Labor is granting permanent residence to 1000s of illegal immigrants judged not to be refugees and giving them the ability to bring in hordes of relatives.

This is about a big an incentive to people traffickers as is possible.

The last time labor started the boats 1200 people died, let's see what happens this time.

Well this time there will be something humane and cost effective
for Australia -
being done for at least 19,000 people - who won't die.

Labor is fulfilling a pledge it made at the last election to end
the use of "temporary protection visas." It is allowing thousands
of refugees who have been left in "limbo" for decades and costing
Australia a fortune to be allowed to apply for permanent
residency.

About time. Now these people will be able to contribute to the
economy and the country in general instead of being maintained
and cruelly treated with no hope in sight of it ending.
The security companies have made a fortune out of this. Money
that could have been better spent.

What a joke, SM.

Let's recall Morrison's actions when Medevac passed the House. There he was bellowing that the "people smugglers" would begin again (all because we were offering decent health and medical care to our captives!)

He spent $185 million re-opening the Christmas Island detention centre - he sent 140 contractors and 14 medical staff to Christmas Island, despite there being no-one detained on the island.

The dimwit closed it again after one month, and then had the gall to tell us that closing it would save $1.2 billion.

You know as well as anyone, that the Coalition toot the "more boats" horn every time refugees are treated with a modicum of decency

They did say that they would do this prior to the election. They say now that it applies only to people who have been here prior to 2013.

They say.

The Socialists have proved that they cannot be trusted with border protection in the past, and there is no reason why they should be trusted now. Anything can happen with this mob, and it probably will.

ttbn,
The Socialists have not been in power in Australia in my lifetime, so I'd say they're irrelevant.

Of more concern is why we're continuing a cruel and expensive refugee policy when there's such a shortage of agricultural workers. The best way to stop people coming here illegally is to give them a legal alternative.

If people decide to sail the high seas in unseaworthy boats and drown as a result, then that is entirely their own problem.

But if I catch and confiscate their boats and then incarcerate them for years on an island in terrible conditions, then I am guilty of piracy and torture, for which I will stand trial before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and face the fires of hell when I die, and that IS my problem.

Even an animal that somehow finds its way into Australia (assuming it is not dangerous or carries a contagious disease) gets treated better and is allowed to stay, but these people were treated worse than animals!

I really don't know what could constitute a sufficient compensation for all their lost years.

Labor is buying votes with the money from selling the country out !

Foxy,

These 19000 illegals were judged not to be refugees and not fleeing persecution. They wouldn't die in their own countries either.

That they are now allowing these weasels to bring all their relatives into the country, we will now have many 1000s sucking on the welfare teat.

Labor once again has proven it cannot be trusted with protecting the borders.

SM,

The rednecked weasels had almost a decade in office, and what did they do about "temporary protection visas".... Nothing! What are you suggesting should be done with 19,000 people which the rednecks declared not to be refugees, just life in prison? Well Dud Dutton can give Aboriginals a rest for a couple of days, and instead bucket on refugees. Fear and hatred the hallmarks of the Liberal Party.

Just in passing - the Socialists are committing this latest atrocity CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF HOME AFFAIRS BUREAUCRATS, who are paid by taxpayers to give advice to mutton-headed politicians.

This Govt is in the process of unleashing the greatest upheaval yet onto its citizens !

Indy, what boat did you arrive on from that Sh!thole you refuse to name? Since you refuse to name it, it must be a dozy, why did you leave? Maybe you set the whole joint on fire. Anyway us Aussie taxpayers have looked after you, with a free house, cash in your pocket and social welfare for life. Can't ask for more than that.

Paul,

The Latte sipping fwits that were in power for 6 years who after promising not to screw up the borders did that letting nearly 50 000 illegals land in Aus leaving a massive cock up for the coalition to clean up.

It doesn't appear that they have learnt from their last stuff up and Labor and the greens are keen to kill another 1200 people.

shadowminister,

Talking about deaths and killing people?

How many died as a result of our involvement in the
wars in - Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, East Timor, Iran,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the ongoing "War on Terror?"

How many people suffered and have mental issues as a
result of our temporary protection visas and detention
camps? For decades? And who's trying to fix that?

It's not a question of Stopping the boats - but a question
of doing the right humane thing and stopping the finger-pointing
isn't it?

Foxy,

Aus did not start the wars that you mentioned. The chances are that the difference due to Aussie troops is close to zero.

Secondly, Labor and the Greens put all these people and a lot more in detention camps (incl about 8000 children) and set up the TPVs and left a $10bn mess for the coalition to fix as usual.

Labor has a lot of blood and suffering on its hands.

shadowminister,

Which political party has been in power more often in
this country's history? Not Labor. The blood is not
on Labor's hands.

Labor ends up having to clean up the messes.

The last time the Socialists wrecked border protection we were lumbered with 50,000 illegal arrivals.

Here we go again. Over a decade of successful border protection going down the gurgler. 19,000 people will get permanent residence, family reunion rights, access to welfare payments, access to Medicare, access to NDIS and a pathway to full citizenship.

Of course, we should also remember that the previous government did not send back a single one of those 19,000 illegals. They are in no position to criticise the Socialists on this matter.

Labor and LNP politicians are all incompetent, self–serving dropkicks, who cannot be relied on for anything.

Unless we voters wake up to ourselves and give somebody other than Labor, Liberal or the Greens a go, things in this country will only get worse.

ttbn.

"Unless we voters wake up to ourselves and give somebody other than Labor, Liberal or the Greens a go, things in this country will only get worse."...Last time you were backing One Nation, Palmer and the Fruit Loop Liberal Democrats, before that it was the Corny Banana show. Who now do you suggest? Your big on negativity and who we shouldn't vote for, but have little to say about who we should vote for.

paul, I've never voted One Nation, but I'd say they might get my vote.

Foxy,

Howard left Labor with no boats and 4 illegal detainees. Labor left the coalition with more than 30 000 detainees including eight thousand children and 1200 people dead.

The coalition in a few weeks stopped the boats and then set about freeing the children and the genuine refugees. Labor in one stroke has given permanent residence to 19 000 non-refugees.

I remember having a similar discussion in 2008 when Krudd killed the pacific solution and the boats started again. When I said that the refugees would come in their 1000s I was accused of dog whistling and wildly exaggerating. When the 1000s did come all the left whingers tried to say that it wasn't labor's fault and that it could not be stopped.

Once again they were all wrong.

SM,

The Coalitions policy on 'boat arrivals' had the positive effect of stopping the trade in human cargo, which was a good thing. Labor and the Greens both got it wrong in that respect. I never considered those trying to reach Australia as criminals, just people seeking a better life, and to demonise them as some people did was wrong. It was always going to be a difficult problem, and how to deal with it, and at the same time show compassion towards those unfortunate folk was a dilemma. To simply place non-criminals in limbo forever is unacceptable, the Coalition had 10 years to deal with these people but chose to do nothing, its too late now to return them from whence they came, Labor has no alternative other than to let them into the community. What do you suggest?

shadowminister,

I'm sure that you would agree that to continue to keep these
people in detention after decades have passed - is a bad idea.
Something needs to be done. Things can't go on as is.

We must never forget that the previous government did not send one of the 19,000 illegals back, as they should have, as they claimed that they would. Had they done their duty to Australia, we wouldn't now have the problem of a mob of Socialists grandstanding and oozing warped, anti-Australian ideology.

Australian politicians are bad people, kept in power by idiots forced to vote. We need fewer, better people, elected by people who vote because they want to - not because they are forced to, and certainly not with the absurd and compulsory preferential system that Australia is one of the very few countries to insist on.

Australia is well and truly rooted.

"We must never forget that the previous government did not send one of the 19,000 illegals back, as they should have, as they claimed that they would."

Well, that's rubbish ... we are a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and "refoulement" (sending people back) is prohibited under this convention.

The Coalition knew that wasn't an option, so its next best option was to torture these people by keeping them in never-ending detention.

Unfortunately, Labor thinks this is a great idea too.

Australia does a great line in cruelty.

Foxy,

These people are not in detention but only have temporary visas.

If it isn't fair then why are people who have been on temp work visas sent home? Can visa overstayers remain etc.

You need to draw the line somewhere, either there is an orderly process or no process at all. Labor seems to be rooting for the later.

It'll go pear-shaped again soon after, it's a Labor Govt.

SM,

How long is temporary, some have been here 20 years. As that dishy doll the Lovely Pauline would say "Please explain" why in almost 10 years in office the Coalition failed to return not one of this 19,000. I think Poirot has told us why.

Indy arrived on a boat 50 years ago, and he's still living off social welfare. Us taxpayers have looked after good old Indy for all those years, without complaint, well not from us taxpayers, but a lot of complaints from Indy. As Indy might say "Bloody aged welfare is not enough, how's a bloke expected to have a decent gamble on the 'One Arm Bandits' down at God's Waiting Room on a lousy 1,000 bucks a week!

Paul what welfare system is Indi on to be getting $1,000 per week?

The navy has diverted ships to the north to reinforce our borders since the irresponsible decision by the Socialists to hand out visas to illegal arrivals.

Boats will be turned away, regardless of the idiotic changes made by the Socialists.

Paul,

The coalition deported dozens of Sri Lankans. Many of the rest like the dildo family had a whole bunch of activist lawyers tying up the courts and when finally the high court gave them their marching orders the fwit Albozo went and screwed it up.

SM,

They deported Sri Lankans in contravention of the Refugee Convention - because Morrison and his cronies are a bunch of dishonest and sadistic operatives.

Perhaps you can give us a grander picture of the ridiculous stunt they tried to pull invoving Sri Lankan boats in the lead up to the 2022 election?

It was obviously organised for these "boats" to arrive in the lead-up to the election, but the boats were late.

Never fear, one made it on election day.

Of course, the Coalition, operating with their usual lack of brains decided halfway through election day, when most of the votes were in, to screech - Look, a boat! - vote for us!

It was actually quite hilarious.

(btw, SM, I'm pleased to note that after all these years, you still deploy your puerile name generator - e.g. "Juliar" - stunning stuff for five year-olds)

Poirot,

The refugee convention does not protect economic refugees. Sri Lanka at the time was not at war and those deported were not at risk.

That’s right SM. Illegal arrivals are not covered by any convention.

ttbn,

You know it's not "illegal" to seek asylum.

You know it, but you still keep parroting away.

SM,

If I recall, what they did with the Sri Lankans was to "process" them on board a ship. i.e., that's is not to process them at all, but to refoule them straight away - in contravention of our signed responsibilities.

P,

To seek asylum you need to have legitimate fears that you will be killed or persecuted in the country of your origin. Otherwise, you are not a refugee deserving of asylum.

The Sri Lankans were processed individually and could not provide any evidence of any threat to them in Sri Lanka. That meets the requirements of the charter if you have bothered to actually read it.

Hi Poirot,

Arguing with the forums self proclaimed legal know-it-all is a waste of time. The idea that people fleeing persecution in their own country should be carrying on their person evidence of that persecution is a nonsense. When SM say; "could not provide any evidence of any threat to them in Sri Lanka.", exactly what would he consider as "evidence", I have no idea, and obviously the Coalition government for almost 10 years couldn't prove these peoples status either. Therefore they were left in limbo, enough is enough.

Poirot,

Anything you read from the site resident ignoramus is vacuous nonsense or lies.

Coming from a country in which all hostilities had ceased years ago and there was no overt persecution Sri Lankans would have to give a valid reason for seeking asylum. None were able to and thus were repatriated as per the charter.

Someone seeking asylum from the UK would have similar problems.

The gibbering coming from apologists for illegal border jumpers and criminal people smugglers about an outdated an irrelevant convention from 1951 is simplistic, breath-taking ignorance. All ideology and zero knowledge.

SM,

As usual you resort to name calling, if its not "village idiot" or "fwit" which you use liberally, its "ignoramus". If that's all you've got, so be it.

The recent civil war in Sri Lanka raged from 1983 to 2009, there had been lesser outbreaks in the 50's and 70's, the recent fighting ended with the Sri Lankan military defeating the separatist rebels (Tamil Tigers). The war ending did not stop the persecution of the minatory Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese majority dominated Sri Lankan Government, and it continues to this day. If you think that the ending of the civil war brought instant peace and harmony to the country, then you are uninformed and mistaken.

Anyway, none of the above is of concern or interest to you, you are a racists hater who has no concern for those not like you, be they black or brown. So like your forum nonsense about Aboriginals, just cut to the chase and say; "They're not white, so kick the bastards out!" much simpler for you, and Dutton should do the same.

Poirot; SM quote; "Anything you read from the site resident ignoramus (Paul1405) is vacuous nonsense or lies." This bloke wants to be "loved", so feel free to "entertain" him, he certainly needs it.

SM,

No war?

I seem to remember Dutton spouting about white farmers in South Africa facing “persecution” at the hands of a black majority government - and that Australia should open its arms to them.

Obviously he considered them the right colour?

Also, as of October 2019, 95,000 people had flown into Australia seeling asylum in the five years previous to that ... under the "tough on borders" Coalition. - 84% being found not to meet the criteria ... that leaves around 15,000 who had at that point been granted protection.

Noting that these asylum seekers are not sent to offshore islands to be tormented and tortured - that is reserved for previous boat arrivals, something which does not happen these days with our ADF doing their maritime thing (unless it's organised in desperation by a Coalition government knowing it's about to get the boot). So, for those still on the islands - the cruelty is the point.

Yes, Paul, I must admit a certain sizable cohort on this site are extremely odious - probably why there are so few posting here these days compared to its hay day.

Starting the boats is a thing of the past as the new refugees, sponsored/ordered by their Govt will be arriving by plane !

Paul,

You started it by calling me "the forums self-proclaimed legal know-it-all"

By comparison, your complete ignorance of the law makes you an ignoramus.

So as well as a liar and an ignoramus you are a raging hypocrite.

Paul,

The issue with the white farmers from South Africa was that they were being deliberately targeted and killed and 200 had been killed that year yet they were being denied asylum.

It was precisely because of their colour whereas 1000s of non-whites were given asylum with far less valid claims.

SM,

Why are you addressing me about white farmers in South Africa? It sounded like an internal criminal matter, that the South African government needed to deal with. It may have been revenge attacks due to these whites being complicit in the murder of Blacks during the Apartheid Regime, we don't know, but in any case it was unjustified.

Paul,

Just try being honest for a change. You raised the issue of white farmers in South Africa and implied that they were getting special treatment because they were white when quite the opposite is true.

Secondly that you are suggesting that these farmers deserve to be murdered with their women and children because they are white is despicable and you are truly a disgusting bigot.

SM,

You are being delusional once more, Poirot posted; "I seem to remember Dutton spouting about white farmers in South Africa facing “persecution” at the hands of a black majority government - and that Australia should open its arms to them."

"You (Paul1405) raised the issue of white farmers in South Africa and implied that they were getting special treatment because they were white when quite the opposite is true." No I didn't so lay off the sauce and get it right

Poirot said "Well, that's rubbish ... we are a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and "refoulement" (sending people back) is prohibited under this convention."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10055#344708

Answer- Well let the UN implement punitive penalties for enforcement of their global universal centralist will. The UN's role is not to contradict the will of the people who voluntarily live together as a nation. Western democracy is based on the principle of distribution of power embodied in principles such as the Westminster System- which are notably absent in implementations of communism who proclaim freedom and equality but create totalitarianism and death. Principles of Western government are under attack by communist principles and tropes- freedom of speech being one.

As PM John Howard despite his faults said "we say who, we say how many".

Margaret Thatcher believed that social policy and sustainability go hand in hand- while communists will just bring in the army the police and the secret commissariat to shoot those that turn from the party line.

The world wide refugee situation seems unsustainable and a different solution needs to be found

Canem Malum,

"Well let the UN implement punitive penalties for enforcement of their global universal centralist will. The UN's role is not to contradict the will of the people who voluntarily live together as a nation. Western democracy is based on the principle of distribution of power embodied in principles such as the Westminster System- which are notably absent in implementations of communism who proclaim freedom and equality but create totalitarianism and death. Principles of Western government are under attack by communist principles and tropes- freedom of speech being one."

Well, why don't we just withdraw from the Convention, I wonder?

Global universal centralists ... Communists ... Egad!

Lol! ...this place is thoroughly entertaining in a whacko kinda way these days

If the Convention isn't enforced it isn't obeyed as there are no repercussions- The three pillared Westminster System embodies the Law Creators (Government), the Law Interpreters (Courts), the Law Enforcers (Police). The UN relies on member states to enforce principles- but there is always interpretation. In a sense the UN is aspirational.

I suppose it's "wacko" to point out that power is becoming more centralized and totalitarian and citizen's are becoming less powerful as a result. Isn't democracy the "power of the people".

Personally I believe that the "centralization of power" philosophical position is wacko- ie. Stalin, Mao, etc were wacko's- and if you support their views you are a complicit apologist "wacko".

The coalition government always adhered to the refugee convention. If anyone on this thread actually read the convention, they would see that.

Kudos Shadow Minister.