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.