Bronwyn,
I did not keep any of the artigles that said some of the 78 had 'registered' with the UNHCR. However am positive and seeing the topic still attracts the MSM, it will possibly come up again and if I see it I will post it, as i did with the boats sabotage piece, for you earlier..

Surely you do not expect anyone to simply accept the word of a person in Melbourne, of a Refugee advocasy group. A person who makes the fundamental mistake of claiming the 78 spent 5 years in an Indonesian camp. She handles the truth loosely and that is being kind.

You claim that the illegals may have trouble getting visas to come all the way to Aus. Here are some examples, source DIAC

TOTAL ARRIVALS BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH. 2007-8
Afghanistan 6895
India 316037
Iran 22969
Iraq 14787
Malaysia 291808
Pakistan 21900
Sri Lanka 69708

What about the number of successful onshore refugee applicants for the year 2007-8.

From Aghanistan 32
Iraq 221
Iran 97
Sri Lanka 415

These are all in the top ten of applicants and it is worth noting that, in that year, ONLY 13 persons came by sea and were illegal entrants. The rest came by air with valid visas and applied for protection here.

Does that not validate what I said about coming her legally and applying on arrival (if one is genuine)

The only reason someone would choose to come illegally is because they would not make the grade or they have something to hide.

The trip by air is cheaper than a smuggler, quicker and very safe.
Remember those that bring their wife and kids by sea are putting them at risk as well.
TBC

Bronwyn,

Banjo said'They...have threatened the lives of their kids"

True. I understand this was done on a number of occasions but, since you mentioned it, the Children Overboard inquiry was shown a video where a man is shown holding a child over the side of the boat. No responsible parent would do such a thing, to risk his childs life.

The NT police investigation into the boat explosion states clearly that the act was deliberate and what could not be determined was who actually did it.

By the way, if any of the 78 Tamils have been assesed as refugees, by the UNHCR. Then, looking at the figures, it is almost a garrantee that they would pass assesment in Aus easily. Why would any such person pay more to a smuggler when he can fly here legally, apply for protection and be free in the community while being assesed.

Horus,
Finally got some figures only for the year 2007-8 which states that 46% of Protection applicants were successfull, by those who entered legally and made the applications. So I think we can say about 50% to allow for variables. None of the top ten were from English speaking countries. I have no argument about those that enter legally and are granted refugee status. I am angry that we continue to be taken for mugs by the illegals.

Horus: "An analogy: ... does it make you less sympathetic"

I agree. But this isn't about sympathy. You are arguing they aren't refugees. Whether you or I have sympathy for them has nothing to do with whether they are refugees. That is defined by various US resolutions.

Horus: "followed by a lot of emotive claptrap"

The sentences following were simple facts. Unadorned facts aren't emotive claptrap. An example of emotive claptrap is calling simple facts emotive claptrap.

Horus: "How credible is it that BOTH can find absolutely not escape the others persecution on the whole island of Sri Lanka?"

As it happens I know some Sri Lankan's. From what I could tell, they were scared of both sides, and it was not obvious who was going win. I believe there worried about themselves or their families becoming collateral damage.

Horus: "show me ... the evidence that contradicted my summary?"

Para 94: Where, therefore, an applicant alleges fear of persecution in relation to the country of his nationality, it should be established that he does in fact possess the nationality of that country.

Horus: "What a joke –the reality is if we have no place to return them to, we get stuck with them."

Yep. At least that bit seems to have sunk in. Think of it this way Horus. We have done the equivalent of putting up one of those "kid safety house" signs http://www.afp.gov.au/act/crime_prevention/safety_house_program.html As a consequence, now any kid who claims he is in trouble can run into our house. We put the sign out Horus. Don't blame the kid for using it - or even for choosing the nicest looking house.

Bronwyn: "there are definitely a number who’ve been there now for around twelve months."

That throws a different light on it. Looks like the Pacific solution has morphed into the Indian solution, pretty much unchanged.

R Stuart ,
“ But this isn't about sympathy ... Whether you or I have sympathy for them has nothing to do with whether they are refugees”

But surely it must RStuart , since that is the only thing left.

We have looked at your UN resolution(s) and found them to be more honoured in the breach than the observance.How did that para 94 go again , oh yes, if the claimants couldn’t verify their country of origin they were NOT entitled to refugee status.Yet we found in OZ, lack of evidence of origin had no bearing on the claimants right of residency . Since one of our chief problems is not being able to send back those whose origins cannot be traced. Then we looked at the second aspect, the need to establish a well founded fear of persecution – but on close examination it became pretty clear that in most cases no such thing could be established –the claimants word was all we had . [ is it because we are downunder that everything seems to operate arse-about in OZ – with the onus being on us to prove otherwise?] Then we tried the needs test, as in, they’re people desperately seeking sanctuary, and that couldn’t be sustained either, as they were found to be hold-up in someone else’s vessel, at someone else’s expense, bargaining over four or five star destinations.

So what is left – only your feeling of sympathy –surely sympathy must be the mysterious unknown force bonding you to these people
[ It’s like looking for dark matter !]

Unless!...you have a financial motive.
Just between you and me RStuart, , you’re not connected with a people smugglers ring are you?

Bronwyn’s comment & CJ s endorsement that she & RStuart were “holding their own” quite well, motivated me to do a study :

Example 1
RStuart starts:
“The UNHCR guidelines … in the end, if they can't prove they only have citizen ship in some hellhole or other they can’t return to, they won’t be accepted as refugees . It is a UNHCR requirement. To put it another way, THE CONTENTION THAT THE UNHCR DEMANDS WE ACCEPT ALL ANONYMOUS PEOPLE AS REFUGEES IS JUST ABSURB .” [ 8 November 2009 11:15:04 AM]

( shades of Paul Keating “it is the L.A.W!” -- note the tone of confidence!)

Then it is pointed out to RStuart –that many of our problems arise from us not being able to return people, because we can’t establish their country of origin.So, what does he do –an 180 degree turn!

“ Think of it this way Horus. We have done the equivalent of …putting up one of those "kid safety house" signs …As a consequence, now ANY KID WHO CLAIMS HE IS IN TROUBLE CAN RUN INTO OUR HOUSE. We put the sign out Horus. Don't blame the kid for using it - or even for choosing the nicest looking house” [ November 2009 10:17:28 PM]

Doh! he had just finished telling us – there was limited access –now he’s telling us it’s open-doors to all and sundry .

Now that is an example of sound argument?

Continued below

Example 2
RStuart again:
i) Horus : Asks (if its so bad in Sri Lanka ) “Why are the vast majority of Tamils continuing to live [there], are they just cowards/fools?” [ 7 November 2009 11:39:50 PM]

ii) RStuart :Responds [indigantly] “Cowards? 100,000 were killed during the conflict. Fools? They were rounded up and put in camps at gun point”. [8 November 2009 9:57:32]

(note he doesn’t attempt to address why the majority have stayed put --rather seeks to sidetrack the argument by implying slander /insensitivity )

iii) Horus : (that is ) “emotive claptrap" and repeats the question: if things are so bad –why are the majority sitting put. [ November 2009 1:34:24 PM]


iv) R Stuart: The sentences following were simple facts. Unadorned facts aren't emotive claptrap. An example of emotive claptrap is calling simple facts emotive claptrap. [8 November 2009 10:17:28 PM]
What facts? –It’s a safe bet the majority of Tamils have not been incarcerated or shot ---he has merely played the emotive game!
……………………………………………………

This is Bronwyn handling the challenge that there is a sizable disparity between UN & OZ processing ;

Yabby
<< ... I'll rub the post from Franklin under your nose once again ... >>
Franklin posts the same old discredited references in every thread. He's had each of his two arguments soundly rebutted many times over, but he's so stuck in his own little time warp that he keeps trotting them out regardless. No thinking person would take a scrap of notice.
[Bronwyn, Friday, 6 November 2009 11:54:11 PM]

Where is her argument ?
She merely says its bunkum – apparently her saying so is enough !

All I can say is –if CJ Morgan thinks this is them hold their own –he must have been holding his own for too long