rstuart

During LTTE occupation of the north anyone who politically opposed thier views was disposed of so very important to weed out LTTE. These camps are a process of post war procedure. We had them in Iraq, Germany I read had them for 10 years following the end of that conflict. Add to that the de-mining process I can see it as necessary. In fact I cannot find any official objection to the them. The basis of criticism has really been about the conditions of one of the camps, just one.

However criticism was unrealistic, a lot of support from the Tamil disaspora for LTTE and anti- GOSL propoganda. I did read some Tamils on the ground state the diaspora are too far disconnected from what is happening on the ground and only making things worse. One Tamil from Melbourne even stated that all Tamils from the north under 35 have the mindset of the LTTE. Silly claims only serve to heighten tensions with Sinhalese thinking the Tamils are giving them a bad name overseas.

It is a very difficult process for any government and our ignorant expectations and biased views will result in governments closing the door to foreign journalists. Especially a country with China as a sponsor, does not really need our approval or our tut tuts.

I do not recall The Australian journalist going into Iraqi screening camps, do you?

If we had on the other hand congratulated the Sri Lankans and appreciated the issues they faced and made offers of assistance with co-operative measures I feel the Tamils would be better off today.

Add to that the political games with India, US and EU not happy with the chess type manoeuvre of China, Iran, Pakistan et al support for GOSL and the strategic port in vital shipping lanes for China then easy to see how Tamils have become a pawns in political propoganda. Read the actual charges against GOSL and we have done worse crimes ourselves. No wonder they prefer the west to stay away, can hardly blame them.

Rstuart, perhaps you missed this post, on one of the Bartlett
threads:

*Come on Mr Bartlett, enough of your sophistry. Consider form 'C': Application for a Protection
(Class XA) Visa (or the current form) and the declaration which must be signed by the applicant. The
applicant arrives in Australia with no identification and may have altered his appearance markedly.
He is then asked to complete the paperwork and gets to the declaration with its attachments: 'I have
never been convicted of a crime or any offence in any country except as shown in Schedule A'.'I have
not been involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity'.'I do not have any spent convictions
under any spent convictions legislation in any country or any convictions on my police record'.and
on and on it goes. Are we expected to believe that at the last hurdle the applicant will in any way
harm his chances of being granted refugee status by making a full and frank confession?

Even question 50 in Form 'C' should be enough to cause immigration officials to be circumspect: "You
are expected to provide documentary evidence of your identity, nationality and/or citizenship. If
you cannot do so, and cannot provide a reasonable explanation of why you cannot, this may lead to
doubts about the veracity of your claimed identity, nationality and/or citizenship." The arrival of
groups of people all of whom have no identification should cause our officials to vet each
application with great care. However the onus is now on immigration officials to establish, within
90 days, reasons to reject an application. Most clear thinking Australians know that boat people
have read the people smuggler's handbook "How to fool the wantwits in Australia" so a very high
percentage of boat people have a successful outcome. They are running rings around us.

Yes Mr Bartlett we do have immigration legislation but pre-dating that is the Australian
Constitution which sees our elected leaders vested with the power to act in our interests.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 5 November 2009 1:23:31 PM *

I maybe proven wrong but I find it incredible that the appropriate department wouldn't be run basic checks through the embassies in the country of supposed origin, Interpol checks etc. That and *if* “Alex” had actually had been accepted as an asylum seeker and permitted to stay are both issues of the application of the regs NOT policy settings.

I think much of the conversation does the experience, skill of the departmental interviewers a great disservice by defining them as dumb paper pushers. When in most cases the opposite it true.
I don't care what system that is implemented if it involves people there will be oops.
The important point, is what happens next.

Arguing by exceptions, extremes (the absence of one extreme automatically = the opposite extreme) and or confusing regs application with policy is unrealistic and poor reasoning.

I find it disingenuous of some of the posters to claim they just want orderly application for entrance to Aust. Especially when in many cases the same posters have in previous posts expressed low level prejudices to Asians, Muslims or Immigration etc. Some seem not to remember their own previous utterances. To me if it walks and quacks like a duck regularly, then good chance it is a flamin' duck.

In the case of the original posed question CJ is factually correct, phrased differently GY and SM have both said or clearly implied and confirmed by the oppositions behaviour that it doesn't have to have a policy, their job is to criticise the Government. (low profile)

Negative? U bet because negatively works best and always has.

NB For the classical minded refer Marc Anthony's "Friends Romans Countrymen Lend me your ears" speech In Julius Caesar.... "for the good a man does is interred in his bones but the wrong.......".

Discussions are pointless if 'objectivity' isn't the primary feature it is then merely gain saying for saturation purposes. “Tell a lie often enough and it will be seen as truth”.

Examinator,

>>I think much of the conversation does the experience, skill of the departmental interviewers a great disservice by defining them as dumb paper pushers. When in most cases the opposite it true. I don't care what system that is implemented if it involves people there will be oops.<<

I agree that the department has many able staff. The problem that arises is that there are a finite amount of them - so they can only put so much effort into discovering the true nature of an asylum seeker's claim. (I reckon the number in the Department also dictates how many refugees they let in every year.) Another problem is the sheer diversity of asylum seekers and their circumstances ensure there are plenty of blind spots in the Government's discovery process, despite the best efforts of their officers.

So the real problem is the size of the task versus the resources on hand to do it.

I for one would be really annoyed if Sri Lankans are granted refugee status. It is probably very true they will suffer from inequality, though that shoe was on the other foot when Sinhalese were the servants and the Tamils the masters. However inequality is not "well founded grounds of persecution", otherwise I have claims to be a refugee..sign me up!

Even England is not recognising they have any grounds and are deporting them and they started this war with their playing one race against another.

RobP,

Fair point.

The Missus,
I think you may be confusing a few terms "asylum seeker" is a person who fears for their life or persecution etc.

I would be careful about using the UK as a standard for us. They have their internal politics and short comings. I for one, want this country make up it's own mind about what is 'our' view of the correct interpretation. Not simply follow the leader in a race to the bottom