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!?