Been reading the paper over the past few days about Asylum seekers in Christmas island burning down the buildings in the detention center (one report on Sky News allegedly claiming when the loudspeakers went on telling them to disperse they even shouted "F you Australia" (rather interesting viewpoint by people that wanted to sneak into our country in the first place)).

Now we have members of government debating if this kind of behaviour should impair an applicant's prospects of entering Australia and becoming a citizen?

Am I the only one who feels that being mentally and emotionally unstable to the point of starting a violent riot in a detention center would obviously make fair grounds for an automatic deportation, and permanent barring of entry into our country?

Where exactly is the logic in any other course of action?

I guess the greens are trying the line that the violence is all the government's fault for not giving everyone permanent residence immediately.

To be honest Shadow that may well be what excuse they might make- I've been poking around some other forums and that is the reason some people are insisting upon.
Of course, if it were in fact true, would a truly reasonable person's first breaking point before taking physical action necessarily be outright assault, verbal threats and pyromania against whoever they feel are wronging them?
(rhetorical question as far as any sane person should be concerned).

Sadly too many people don't want to actually face this problem.
Quite frankly our migration criteria MUST, under absolutely no exceptions, be based first on character grounds.

King Hazza,

The situation in Christmas Island seems to be under control. At the start of the week there were 2500 detainees - now there's much less and the numbers will decrease even further as they're being moved to other detention centres to ease the pressure.

It appears that it was only a small minority that participated in the riots, most didn't, - and the Federal Police numbers have been increased to take care of the problem.

As the Immigration Minister explained, "The Migration Act allows that character is an important consideration in determining whether somebody should be granted a visa." He stated that, "This will be on a case-by-case basis - but character considerations will be taken into account of those on Christmas Island that have organised and perpetuated this activity."

There were to be Immigration Officials at Christmas Island this week giving consideration to the cases there - however the Minister has cancelled this - because of the riots - and the officials will give priority hearings to other centres instead.

What we as individuals think does not matter.
The fact is not one rioter should ever get residency in this country.
Immediate plans to deport them should have started that night.
While it may be laid in part at the feet of very slow processing, 18 months instead of 12,few want such here.
A world wide problem, not one Labor invented,and not one a return to Howard's policy will change, but one that must be fixed.
A number of voters, from both sides of politics is ready to vote just on this issue.
The UN a useless group, must address this world wide problem.
And Labor too must re look at it I would like to know if just one rioter gets to stay here and why.
Blackmail is not acceptable.

King Hazza,
You make me laugh Hazza!
“ Now we have members of government debating if this kind of behaviour should impair an applicant's prospects of entering Australia and becoming a citizen?”
That’s about as far as it will get. A few comments and no action—especially from this government.

Now it is possible that I missed it – but I do not believe those who blew up their boats, and in the process injured or endanger others -- were ever tried!

And there have been earlier instances of riots , group fights and destruction of facilities, without charges or deportation. So why would the latest influx of asylum seekers, behaving like gang leaders asserting their authority, be treated differently?

And, I would not place a lot of credence in the harsh conditions making them do it excuse. It’s right up there with another line oft heard from successful asylum seekers -- that they had to flee to OZ because they feared living in their old country –but once they gained permanent residence in OZ , felt emboldened enough to return regularly to the old country for a little R & R.

The problem with boat people is that they arrive on our shores with rights.
As soon as they are transferred to the main land it is almost impossible to send them back.
This because of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
As long as Australia is part of this Convention the problem with new arrivals cannot be solved.
However the Convention has an Article 44.
If an Australian government really wants get on top of the refugee problem the government should give attention to Article 44 of this Convention:

Article 44. Denunciation
1. Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the Contracting State concerned one year from the date upon which it is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
3. Any State which has made a declaration or notification under article 40 may, at any time thereafter, by a notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, declare that the Convention shall cease to extend to such territory one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.

more Green and Labour voters. They will be forgiven just like previous violent offenders handed citizenship. Could any Government be more incompetent? I doubt it. We are the laughing stock of the world.

Unfortunately Lexi that is not very reassuring.
Mr Bowen's rather less-than-direct address to the specific rioters and orchestrators as having their actions merely being 'taken into account' in considering their character, is somewhat less that reassuring than being identified as an automatic cancellation of all prospects of entering the country.

I'd be inclined to agree with Belly and SPQR's doubts that Mr Bowen's address is little more than a vague statement made more to please all Australian audiences by avoiding any detail that might cause PR problems- than a substantiated declaration of policy; let alone a guarantee that people caught rioting are NOT going to be let in, for that matter.

It unfortunately seems to be the discourse of all politicians asked questions about their next plan of action these days- instead of an answer, they simply reply with an approximation.
It seems these days politicians try hard to avoid taking an action or making a decision in order to avoid having to take responsibility or justify it to anyone.

King Hazza,

The Immigration Minister is taking a tough stand.
The situation is under control by the Federal Police. Let us wait and see what develops next before making harsh judgements too early.

It is worth a look at this subject.
Stand back take a look, leave the politics at the door.
First most Australians, yes a majority, are not happy with our way of handling boat refugees, ever.
And yes all over the world refugees are looking for safety,a better life, and purely in some cases, a better financial life.
Any Australian government, back into politics, has not been able to win every one to its plan to handle this problem.
Events that have seen our new quests , a few of them, demanding,that is the word, more than we can give is raising concerns.
Gillard,to this point has failed,Howard did too, inhuman laws and children over board .
Australian voters, in my view are out in front of both party's here.
Few I think, do not think now is an opportunity government MUST take.
Of the 300 said to have taken place not one should stay.
Now more than ever such an act may signal a reverse of more staying after getting here than being returned is the wrong signal.
In bringing these folk to Australia, the rioters,Labor is saying they will be rewarded for criminal acts.
Is the UNHCR arm of that UN a group not known to be of use trying to mix and match the worlds population, or is it genuinely trying to fix third world problems.

Lexi says: “Let us wait and see what develops next before making harsh judgements too early”

One wonders how long must we wait in order to avoid making –too early – a judgement, as long as we have waited for prosecutions/deportations over this incident?
http://www.news.com.au/national/boat-explosion-horrific-navy-officer/story-e6frfkw0-1225699720460

And how long need we wait before some advocate explains that it’s all a big misunderstanding ( due to our cultural insensitivities, or the like) . They weren’t shouting “ F you Australia”, they were actually using one of their own language words ( which might sound like F* to the untrained ear) but really means “bless you dear sweet host nation”

As usual, we go off to work, work hard and pay our taxes, just so this government can piss it all away.

If they can't find a way to do this, they will simply launch another enquiry into how they can.

Well done to all you labor voters. You have simply got what you deserve.

Thanks for nothing!

we expell criminals..dont we
find out who breaks law and bannish them
even if its the contracters...we are australians

hold a kangeroo court
and send them home

act collectivly
get judged collectivly

anybody thinking they get justice in australia is dreaming
the children know this..its time the world knew it too

in the real world..you dont get to see a dentist
you dont get any govt help without being on a waiting list
heck you cant even get onto a waiting list...so put them on a good behaviour waiting list and send them home

its the job of our ambassidors
to see that these provisional aussies get a fair go..
in their homeland..

[change their status*.. and send them home]

Dear rehctub,

In Victoria we now have a newly elected Liberal Government. Labor had been in for years and voters obviously wanted a change. The worry is
that the new Liberal Government is demonstrating the same policies as we had experienced under the previous Liberal Kennett Government. That is cut backs on essential services and works and backing the "old-boys network," by supporting things like the "Grand Prix," which loses around $50 million taxpayer money while stopping work on the Cancer Centre (which is near completion)with many donations from
Olivia Newton-John Foundation, at the Austin Hospital. And halting many other worthwhile projects. Yes, Labor is often accused of "spending" but they have to fix what the Liberals are unwittingly destroying. Are we to see cut-backs on age pensions, rail-line closures, cutbacks on road maintenance, cutbacks on teachers and nurses and doctors and the list goes on as we did under Kennett?. You state "Thanks for Nothing," to Labor. It's actually the Liberals that disregard essential State needs and services - while pandering to big business.

If State Governments no matter what persuasion, were to run the State with due dilligence and economic consideration there would be no need for excessive spending followed by excessive saving. However, it does not appear that State politicians are capable of running an efficient household.

While I agree with King Hazza that character should be an essential criteria, I do have to wonder about the reporting of these riots.

Remember Children Overboard and all the self imposed outrage from Downer and Howard at the time "do we want these sorts of people in our country" despite having been briefed that the claims were false.

There is a tip off on today's Crikey website based on comments from a photojournalist:

"...He reports that, at most, 60 refugees were protesting and they only retaliated (with a store of Molotov cocktails) when tear gas was fired at them. He felt that this was in itself retaliation for the refugees making fools of Serco..."
Crikey Website (there is more on the website).

While there is no doubt about the riots occuring, I think I will wait for the dust to settle before making a judgement as to how intense or widespread the dissent.

However all that said, I would agree that character assessment is important in any application for citizenship along with criminal checks and security considerations.

I would question though how does one test character? I don't think a futile Quiz with questions like "who is Donald Bradman" going to cut it.

Refugees are said to be looking for a safe haven from the oppressive or life threatening regemes from which they have fled.

Having reached Indonesia have not all those refugees who adhere to the Islamic faith already reached such a haven?

What other than future financial considerations could drive them to accept the actual risks in trying to reach Australia in leaky and overcrowded small boats?

Australia is after all an Infidel country and one would think that devout Muslims would prefer to stay in an Islamic country.

Is the IndonesianNavy so deficient in skills as to be unable to stop boats leaving Indonesia for Australia?
They had plenty of skill in stopping East Timorese people from reaching our shores, but then murder on the open seas is probably only allowed against Infidels.

Rechtub, uncalled for bloke, go back and read you comment here.
No need for it and it bloke says far more about you than me,an entrenched ALP voter.
Entrenched and not moving,,,because of people like you.
I clearly say I am unhappy with the numbers coming here by boat.
And that while slowness played a part in refugees excepted for residency rioting, they should not be let in.
I think Australia wants resolution not point scoring, and quickly.
If this new visa is what it appears a weakened copy of Howard's temporary protection one, lets take the easy way out use Howard's one.

Australia in my view should have long ago been forceabley removed from the *Asylum Seeker Convention* for refusing to honour it in more ways than one. The fact that they have not goes to the general dysfunctional nature of the U.nited N.ations. i.m.o.

I also believe their is a cyncial game of vote harvesting being played in all of this, as it seems quite plain that the mere mention of the "BlackFellas" or "Refos" getting a leg up whilst others do not is sufficient cause for these same people to immediately flock politically to anyone who says that they will oppose it, like the national liberal party.

Historically, whilst the people of Australia pre WWII voted to accept the Jewish Asylum Seekers fleeing the Nazis, the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom denied them, and, yes, you guessed it, turned back the boats.

This true story, which is not taught widely to the current people of Australia, is contained in a book called "The UnPromised Land" and details the well developed plan to settle the Holocaust Asylum Seekers in W.A.'s north west. One wonders whether this place would otherwise have become the financial hub of the southern hemisphere?

Of course, as we know, the Nazis barbecued in excess of 6,000,000 of them and the rest is history.

..

Lawful Immigration is not to be confused with the Seeking of Asylum. Asylum Seekers may come however they please. One does not reasonably expect that an individual Seeking Asylum from the Holocaust will wander to the local down town Berlin Australian Embassy to request a Visa.

No, more likely, you'd strip, shave, roll in the mud, camouflage yourself, and sneak out as best you could, or some other means of escape.

Internationally, this is accepted, but then, as good little Australian mushrooms you don't generally get to see too much of what the views of the Internationals are now do you?

Notwithstanding the fact that there have and likely always will be people who are, for a variety of reasons, want to abuse the system in the hope of a better life in "The Land of Milk and Honey," there are also those who have fled to our shores in fear of their lives.

..

And how may I ask, are they treated? Do you give them all the benefit of the doubt and welcome them as Honoured guests? No. .. rather, they are aggressively arrested and detained indefinitely without charge or trial, a travesty of justice in and of itself, often times for extended periods.

To be deprived of ones liberty is most often an extremely unpleasant experience, and I note the genocidal pom and its various red blue/left right enclaves has a long history of inflicting wholesale slaughter, enslavement, breeding programs, child stealing and the incarceration of the impoverished, the uneducated and the mentally unwell and untreated individuals.

..

So wake up and smell the coffee people, indeed their are people in the world who suffer you not to transgress upon their Inalienable Human Rights and to in reality treat them as members of an underclass.

..

Whilst I hope that no one was injured, my sympathies are with those detained, and I look forward to watching more action until the ugly australian guvment and its equally ugly supporters learn their place.

..

The mistake some of you make is in the delusional thinking that leads you to believe that you can just abuse these people under the guise of legitimate legal process and not be held to account.

If we are required to take them once they are on our shores, then surely we're entitled to prosecute them under our laws? I'd imagine that vandalising and burning Commonwealth property would carry a heavy prison term: if I went down to the local barracks and firebombed the place, I'd say I would spend the next few years behind bars. If I set fire to the university (even in some sort of protest), surely I'd wind up in prison?

If we have to accept them, then we have to. Let's take them, remove them from their friends and families and lock them up in maximum security prisons around the country with their fellow criminals. Then, as they are not citizens or permanent residents, let's deport them once their prison time is up.

Surely one of the first things we must consider when we assess refugees is their chances of successfully fitting into our society? I don't mean assimilation or simply becoming 'one of us', or even making a real contribution. I mean being able to cope with the culture they are entering into. I suspect that people who deal with adversity by rioting, threatening and burning buildings may struggle to get along in our society. I'm sure there are many other 'safe' countries into which they would fit rather nicely.

DreamOn:

Given that your knowledge of international treatment of asylum seekers exceeds that held by us mere mushroom-sheltering Australians, pray tell:

What do the South Africans do with the flood of Zimbabweans who seek refuge in their land?

What do the Americans do with the flood of Mexicans, Central Americans, Cubans and others who seek refuge in their land?

What do the French do with the many asylum seekers with which they are faced?

I think you know as well as I do that very few countries (if any at all) welcome asylum seekers as 'honoured guests'. In many respects, the fact that we don't turn our asylum seekers away immediately and tell them to come through the proper channels suggests that we are more tolerant than many.

Your characterisation of Australia as uniquely brutal (no, you don't say it explicitly but it's right there between the lines) is either ill-informed or deliberately misleading.

DreamOn says:

“ Australia in my view should have long ago been forceabley removed from the *Asylum Seeker Convention* for refusing to honour it in more ways than one “

Or put more simply: “OZ is a pariah nation”

It pre-supposes that there is convention council of holies whose behaviour exemplifies all that is good and proper.

In reality it would be hard to find any signatory nation who both i) follows the convention to the enth degree, and ii) is happy with its membership (signatory nation that is, as opposed to special interest/advocacy groups!)

Again, in simple terms: practically all signatory nations are thoroughly p*ssed-off by the way in which the convention is being exploited by racketeers and bullyboys .

And –to correct DreamOn on another point --the antics of the “asylum seekers” in the Christmas Island riots ( both the latest, and previous examples) was less like “ Jewish Asylum Seekers fleeing the Nazis” and more like brown shirts behaving badly on “the night of broken glass” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uine5MhOc0I

Belly>>Rechtub, uncalled for bloke, go back and read you comment here.

I stand behind what I said. This government is useless! Their 'open cheque book' approach to running this nation is a disgrace.

We are wasting millions on flying tradies interstate to fix government 'stuff ups' that should not have occurred in the first place. Not one offer from either JG or KR to take a 'pay cut' in order to soften the blow. As usual, they are not accountable like us in the real world.

Now when one points out the bias within the government, you lot shoot me down as being insensitive. (Boat people funeral costs)

No doubt you are aware that our own people (tax payers) that were effected in Japan can't get a charter flight.

The only comforting thought for me is that this PM is doing a great job of 'self destructing', even when the opposition is not strong.

I can wait!

Dream on?
I have seen Aboriginals most of them calling each other black, what ever.
Been called by migrants just about every thing, from age 16 when some told me, not Muslims, they would take over my country.
Have you heard American Negro swear words, almost a friendly Gday to infer one has had sex with family members?
See if we are building a case for our thoughts and ideas any thing can be proved.
I will forever, oppose those who seem to think we must not try to say who comes who does not to our country.
And if you got your wish? if we just opened the doors.
I do not grant you the high moral ground here.
In fact your dream is mainstreams nightmare.

Dream on you have really missed the point.
Asylum seekers arriving from Indinesia do not have rights under UNHCR
rules. They cannot be asylum seekers as they lost that right when they
arrived at their first country of safety.
For most of them it would have been either Jordan or Pakistan.
As it seems that all of them kissed their wives and relatives goodbye
and went to a travel agent and bought an airline ticket to either
Malaysia or Indonesia, I just don't think they can claim to be asylum seekers.

In any case we had better get this right pretty quick. You will have
seen the upheaval in the Middle East which have all originated over
food riots.
With population being proportional to the availability of cheap
energy for food production we can expect much more starvation and much
more expensive food from now on with oil production decline and
increasing cost of oil.

For each 1% decline in oil production we can expect a 1% reduction in
world population. ie 60,000,000 will starve for every 1% decline in
oil production. In practise it will probably mean more evenly spread
malnutrition and less food wastage, but eventually that will be
exhausted and more widespread starvation will set in.

A point to ponder; Most oilfields decline at around 4 to 6 percent.

Nature does not negotiate !