain
that they refuse to disembark in Indonesia, for Australia was
where they wanted to go. That is where "refuse" comes from.

The Govenor of the State was a minor irritant, for the ship could
have sailed to another port. Rudd had agreements with higher
echelons of Govt then a mere underling.

In the end, only bribery got them off the ship. For a month, the
ship was effectively held hostage, unable to go about its business.
The Govt had no choice but to give in to blackmail.

*There is no centre link office in the next town. No food, no shelter*

Shocking hey. Amazingly billions live and cope in the third world,
without the things that you spoiled Aussie, could not dream of a
life without. Never mind that they have tens of thousands of $
to pay people smugglers, enough to live in the third world quite
well for years! So these are not the downtrodden, they went to
India. These are the relatively rich, who want an ever richer life
in Aus. And you sucker, fall for the ploy, whilst the real
refugees are in refugee camps around the world, without 5c to their
name.

Yabby: "the 78 made it plain that they refuse to disembark in Indonesia"

Did they? You have a quote from an authoritative source to that effect? Even if they did, it was an empty threat - so it could not lead to a hijack. From http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1120132/%27Nasty-scene%27-likely-on-Oceanic-Viking we see Rudd was considering forcing them off:

"The opposition believes a nasty scenario could unfold on the Oceanic Viking if 78 asylum seekers refuse to get off the ship. Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone has taken Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to task for failing to rule out the use of force in getting them off the customs vessel."

And don't you love the "if 78 asylum seekers refuse to get off the ship" bit. Unlike you, the opposition didn't believe they had refused to do so.

Yabby: "From your very own article I quote you:"

Would you believe I had to wade through 10 or so newspaper articles before I found one that even mentioned the Indonesian refused to let them land? And after finding one that did, I copy and pasted the wrong link. Sorry about that. Here is one that describes what actually happened:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/indonesia-governor-rebels-on-refugees-20091027-hj39.html

Yabby: "The Govenor of the State was a minor irritant, for the ship could have sailed to another port."

You mean you knew all along how our government could avoided this month long saga, and avoided giving the 78 special treatment and you didn't tell anybody? And it was so simple - just sail to another port. Why didn't anybody else think of that. You're a genius!

Yabby: "Amazingly billions live and cope in the third world,"

Not so amazing when you think about it, as most of those billions aren't being shelled by their own government. And rest assured Yabby, despite your illusions of how nice life must be in the middle or a war zone many people who find themselves in one end up becoming refugees. Maybe you should take a holiday in one to show the world what weak spined namby pambies we native Auzzies really are?

Its as though the walls are too thin, with those two loud lovers, rstuart and Yabby, gushing all over each other. I s'pose they'll eventually collapse, exhausted and perspiring from their tireless exertions, finally devoid of all rational argument. Already you can see that's not too far off now...

RStuart still clings to the notion that the occupiers all along wanted to leave the Oceanic Viking but were prevented from doing so.

“Would you believe I had to wade through 10 or so newspaper articles before I found one that even mentioned the Indonesian refused to let them land?”

Translation: IT TOOK ME ALL THAT TIME BEFORE I COULD CHERRY PICK A QUOTE THAT SEEMED TO CONFIRM MY DELUSION.

Yes RStuart, the whole media world is part of a giant conspiracy to hide the truth ( psst! Perhaps they’re in the pay of Sri Lankan govt agents).
And all along the passengers on the Oceanic Viking wanted to leave –but no one would let them disembark!

PULL THE OTHER LEG ---LOL

The rest of the world has a different story:

[The SMH ]
http://www.smh.com.au/world/indonesia-wants-to-find-the-australian-solution-20091102-htg1.html
“with those refusing to disembark from the Oceanic Viking”

[ The Straits Times –Singapore]
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_456056.html
“DOZENS of Sri Lankan asylum seekers left an Australian customs ship in Indonesia on Wednesday, ending a three-week protest over their claims for refugee status.”

[ The Indian News –Bangkok]
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/lankans-using-civil-war-as-excuse-to-seek-asylum-envoy_100271656.html#ixzz0YXkxmTWH
“Australia has been trying for two weeks to persuade the group of ethnic Tamils to voluntarily disembark the Oceanic Viking and enter the Tanjung Pinang Detention Centre on the Indonesian island of Bintan. But the group has refused, adamant they want to be taken to Australia even though they were rescued in international waters within Indonesia’s search and rescue zone.”

Your delusion about them wanting to disembark is only bettered by your delusion that the Refugee Convention is one giant soup kitchen .
And wanting to upgrade to a better economic clime is sufficient to qualify as a refugee!

Native
RStuart well illustrates the sought of denialist mentality you’ll have to content with to get your suggestions through.

Great post Horus! Methinks that rstuart is just playing silly
buggers now, fully aware that his point is ridiculous, so is digging
himself a deeper and deeper hole, rather then admit defeat.

Rstuart, this from your very own SBS URL:

*The group of Sri Lankans is refusing to leave the Oceanic Viking, which is moored off Bintan Island.
They are also refusing health and identity checks.*

The question of Rudd using force would hardly have arisen, if the
78 had not refused to get off the boat. Even a slow learner like
yourself would have to concede that.

*And it was so simple - just sail to another port. Why didn't anybody else think of that.*

It was openly discussed, but then people were aware that the real
problem was the 78 refusing to leave the ship, not what the underling
was saying. So not my idea at all.

*despite your illusions of how nice life must be in the middle or a war zone many people who find themselves in one end up becoming refugees*

I never claimed it was nice, I claimed that people deal with it,
they move out of the war zone. People in Gaza, Lebanon, Israel,
Iraq, Afghanistan etc, don't all leave and travel halfway around
the world.

As I have shown, there are plenty of safe places right there
in Sri Lanka. But in your view, a life without Centrelink is
seemingly unlivable! Perhaps you should get out more, go spend
some time in the third world.

Fact is that it gave rich Tamils a great excuse for a life in
the first world. Poor Tamils went to India or stayed in Sri Lanka.

So much for a so called humanitarian programme, actually helping
the most deserving. It certainly helps the most opportunistic!

Yabby: "The question of Rudd using force would hardly have arisen, if the 78 had not refused to get off the boat."

But since they hadn't refused to get off the boat, it was phrased as purely a hypothetical question - or didn't you notice?

Yabby: "I never claimed it was nice, I claimed that people deal with it, they move out of the war zone."

Which you are happy to see them do. I know that because you said above the current Sri Lankan refugees arriving here should have joined their 80,00 mates in Tamil Nadu. You are happy to see them go anywhere really, so long as it isn't here. That is the bottom line, isn't it Yabby?

I gather you have conceded:

- The Oceanic Viking could not have just gone to another port.
- The opposition didn't believe they had refused to get off.
- Philip Ruddock didn't actually change the 90% figure, he set it.
- Indonesia did in fact ban the refugees from getting off.
- You don't have an authoritative link saying they actually refused to get off the ship when it was legally possible, or indeed even when in transit to Indonesia.

native,

Given you have caught me in the middle lovers tiff, I hope you forgive me for giving most of my attention to Yabby. I swear without OLO word and post limits, I would have responded to you sooner.

"Those entering territorial waters will be promptly removed to a UN refugee facility and will automatically be ineligible for future entry."

There are no UN controlled refugee facilities. Refugee facilities are ultimately controlled by a country that can accept or refuse entry. Australia's Christmas Island refugee facility is a typical example. How likely are we to accept other countries shipping their refugees to Christmas Island? Well, spin that around and you will get an idea of how likely other countries are to accept Australia's unwanted refugees. I think you will find the reaction from Ismeth Abdullah above fairly typical. It is, after all, the reaction Yabby is promoting here.

*But since they hadn't refused to get off the boat,*

Yes they did refuse to get off the boat. Many press sources have
confirmed that.

*You are happy to see them go anywhere really, so long as it isn't here. That is the bottom line, isn't it Yabby?*

Not so rstuart, read it slowly, so you understand what I believe.

A humanitarian programme should be for the most needy and deserving,
not the richer and more opportunistic. Young healthy males with
lots of money, are not the most needy. Our system is being misused
by economic migrants able to push their way in, through loopholes
in the system. I have no objection to Australia taking the same
number from refugee camps, where we know they are genuine.

*I gather you have conceded:*

I haven't conceded anything, you just dream this stuff up as you
go along.

Sure the boat could have gone to another port. The opposition never
said that they never believed that the 78 had refused to get off.
Phillip Ruddick started with 90%, so he set about to change it
and improve it, which he eventually did. It took some years.
Indonesia never banned them getting off, some underling tried to
stop them getting off in his port.
I haven't bothered to search for your "authoratative link" as you
call it, for it was confirmed in press story after story, with
journalists at the scene. Nobody in the press even dreamt of
questioning that one, as they knew it was correct. Only an rsuart
on OLO, desperate not to lose an argument, is dreaming that up.

Yabby: "I haven't conceded anything, you just dream this stuff up as you go along."

There is some truth in that. But I have to guess what you are thinking, as rather than peruse a point to a logical conclusion you just go silent and move off in some other direction. What am I supposed to think? You keep forgetting the thread, perhaps?

Yabby: "Sure the boat could have gone to another port."

Then explain why Rudd endured all the bad publicity, rather than just going to another port.

Yabby: "Phillip Ruddick started with 90%, so he set about to change it and improve it, which he eventually did"

So you claim. But you can't or won't support the claim with links. For me such claims may as well be fantasies, and I don't enjoy discussing your fantasies, Yabby.

Yabby: "Indonesia never banned them getting off, some underling tried to stop them getting off in his port."

Tried to stop them? He did more than try - he did stop them for a month. In the link I gave that "underling" said: "Unless there's an order from the President, the ship cannot come ashore". Well the order did come, but evidently it was along the lines of "you must accept the refugees if they come ashore voluntarily". They actually insisted boarding the ship and verifying it is really was voluntarily: "we need to ensure they disembark voluntarily" http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2742794.htm

Yabby: "was confirmed in press story after story, with journalists at the scene"

So provide a link to the press story.

Yabby: "as they knew it was correct."

Oh, so they are just like you? They don't have to ask, they don't need evidence, as they already "know" the truth.

rstuart: "You are happy to see them go anywhere really"
Yabby: "Not so rstuart"
Yabby: "Those from the war zone, would have hopped across to India, which is just a very few miles away. 130'000 did exactly that."

You go to such lengths to daemonise the refugees coming here, but it seemed it was perfectly fine for 130,000 to flee to India.

RStuart,
Here is the ---primary document--- the “message” sent from the Dept of immigration to the “passengers” of the Oceanic Viking: http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/letter_2035.pdf

Have a geeza –there are six references to their need to leave the ship, & special enticements attached to each mention.
Line 3--“after you leave the ship”
Line 8--“ from the time you disembark the vessel”
Line 12--“from the time you disembark the vessel”
Line 15 ---“from the time you disembark the vessel”
Line 16-- “When you are safely onshore”
Line 35--“Once you have disembarked the vessel”

But there is NOT A SINGLE reference to them being afraid or prevented from disembarking.

It addresses issues like English classes & family contacts, but NEVER ONCE raises the issue that they were afraid to disembark.

And another thing of pertinence to the claim that "passengers" might be too fearful to disembark, or banned. You might recall that a Tamil by the name of Alex is – currently-- running an Oceanic-Viking.2 standoff in another Indonesian port.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/end-tamil-boat-sit-in-pleads-mother-of-alex/story-e6frg6nf-1225805928615

Repeat: He is the ringleader and it is STILL ON-GOING .If anyone is likely to be banned or fearful it is likely to be him.

But have a geeza at yesterdays Australian newspaper (the link doesn’t show the picture –but the hardcopy/paper does) .There Alex is bold-as-brass kneeling on the Indonesian shore next to his mum whose is visiting from Canada ( his sit-in "passenger" who he is orchestrating are still on the ship)They apparently are free to come and go as they wish. As could the "passengers" of the Oceanic Viking,if they so wished.

*What am I supposed to think? You keep forgetting the thread, perhaps?*

Not so rstuart. I am limited to two posts a day at 350 words and
frankly many of your points are so ridiculous, its hardly worth
the bother responding.

*So provide a link to the press story.*

I provided you two of your very own links which clearly stated, that
they refused to get off the boat, just in the last couple of days or
so. But I'll tell you something rstuart, I've been on the net since
1995, so I know the games that are played. Sending people on
constant link searches for frivolous reasons, is an old ploy and
a huge time waster. I don't play that game, I have a basic
request that a poster at least show a little bit of intelligence and
common sense. If after reading all those press reports, you are
still not aware that the 78 refused to get off the boat, then nobody
can help you lol, or you are playing games. So I play on my terms,
not your terms.

*Then explain why Rudd endured all the bad publicity, rather than just going to another port.*

Because the port was ultimately not the problem, the 78 getting off
the boat was. Only bribery changed that in the end.

*So you claim. But you can't or won't support the claim with links.*

Ruddock was Immigration Minister from 96-2003. The Pacific solution
was introduced in 2001. Boat people figures for 2001 were 5516,
for 2002 they were 1. Rudd is still using many policies that
Ruddock introduced.

*You go to such lengths to daemonise the refugees coming here, but it seemed it was perfectly fine for 130,000 to flee to India.*

So if you can go 30 miles or so to be safe from war, why would
you go thousands of miles, spending tens of thousands of $, unless
you wanted more then refuge from war?

rstuart

If it was said of me, which it was on one of these threads recently, that I had the patience of a saint, you my boy have the patience of ten. :)

I at least had some others arguing the case with me too, whereas here you appear to be doing it on your own. But, I hasten to add, outgunning your opposition with total ease nonetheless.

I haven't followed the thread closely, but a quick skim reveals the same old Yabby swimming around in the same tired old circles clinging doggedly to the same old simplistic and misguided 'solutions'. :)

Yabby

<< So if you can go 30 miles or so to be safe from war, why would you go thousands of miles, spending tens of thousands of $, unless you wanted more then refuge from war? >>

Because, if you attempt to cross to India now, the Sri Lankan naval crackdown will see you shot at, arrested and your boat sunk, that's why.

Bronwyn,
Far from struggling on heroically as you seem to imply RStaurts posts are getting more and more obtuse. He is coming more and more to sound like Sergeant Schultz from the 60’s series Hogans Heroes
"I know nothing–NOTHING! .....
I see nothing !
I comprehend nothing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q

And Bronwyn, your point : “ Because, if [ the Tamils] attempt to cross to India now, the Sri Lankan naval crackdown will see you shot at, arrested and your boat sunk, that's why.”
doesn’t make sense .
Over 130,000 have done just that ,crossed to India.

And anyone how knows a little bit about geography –and we know from past instances geography is not one of your strong points–will know that however big the detour, going to India is much, much easier and quicker and safer than diverting across the Pacific to OZ.

So, sorry, your little –justification- just doesn’t hold up as a credible reason for choosing to sail east to OZ

Bronwyn,

Ta. I was feeling lonely here.

Yabby: "I am limited to two posts a day at 350 words"

Words in last 5 posts:
you: 326, 274, 299, 274, 194.
me: 350, 348, 344, 350, 337.

The evidence makes a mockery of your excuse.

Yabby: "I provided you two of your very own links which clearly stated, that they refused to get off the boat"

For all I know their statements could just be opinion. I no more trust them to get it right than I trust you. Find one with attribution or evidence to support the statement.

Yabby: "I've been on the net since 1995 ... I know the games that are played"

If challenged on a fact I provide a link, or cease to rely on it. I am only asking you adhere to the same standard. I don't see how informed debate can be held without keeping to that standard. If you have been on the net for 14 years, you shouldn't have trouble backing up your claims. If after 14 years you can't it's not unreasonable to assume they are rubbish.

Yabby: "Because the port was ultimately not the problem, the 78 getting off the boat was."

You have been reduced to blathering Yabby. The port would not allow them off until conditions were met, and they insisted on verifying they were met by speaking individually to each of the 78. So either the 78 lied, or they had to be given a good enough deal to make them want to be processed in Indonesia. If the port hadn't taken that attitude they could have been marched off immediately.

Yabby: "Boat people figures for 2001 were 5516, for 2002 they were 1."

The figure in 2003 was 86, and 157 in 1997. But this is irrelevant. You introduced Ruddock's 90% figure to contrast it so Indonesia's 10%. You are now claiming it was not 90%, despite we having links to Ruddock's saying it was. Prove it.

Yabby: "unless you wanted more then refuge from war"

Only you could claim someone would want to be a refugee.

Horus

<< And Bronwyn, your point : “ Because, if [ the Tamils] attempt to cross to India now, the Sri Lankan naval crackdown will see you shot at, arrested and your boat sunk, that's why.” doesn’t make sense. Over 130,000 have done just that ,crossed to India. >>

Many have made their way through in the past, but it's virtually impossible to do so now, as both the Indian and the Sri Lankan naval crackdowns intensify. Besides which the camps in Tamil Nadu are already overflowing and conditions in them described as squalid. Additionally, many Tamils have family connections in Australia which for them makes Australia an understandable and sensible choice of refuge.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sri-lankan-navy-forcing-refugees-further-afield/story-e6frg6nf-1225797145692

<< ... and we know from past instances geography is not one of your strong points ... >>

This is just another in a long line of unsupported and defamatory claims from you. I and I'm sure most other readers will treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Hell,Bron,what are u doing? It's a leaky boat full of megalomaniacs. Get off before it goes down in over-inflated egos

socratease

* you my boy *

Ho-ho-ho, along comes mother hen Bronnie, to rescue one of her
chickens in distress :)

I remind you that right now the war is over and yes, right now
the navy is cleaning up the last of the LTTE terrorists. So those
fleeing are unlikely to be refugees and highly likely to be
fugatives who used to bomb and maim. Meantime, as Horus points
out, given that 130'000 crossed to India, its clearly been the easy
and sensible option.

*The evidence makes a mockery of your excuse*

Rstuart, as your arguments become more and more like Schultz, I bother
less and less.

* For all I know their statements could just be opinion.*

Yet they are writing the information about refusal, as fact. Nobody
is disputing that, its not even an issue in the press, just something
that rstuart dreamed up when he was desperate. Sorry, but I won't
waste time on that kind of crap. Go chasing your own tail, if you
are bored lol.

*If challenged on a fact I provide a link*

Well good on you. I respond to serious, intelligent questions,
not game playing. Go and find a link which disputes what other
journalists are claiming as fact.

*If the port hadn't taken that attitude they could have been marched off immediately.*

Not so, for the initial agreement was made with one of the Indonesian
Govt Ministers, no force, but patience would be used. Highly likely
that in the negotiations, our Mr Smith made in plain that our Govt
did not want force used, for its the common Indonesian method.
Both Govts were aware that the press was everywhere.

*You are now claiming it was not 90%, despite we having links to Ruddock's saying it was*

What I am claiming rstuart, is that when Ruddock took on the job,
figures were 90% as he claimed. One reason being the endless
appeals that were taking place. By bringing in the Pacific solution,
Ruddock got rid of the endless appeals, so improving the figures.

RStaurt would have us believe that the “passengers” on the Oceanic Viking were only ever naïve pawns .

He challenges us to provide contrary evidence –but when presented with it
i) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9668#156852
ii) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9668#156926
He ignores it.

In his own words preferring to “wade through 10 or so newspaper articles before [he ] found one that even mentioned the Indonesian refused to let them land?”

Now, consider his --someone was blocking them-- argument:
Did local officials show opposition to the “passengers” (re-)landing –you bet!
Like most officials in Asia they didn’t relish the prospect of having foreigners relocated to their fiefdoms-- even if it was to Aussie funded facilities.

But these “passengers” had dealt with Indonesian officialdom before -- remember they had lived illegal in Indonesia for years!

Lack of popularity with local authorities had never fazed them previously –and, it didn’t faze them this time either.
Note some of their acts damningly highlighted in this article:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pm-ke-rudds-indonesia-plan-all-at-sea-as-boatpeople-threaten-suicide/story-e6frg6nf-1225791914095
i)”they refused to give personal details to Indonesian immigration officials”
ii) “some had threatened to kill themselves
iii)”were prepared to die rather than be taken to Indonesia”
iv) had been co-ordinating tactics with the other sit-in boat at Merak ( who by the way were threatening to blow-up their ship!)
Hardly meek fearful types !

The reality is it wasn’t “bans” that were keeping them on the ship. It was the ships value as a blackmailing base. They came ashore only after they had extorted suitable concessions
And they didn’t disembark enmass--- but in two distinct groups, days apart.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/20-sri-lankans-ready-to-leave-boat-20091112-icld.html
“The head of Indonesia's department of immigration, Basyir Ahmad Barmawi, said: ‘'There are 20 Sri Lankans on board who said they are willing to be placed in detention’.''

And when they went ashore, they had to be kept separate from other detainees who were jealous of their special conditions
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-staff-were-involved-in-oceanic-viking-deal-20091116-ii9x.html
“A source at the Tanjung Pinang detention centre said the Sri Lankans had been separated from other detainees out of fear they would be targeted for receiving special treatment”.

All of which puts a lie to RStuarts huddled fearful mass scenario/concoction.

rstuart: "If challenged on a fact I provide a link"

Yabby: "I respond to serious, intelligent questions, not game playing."

Odd that Yabby. So do I. But you have to figure out whether the other person is playing a game. It can be hard to tell. So when someone claims something is true that is new to me, I insist they provide had evidence.

A statement that "the refugees refused to disembark" isn't evidence, unless it came from someone in authority on the ship. Even the Prime Ministers have been known to make statements similar to "the children were thrown overboard", without attribution that later turn out to be wrong. So a bland statement from a journalist doesn't cut it. It must have a source, a date, a place - something to anchor it to reality.

You refuse to provide that anchor. Not once, but over and over again. So by my reckoning you are playing a game. Bronwyn always maintained that of course, but me being the pendant I am needed hard evidence. Well, I have it now.

To me it is a bit worse than that. If you aren't discussing reality, you are discussing a fantasy. Yours in this case. That is not something I enjoy doing, so it is goodbye from me.

RStuart says:
--“A statement that "the refugees refused to disembark" isn't evidence, unless it came from someone in authority on the ship. ---Hogwash!

-- You [ Yabby] refuse to provide that anchor. Not once, but over and over again. So by my reckoning you are playing a game. Bronwyn always maintained that of course, but me being the pendant I am needed hard evidence. Well, I have it now.” ----What childishness !

RStuart demands standards of evidence from his opponents, he does not, and can not meet.

Apparently it’s kosher for him to cherry pick journalists reports when they suit : “ Would you believe I had to wade through 10 or so newspaper articles before I found one that even mentioned the Indonesian refused to let them land?”.But it’s not kosher for anyone else to present contrary journalistic opinion.

But he is right about one thing, it was about fantasy –his fantasy– a weird belief he harbours that he is the final arbiter of what is right and reasonable.

*isn't evidence, unless it came from someone in authority on the ship.*

Well I grant you rstuart, that this is indeed a clever ploy to get
out of the hopeless situation that you are in on this thread!

Desperate people will use desperate measures I suppose.

Fact is that correspondant after correspondant, reporting from
Indonesia on this story, claim that it's true. The Indonesian
Minister dealing with this issue claimed it was true, when
he appeared on Lateline.

Perhaps the ship's captain does indeed write a blog on the internet,
telling the world of his situation. Last I knew, he would report
to our Govt in private and not post his information on the internet,
for rstuart to be content. But of course moving goalposts around
is a common ploy, you are not the first to do it. Perhaps it will
save you further embarrasment on this thread, for your position
was hopeless.

In fact rstuart has not been able to show a single correspondant who
shares his concerns and claims. Not a link, nothing.

Bronnie of course admits to hardly reading the posts, so she did
what she commonly does on OLO, ie show her motherly concerns,
make a couple of claims and then flit away without further discussion.

Neither of you have been able to justify why a humanitarian programme
should not be focussed on the most needy and deserving, instead
of the wealthier and opportunistic. Its all heart on your sleeve
stuff.

Horus, thanks for your many great posts.

>>Neither of you have been able to justify why a humanitarian programme should not be focussed on the most needy and deserving, instead of the wealthier and opportunistic. Its all heart on your sleeve stuff.<<

Maybe I can help out there Yabby.

A humanitarian program should be focussed on those most deserving. In fact, Howard's approach to border protection made sure that refugees coming here who perhaps weren't as deserving as some others, soon became precisely that. So I think your argument falls over there.

The problem with taking migrants from refugee camps as you've suggested before is the potential problem governments can get into in terms of why did they pick person A and not person B (as there will be many more left behind than are taken). Once the government goes down that path, there could be a lot of pressure brought to bear on it to make exceptions. I think you know this and are hoping that will happen so that the weight of public opinion will kill such a scheme outright.

So, the Government hangs ten as it were and processes the relatively few arrivals that come here by boat and probably justifies it as helping those who self-select and take the risk to help themselves. To the Government, it's the least bad option politically.

BTW, you've yet to make the argument for why *none* that come here by boat are worthy of becoming Australian citizens.

*The problem with taking migrants from refugee camps as you've suggested before is the potential
problem governments can get into in terms of why did they pick person A and not person B*

What you are implying RobP, is that our Govt is too stupid to come up with a fair
system. Now I don’t have much respect for Canberra’s abilities, but I seemingly
give them more credit then you do! To come up with a fair system, would surely
not be rocket science.

Anyone with an ounce of reasoning skills, would have to admit that the debacle
of a system that we have now, is not only highly contradictory, but is also
the cause of much of the problems that we face.

On the one hand, we offer people a cushy Aussie lifestyle if they can
jump through the hoops and afford it, OTOH we make the hoops
as difficult as possible. Our PM preaches about the “evils of people smugglers”
when it is his Govt’s first prize that creates the people smuggling industry
in the first place! Hardly rational policy and Indonesia could well claim that
it is our fault, that thousands of potential applicants are in Indonesia,
aiming for gold. In other words, our policy is the cause of their problem.

So what we have is pain all around, caused by us. People would not risk
their lives and money, if none were getting through. For every one that
gets through, there are a whole bunch of desperate individuals who did
not make it. We give people hope, then destroy that hope. Hardly
rational.

Next we have the issue of the huge resources wasted, by our contradictory
policy. Add it all up and it would be huge money. Then the money wasted
by those to whom we have given hope and then fought off with sticks.

So it is my contention that the present debacle of a system is sadly bogged
down in politics, but what it needed is a bipartisan solution, for everyone’s
benefit, to solve this problem once and for all.

>>What you are implying RobP, is that our Govt is too stupid to come up with a fair system. Now I don’t have much respect for Canberra’s abilities, but I seemingly give them more credit then you do!<<

Yabby,

Stop treating me like an idiot. I'm not implying the Government is stupid at all - I'm sure they've got more and more canny over the years. The problem I was referring to was the political problem they run when they take on such a scheme. If Oz goes it solo and takes a big bunch from a refugee camp, the UN or other interest groups could over time start exploiting that to get more and more in on the basis of "you took in person A so why not person B?" That would mean lots of political heat for the Government - that's all I was referring to.

'Boat people' will become 'asylum seekers' until the Government has an unambiguous policy that is humane, clear and consistent. For example:

Humane: safe and prompt transport to a UN refugee facility.

Clear: all 'boat people' are ineligible for future entry.

Consistent: same procedure every time an arrival is detected.

*If Oz goes it solo and takes a big bunch from a refugee camp, the UN or other interest groups could over time start exploiting that to get more and more in on the basis of "you took in person A so why not person B?" That would mean lots of political heat for the Government - that's all I was referring to.*

RobP, now you have me confused. For it was my understanding that
we already take the bulk of our annual 13'000 refugees from
refugee camps. I have not seen the details, but I assume that
we would have a fair method in place, for selecting those. We would
already be facing the problem that you raise above.

As it happens now, boat people get priority in terms of numbers,
whatever is left of the quota is then filled from refugee camps.

Less boat people equates to more genuine refugees from refugee
camps being assisted

>>RobP, now you have me confused. For it was my understanding that we already take the bulk of our annual 13'000 refugees from refugee camps.<<

That's what I understand as well from reading these threads.

>>I have not seen the details, but I assume that we would have a fair method in place, for selecting those. We would already be facing the problem that you raise above.<<

When you are picking a bunch of people from a refugee camp of a couple of hundred thousand, there is no way you can fairly rank all of them. There has to be an element of eenie meenie minie mo in who is selected to fill the quota.

>>As it happens now, boat people get priority in terms of numbers, whatever is left of the quota is then filled from refugee camps.<<

Whether or not that's the fairest way of doing things is not clear. What's clear is that these boat people have taken the risk and are mostly up for the challenge of citizenship in a new country. My understanding is they will be assessed by the Department against that criterion (amongst others like whether they've got any diseases or whether they have any obvious bad aspects in their past).

>>Less boat people equates to more genuine refugees from refugee camps being assisted<<

Actually, less economic migrants would equate to more refugees from refugee camps being assisted as well. Why doesn't that come up in discussion?

*What's clear is that these boat people have taken the risk and are mostly up for the challenge of citizenship in a new country.*

RobP, I remind you yet once again that this is meant to be a
humanitarian programme. Peoples circumstances differ hugely.

Lets look at a couple of examples of people competing for places.
On the Burma border you have refugees who fled, they have nothing.
Lets say a school teacher and his family. Then you have young
blokes from Sri Lanka, bankrolled by the their families. Money
is the difference. Yet you are saying, because the young guys with
money are taking a risk, they should get preferential treatment over
5 year old kids etc. Those Sri Lankans might well have never been
in a war zone! How on earth can a 5 year old compete?

So my point is this: Keep humanitarian programmes exactly that.

If those Sri Lankan traders etc want to enter as economic migrants,
they are free to compete with other economic migrants for a place
in Australia, as part of the economic migrants programme, not
steal places from the really needy, down and out, refugee programme.

As it happens I have a strong sense of justice and to me this whole
thing stinks to high heaven.

>>RobP, I remind you yet once again that this is meant to be a humanitarian programme.<<

As best as possible, yes.

>>Peoples circumstances differ hugely.<<

I agree. Which is one of the reasons why it's so hard to make proper assessments.

>>Yet you are saying, because the young guys with money are taking a risk, they should get preferential treatment over 5 year old kids etc. Those Sri Lankans might well have never been in a war zone! How on earth can a 5 year old compete?<<

I also said it wasn't clear whether it's the fairest way of doing things. You can always pick an example where the injustices show up. A logical extension of the argument you've just made is that there are lots of 5-year olds in the same position. How do you pick between them? Because the numbers are such that you can't take them all.

>>So my point is this: Keep humanitarian programmes exactly that.<<

As best as possible, I agree. But keep things in perspective. There are 1000 boat people coming here per year against 13000 refugees by government invitation. Refugees are currently doing quite OK. If the numbers of boat arrivals goes up as a proportion of the refugee intake, you've got a stronger argument.

>>If those Sri Lankan traders etc want to enter as economic migrants, they are free to compete with other economic migrants for a place in Australia, as part of the economic migrants programme, not steal places from the really needy, down and out, refugee programme.<<

If the Sri Lankans are just greedy traders you have a strong point. If there's also an element of persecution involved the balance flips the other way. There's still something healthy about people making the effort themselves. How the Government weighs the plethora of different factors is where the debate should be at.

>>As it happens I have a strong sense of justice ...<<

Fair enough. My approach is a mixture of justice and realism which is where we differ.

*I also said it wasn't clear whether it's the fairest way of doing things.*

RobP, what I'd say is that it's clear that its very unfair!

* How do you pick between them? Because the numbers are such that you can't take them all.*

Given the humanitarian nature of the programme, stick to those
unable to help themselves due to being refugees, then even picking
straws would be fairer then selecting by a boat race, for those
with money.

*There are 1000 boat people coming here per year *

Not quite correct. We've had 5-6000 in some years. It neeeded a
Pacific solution to keep numbers low, hardly a satisfactory
position and hardly resources spent effectively. Then we have
all these problems of encouraging people on one hand, fighting
them off with sticks with the other. Hardly logical policy.

*My approach is a mixture of justice and realism which is where we differ.*

Err hang on there. I think that the points I am making are
very realistic. You can't really claim that the present debacle
is a satisfactory solution

>>Err hang on there. I think that the points I am making are very realistic.<<

Realistic for the future perhaps - we'll have to see what happens.

>>You can't really claim that the present debacle is a satisfactory solution.<<

It's not perfect, but what's the alternative? Go back to the Pacific Solution (or worse) and be very harsh on a very few people, or share the pain around by everyone taking the rough with the smooth like is happening now? One way or another all people end up taking the rough with the smooth (look at Tiger Woods - angel one day, bad guy the next). So, the question is how to make the change. I prefer a more gradual approach.

For those interested, if you can still obtain a copy, last weekend's
Weekend Australian magazine, contains an extensive report of the
African boat trade, where an estimated 20'000 people have lost their
lives in the last decade, trying to make it to Europe.

Most are economic migrants, who want a rich European life, at
seemingly any cost. It might just open your eyes and to me its
certainly yet one more reason, why the UN 1951 Convention can be
shown to be out of date and due for a major overhaul and update.

We seem to be overlooking a very significant point here. The time wont be far off when because of global warming our pacific neighbours will lose all their homes and will need to be resettled in new homes. I believe that we should be prepared and ready and willing to admit them into our fair land,Australia. We can do without these economic free loaders turning up making demands on us and modifications on our way of life and culture. We should get rid of this lot in preference to who will soon be needing to be resettled. We will receive them happily happily I believe.

After all, Australia is our land and we have the right to admit who we want. To hell with the unworkable UN Charter 51 or whatever it is called.

socratease

Before sea level rises cause extreme destruction to areas of nearby Pacific islands to the east of Australia, here's a plan to relocate those who are unable to move to other parts of their homeland:

1. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement with the governments of threatened Pacific islands closest to Australia for the orderly reception of those who will become displaced.

2. Through cooperative arrangements with the States, the Commonwealth will designate culturally appropriate enclaves where displaced populations will initially be housed, with provision for ongoing health, welfare, education and employment.