Immigration Minister Chris Bowen wants to boost Australia’s refugee intake by 50% to 20 000.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/refugee-intake-should-increase-by-50-per-cent-immigration-minister-says/story-fn7x8me2-1226210890764

I support this all the way, on the proviso that onshore asylum seeking be STOPPED, which appears to be Bowen’s intention.

Many times on OLO I have advocated this. I am very pleased that it is now being seriously considered.

I think that humanitarian people who have supported onshore asylum seeking have been seriously misguided and should instead have been pushing for this sort of increase in our formal refugee intake.

I have advocated a larger increase in our refugee intake (~25 000 total), but within a much smaller overall immigration program.

Our immigration intake is FAR too big and needs to be seriously reduced, progressively down to about net zero, within which refugees would make up the largest component.

If we were to do this, we could both uphold a commendable humanitarian program by world standards, with the highest refugee intake per established citizen of any country in the world (according to Chris Bowen) and gear the country towards a stable population and a sustainable society at the same time.

So why wouldn’t we do this??

...Well, we have always been a country full of "desperadoes". Lets live-up to the reputation! Here goes Labor tripping down another trail of soft headed nonsense.

Welcome back Ludwig, we missed you.
I agree, and think Malaysian solution would work.
The 20.000 is not a done deal, but an aspiration.
I can see not reason we should not cast our net wider for refugees/migrants Irish, English, and Americans are being sent home and I disagree with that.

Ludwig,

<<I support this all the way, on the proviso that onshore asylum seeking be STOPPED>>

Labor, has not got a hope in hell of stopping the onshore asylum seeking scam--not now, or in any foreseeable permutation.

What we will see will not be 20,000 off-shores and zero on-shores.
But 20,000 off-shores and the same number (as now), or more, of on-shores.

Dear Ludwig,

Talking about increasing the refugee numbers to $20,000?
What about the 60,000 illegal refugees (presumably by plane)?

@ Lexi who says: "Talking about increasing the refugee numbers to $20,000?" LOL

Actually Lexi,I suspect the number you're thinking of is $12,000.
As in, "Sophisticated people-smuggling syndicates charg[e] clients about $12,000 for a one-way trip from Afghanistan to Australia"

The $20,000 fare includes a weeks cruise through the Spice islands on the Oceanic Viking.

Diver Dan, not quite sure what you are getting at.

----
Thanks Belly.

Yes the 20 000 is just an aspiration.

I’m not sure the Malaysian deal would have achieved much. Reopening Nauru and Manus Island would have been the go.

----
<< Labor, has not got a hope in hell of stopping the onshore asylum seeking scam--not now, or in any foreseeable permutation.>>

I can’t see that the situation is this hopeless, SPQR. The majority desire of the Australian votership is to stop the boats. Both the Labs and Libs say they want to do this. Howard showed that it could be done. So….. why can’t Labor damn well do it??

Gee, if they don’t, and Abbott promises to do so, they’ll be out on their ear at the next election!

<< What we will see will not be 20,000 off-shores and zero on-shores.
But 20,000 off-shores and the same number (as now), or more, of on-shores. >>

Yes quite likely. But crikey, I hope not.

----
<< What about the 60,000 illegal refugees (presumably by plane)? >>

Lexi, it goes without saying that I very strongly desire to see that clamped right down on.

In fact, that should be part of the deal. Minister Bowen should make sure it happens BEFORE there is any increase in the offshore refugee intake.

Now, all the good humanitarian people that want to help asylum seekers / refugees should be jumping right behind Chris Bowen and supporting this increase all the way. But as part of the deal, they’ve got to also be pushing for our border protection laws to be respected and for onshore asylum seeking and fly-in visa overstaying to be curtailed forthwith.

"""
Labor, has not got a hope in hell of stopping the onshore asylum seeking scam--not now, or in any foreseeable permutation.
"""

They're the only votes the Australian Liars Party will get at the next election, why would they stop them?

I laugh at all this hooplah around boat people and labour, it's all planned, they never had any intention of stopping the boats, they want more of them. The handouts they get ensures they all become good little labour lackeys... errr voters. Ozzies have woken up to the scam that is the modern day Liars Party.

*What about the 60,000 illegal refugees (presumably by plane)?*

Ah Lexi, you mean those backpackers with a passport and a return
ticket home, who partied a bit too long and stayed a bit extra.
Most likely they picked some fruit etc too, doing jobs Aussies
don't want.

With a passport in hand and a return ticket home, why should
they be an issue or a cost?

mmmmmmmm....now whats wrong with this picture?.....We have 7 billion people on this rock/earth and by calls of the Australian people and other counts......more the merry A......for who?....your kids, there kids?....or has mankind just( if there is one in Australia ) just lost the plot?

20.000 plus more to add to the NO jobs our own children will have to fight for!......am I missing something here?...I'll ask the same question here again!.....and I quote.." When your children leave school....where are they going to go?

Oh I get it.....the Australian government have a plan for the future, and there,s nothing to worry about:)......

Oh dear.

CACTUS

Ludwig you and I once swapped story's and concerns about the cruelty of some commentators here.
Of far more concern to me is the nature of the understanding behind some comments.
Note Australian Liars party, note the name picked to represent the poster.
How much thought went in to that?
No need to make a list, but this is true, we are surrounded by politicians addicted to growth.
Both sides want a bigger population, hence Migration.
Yes 60.000 may come in by plane.
But can we see? every action has a reaction, boat people cost us billions, yes it does, of Dollars.
Better spent else ware.
Boat people divide our country, but massively the majority have some level of concern about them,the costs, the impacts of separatism in our country.
At some point, it just must happen, those who follow us, will contemplate us.
We are increasing population and that will, in time be the problem, not under population.
We are, in the name of PC kindness and other issues building future troubles we can already see in Europe, and saying its because we know better.
Those not prepared to take on board that this issue should be above politics, well let the greens dance their naked Morris dances.
Malaysian solution has every chance, it does, of being a world wide answer to this refugee problem.
Open gate is not going to work.
This country could take a million refugees, in a year, and make no impact on the problem.
Other than destroying our economy.

Eliminate onshore refugee intake? In the past Australia has taken in Soviet and Chinese diplomats who have defected. There were not many, but it was right and served us well to do it. If we eliminated onshore refugee intake we could no longer do that.

Dear Yabby,

As you well know, I am not referring to "backpackers,"
but to those who pay vast amounts of money for
false papers - obtained from professional racketeers
and who arrive in this country under false pretences by plane.
This is common knowledge and their numbers far outweigh
those poor people arriving by boat. Anyway Google
the topic for yourself. The information is there on the
web.

Gawd Lexi, our customs service must be frigging hopeless. 60'000
coming in with false papers and they don't even notice that they
are false.

Now either Australian customs are total dummies, or more likely
Lexi has her facts wrong yet once again. I'll back the odds of
it being the latter.

It is not an immigration policy we want it is an emigration policy that is needed.
The Murray Basin policy will ensure that we have to reduce our food supply.
So let us stop all immigration and start sending them home.
If they are Iranians, no worry just give them a one way ticket to
Tehran and they can sit in the transit lounge until they do decide
they want to return home.

The government, I am now certain, has gone totally mad.
Their actions are just simply irrational.
They seem to have lost contact with reality.

Or is it that the government has no integrated policy and each
minister is going off on his own hobby horse ?

That would explain the way in which money is being spent, it just
seems that no expenditures ever take notice of any other expenditure.
It all seems to be unconnected actions, as if they were different governments.

Dear Yabby,

To use your own expression - "Gawd,"
you don't have to take my word for it.
Google the subject for yourself. As I
suggested earlier - the facts are there
on the web - if you know how to find them
that is.

Oops Lexi, you clearly forgot that travelling using forged documents
is of course a criminal offence and anyone doing so would be thrown
into jail immediately.

Best you check your facts a bit better.

Dear Yabby,

Google the subject - then we'll talk.
And if you can't just say so.

Hey Ludwig,
I thought you had disappeared for ever, re your post(s) on this topic,
I am totally with you on this one.
Good to see you back.
Cheers my friend,
NSB

Dear Lexi,

You are making the wild claims, you provide the evidence.

One of the problems might be that some countries do not have very
securely designed passports, and those are hard to detect as forgeries.
Ever watch those Border Protection programs ?
They do seem to be aware of the tricks.

Dear Yabby,

I'm not going to do your research for you.
The claims are only wild in your mind.
The articles have appeared in several
newspapers on the subject. From The
Australian, to The Herald Sun, and so on.
Believe whatever you wish - but if you're
interested in the bigger picture - Google
the subject. I have nothing more to say to
you.

I've read those articles too Lexi, and your memory is flawed.

People come in on tourist visas or student visas and then claim
asylum, but not false papers. If 60'000 came in on false papers,
there would frankly be no point in having a customs post, it
would be so useless at stopping anyone.

Most of the 60'000 mentioned are actually visa overstayers who
are taking a bit longer holiday then they should. They have
passports and return tickets.

There are less than 5000 asylum seekers arriving by plane each year, of which typically about 40% get asylum.

The rest of the 50 000 are visa over stayers most of whom return home a little late.

Unlike Lexi, I can actually provide a link:

http://www.news.com.au/national/asylum-seekers-arrive-by-plane-not-boat/story-e6frfkvr-1225790981775

It is well known I support off shore processing and every effort to stop the boats.
Sadly SM,s crew the NO coalition does not, oh we will hear the howling but it is truth.
Greens and Liberals support on shore processing.
And those coming via planes the over stayers the discontented the criminals, send them home too.
Now its my side hurling the brick bats.

But can we clear the air,stop letting our biases drive us apart?
Want hear about human slavery.
True slavery.
Here in Australia.
My time as union official,saw Irish, South Africans, Chinese, many more.
Living in tramp homes, being charged big money, working under 457 visas and no over time for 14 hour days.
And threatened, even actually being sent home, because this country did not want them.
Of shore processing, ALL REFUGEE in take from there unless it is 100% proved ,such as jumping ship,return would be wrong.
What is a true refugee? we have forgotten, blacken each other but in fact few of these folk are refugees.
We let the left coalition Greens/Liberals Blind us to the fact these folk can afford to pay criminals to bring them here.

And while Chris Bowen has been telling us about his ASPIRATIONS:

"TWO boats carrying nearly 100 asylum-seekers have been intercepted by border protection vessels off the West Australian coast...
The latest arrivals come after two boats carrying more than 200 asylum seekers were intercepted off the West Australian coast on Thursday."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/two-boats-intercepted-off-wa-coast/story-e6frfku0-1226212792673#ixzz1fVB0In8x

(if he waits a little longer his 20,000 target may be filled from on-shore arrivals alone!)

Chris Bowen's little speech the other day is sounding more and more like the ravings of a rev head, who is big on the noise and speed side, but has serious deficiencies with his braking & steering skill-set.

(with apologies to rev heads for linking them to Chris Bowen!)

SM,

I can also provide - many links. And as you know
full well - I usually do! But I don't see
the point of doing so to people who totally
disrespect my opinion - and state right from the
start that I "ALWAYS get things wrong!"
I see no point in continuing to interact under those
circumstances - which you should see as being fair enough.

Mr Abbott insists on processing on Nauru, which he knows did absolutely nothing to stop the flow of boats. The Australian Navy forcing boats back out to sea in complete disregard for human rights and safety, did that. By not supporting the same enabling legislation needed for refugee processing in Malaysia as is required for Nauru, he bides his time until the next election, leaving our borders wide-open and the public mood to fester enough to oust Labor.

To posters who want to use the Australian Navy again, say it instead of blaming the Labor party for not being able to effect a more humane (Malaysian)solution on border security. Most Australians do not want a return to this callous action.

With two years still to the next election, and the rate of boat arrivals growing, the Coalition happily sits on its hands. It thinks its onto a dead certain winning strategy, putrid as it is, but what will its position be if it loses?

Why thank you Shadow Minister. Your link makes my point for me.
Not a mention of "forged documents" when it comes to onshore
asylum seekers.

Lexi's claim was clearly ridiculous. But it takes more character
to sometimes admit when we are wrong and say so, then to simply
do a Lexi and dig herself an ever deeper hole.

Dear Yabby,

It takes even more character not to attack
people personally when you can't win on policies
and refuse to Google the subject as suggested.

My understanding is that the Liberal amendment would allow off shore
processing anywhere that complied with the UNHCR rules.
Nauru is in the process of signing up and in any case it was
administrated by Australia. Seems reasonable to me.

Could it be the spelling N-A-U-R-U that is the government's problem ?
Surely it is not Julia's pride that is getting in the way ?
I suspect but do not know that Indonesia is UNHCR complient.
As Malaysia does not comply, that is why the liberal amendment would
not allow Malaysia.
Anyway that my understanding of the situation.

Dear Lexi,

You have no idea as to what I have or have not googled. You just
make these assumptions and then argue with yourself about your
assumptions.

Rather then address my point, its all emotion with you. Its black
and white, for me or against me, exactly as Daniel Goleman describes
in his "Emotional Intelligence". Reading it, might to you some
good.

Bazz Toni was s- frightened Malaysia would work. That was the principal of the no malaysia amendment. Malaysia made to much sense. Sending people to malaysia to join the que as they were supposed to. By this time they were broke, and no way of trying such a stunt again. The problem would have ceased in very short time, when word got out at what was happening.

579,

The principle of sending children to Malaysia where they could be beaten was the main reason the coalition opposed it and the high court specifically banned it.

That it would work when the 800 quota for 4 years was filled in 4 months after Bowen stated that all new arrivals would be sent there is clear proof that it was inadequate.

This 20000 quota is another slimy Labor back room bribe to get people to accede to their demands at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.

Lexi,

I would like to see links from anywhere else than the greenie New Matilda.

The 20,000 is the direct actions by mr no. Worried about kids getting belted, that is a very weak excuse, from a mob that encourages turning leaking boats around.

SM wrote "The principle of sending children to Malaysia where they could be beaten was the main reason the coalition opposed it"

Kinder to send them back out to a drowning at sea, I suppose. Mr Abbott has stated Coalition will again turn boats out to sea, if elected.

Labor could reinstitute Pacific processing tomorrow without stopping the flow of boats. It didn't stop them before and it won't again. Folks know they'd simply do the same time as they'd be doing in a mainland detention centre, but without the razor-wire. Mr Abbott would be thrilled to be able to watch this fail, as he knows it will, just to turn the screws while stringing out to the next election.

The Navy's guns were 100% effective but Malaysia offers a humane alternative. Sadly, thanks to Mr Abbott, the public will only have Sophie's choice at the next election, guns or wide-open borders.

So, SM, stop your sickening BS hand-wringing over the plight of children, which you raise in defending Tony Abbott yet again, and come out. It's guns for you, right?

This subject has always been clouded by emotions.
And knee deep in intentional lies and untended.
First yes the ALP got it wrong.
Yes the got in to the Liberals for their policy's both in opposition, then killed it in government.

Well worth noting, holding the high moral ground worked against Australia, the ALP and Rudd/Gillard.
Worth seeing eyes open, it was Australian voters who demand and still do an end to the boats.
Abbott, RIGHTLY prospered on Labors mistake, HOW could my party not see John Howard won office, would still Be there, on this issue alone, but for WORK CHOICES.

Now Abbott UNDERSTANDS information held says, BOTH Nehru will be proved illegal if we do not change the laws.
AND IT WILL NOT WORK the very same people, who informed HOWARD have informed Tony Abbott/Gillard this plan will no longer stop the boats.
SM knows Abbott too we have a commitment no floggings.
And too that it will stop the boats, unfortunately that kills this as weapon, tony puts self before country his party is a disgrace they are aware of what they do.

579; Of course Malaysia would have worked.
The greens thought it would work too well.

Lucifer, What do you mean the Pacific solution did not stop the boats.
Of course it did, have you been out of the country or something ?
Nauru and the temporary visa did the trick.

You really should have asked someone about it.

Bazz that is crap. There's plenty of employers out there that target overstayed temporary visas. One person in the grape growing area, charged overstayers for accommodation, food, transport all at retail prices and had his own slave trade.

Luciferase, posting on Saturday, 3 December 2011 at 9:34:41 AM, made several assertions that are not correct.

The first is as to "... processing on Nauru, which [Abbott] knows did absolutely nothing to stop the flow of boats."

This claim is given the lie by the now famously scripted questions which the Ombudsman provided to Senator Hanson-Young that were misused as an excuse for forcing his resignation. The reason the Ombudsman had to have those questions asked was because the funding of his office in its role as Immigration Ombudsman had been based upon figures wherein there were essentially no maritime-arrival persons remaining within the immigration detention pipeline by mid 2008, there having been by then an earlier cessation of boat arrivals.

When, after the promulgation of the government's Immigration Detention Values in July 2008 was interpreted as a green light for boat arrivals and offered seeming certainty of quick processing and permanent Australian residence, the detention facilities rapidly filled up, the Ombudsman soon ran short of funds with which to investigate complaints. The present government, having ignored its own Immigration Values, brought the present political problem upon itself.

The second is as to the "Australian Navy forcing boats back out to sea in complete disregard for human rights and safety" having stopped the boats. I think there were only ever one or two turnings around of boats attempted, and that very early on. The whole idea of the boat traffic was to get to be intercepted 'in difficulties', or 'in imminent danger of foundering' by an Australian vessel, which by OUR law would become obliged to take passengers onboard and subsequently to safety. The greatest danger for intended boat arrivals and crew was in NOT meeting up with an Australian vessel after the short (guilt?) trip to Christmas Island or Ashmore Reef.

In promoting its Immigration Values, the Labor government in 2008 may have thought it was able to take a free kick at the expense of the reputation of Howard government policies. It was really at the expense of a very worried Australian public.

Dear Yabby,

If you had Googled the subject as I suggested
then I would assume that you would not have
summed up what I was trying to tell you as
being "ridiculous claims." Therefore here
is a link that might be a good place for you to start:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/refugees-$40,000-to-come-by-plane/story-e6frg6nf-1225802705191

Shadow Minister,

I trust the following meets with your approval:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/appeals-asylum-seeker-floodgates/story-fn7x8me2-1226208525393

Bazz and Forrest, why did the Navy get the call if border security was going along so swimmingly as you say, without its involvement? Because nothing else did the trick, that's why.

The boats started again when it became apparent that not only was Nauru processing abandoned, but Navy guns as the key element of the "Pacific Solution" were too. If you are saying the gov't deserves its problem because of this then Jesus deserved crucifixion by the same reckoning.

Just to remind you, go to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4816#128339 to get a feeling for how the AN may have influenced boat arrivals.

I will do whatever I can in any small way, including posting here, to try to ensure that this never happens again. Australia is a better nation than that.

Lexi, a single swallow does not make a summer. One single refugee
who thought of using forged documents, was told he would be deported
immediately if caught. That is hardly evidence for a large scale
forgery racket that is not being detected by Customs.

Once again, people who arrive by air have valid papers and a return
air ticket, or they would not even be granted a holiday visa.
If their papers are not valid, instant deportation, as your article
shows.

Yes Nehru worked.
Boats stopped
90% of those held there got settled in NZ or here.
Some went home by their own wish.
Not one was returned by us.
The high court challenge had repercussions.
The best advice is.
It is not possible with out change to use that place now.
Two it is, on the best advice, not enough to stop the boats now if it was legal.
Forrest Gumpp is right, like it or not most Australians do feel let down, do want it stopped.
Consider please.
If we passed bills, making both things legal.
And the one government picked failed,or Abbott's one did.
Would that be so awful, it would show one side right one wrong, Australia can then judge.
Who of us, is not aware settling this issue has become secondary to the childlike use of it to stop progress in the name of self interest.

Of Course Nauru worked, and will work again. Even if the legislation is not passed, it can be used simply by intercepting the boats and transferring the people directly to Nauru. As the high court decision deals with transfer from Australia, this does not contravene anything.

Secondly TPVs will reduce the incentive further.

Belly has a point, the rot goes a lot deeper than a squable over choice of processing venues.

Though I don't think the Malaysian solution would have worked for reasons stated here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4816#128400

At the core of our problem lie people --many in influential positions (like the judiciary ,the ABC & SBS, which I note is inflicting on us a repeat of its atrcious beat-up, Go Back to Where You Came From)-- and Luciferase who think that by giving away our citizenship to every Tom, Dick & Ali who cry's poor they are and doing something noble and making <<Australia...a better nation>>.

The inevtable result is outcomes like this (with thanks to Lexi for the link!):

<<While only 38 per cent of Afghan boat arrivals were initially judged to be refugees in 2010-11, almost 80 per cent of those rejected won visas on appeal>>

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/appeals-open-asylum-seeker-floodgates/story-fn7x8me2-1226208525393

or results like this:

<<More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians and, of the ones assessed, about two-thirds have had their application for refugee status rejected...[but]Iran will not allow Australia to send the Iranians home>>

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-a-thousand-iranians-risk-languishing-for-years-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361

Perhaps we need to go straight to the cause. Find our influential activists a more noble cause...something they can while away their hours of underemployment with --Does anyone have time teach them the finer points of tiddlywinks?

Hello Noisy. Thanks for your warm welcome back.

----
<< Perhaps we need to go straight to the cause. Find our influential activists a more noble cause...something they can while away their hours of underemployment with --Does anyone have time teach them the finer points of tiddlywinks? >>

SPQR, the more noble cause is staring us in the face: back Minister Bowen’s desire to increase our refugee intake… on the strict proviso that onshore and fly-in asylum-seeking be curtailed.

This really is a pretty good offer, which the Sarah Hanson-Youngs of this world should be fully supporting.

They should also be pushing for a big increase in our international aid effort, from the current paltry ~0.3% of GDP to at least the UN-recommended 0.7%.

Those who are demanding an easy passage for onshore asylum seekers, including onshore processing, no detention, etc, and who are thus creating an enormous pull factor for ever-more onshore asylum seekers, really are terribly misguided, and need to think very hard about the bigger picture.

And let’s not forget who it was who reopened this whole horrible debacle, after it had been such as an enormously divisive issue in the early noughties, and which had been successfully dealt with by Howard.

Yes, one K.M. Rudd. Australia’s worst-ever PM!

What WAS he thinking ?? ?? ?? And how could his fellow decision-makers, including one J.E. Gillard, possibly have gone along with it?

If he wanted to improve his humanitarian status in the eyes of the voters and the Greens, then why didn’t he just boost the offshore refugee intake a bit or increase international aid expenditure instead??

This still boggles my mind.

579; Your logic seems to have gone out the window.
I was agreeing with you that the Malaysia solution would work !

Lucifer said;
why did the Navy get the call if border security was going along so
swimmingly as you say, without its involvement? Because nothing else
did the trick, that's why.

You got it completely wrong !
The boats put out maidere calls and the Navy was obliged under SOLAS
rules to turn up.
You should really try to bypass the hysterical minority when looking
for information.
The smuggler knew that if they sabotaged the boats the navy would have
no choice but to take them to Australia.
However if picked up by a civil ship they could be returned to the
next port of call.
If Australia wanted to be nasty, we could position a merchant ship
in the area "on a voyage to Nauru !".

Ludwig,

<< SPQR, the more noble cause is staring us in the face: back Minister Bowen’s desire to increase our refugee intake… on the strict proviso that onshore and fly-in asylum-seeking be curtailed.>>

You have greater faith than me Gunda din. Already in today’s Sunday Telegraph report of the ALP national conference it seems to be have been watered down somewhat: << Labor has agreed to double the intake of refugees –so long as they are processed overseas>>

I don’t see the words “on strict proviso that onshore asylum seeking is curtained”

A technicality, perhaps –but knowing how often technicalities have derailed ALP border control polices --makes me highly cynical!

And knowing that Labor has a knack of putting the cart before the horse : We had already started accepted “refugees” from Malaysia before we had a chance to send any the other way --and now it looks like there'll never be any going the other way!
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1577536/first-refugees-arrive-from-malaysia

I suspect we'll end up with 20,00 offshores and the same number of onshores. And the lefts spin doctors will be working overtime selling us on it.

The easy part is boosting the offshore intake.
The hard part –and the part that labor cannot deliver on – is stopping the onshore asylum seeking scam.

Dear Yabby,

A single swallow may not make a summer in your opinion
however this particular "swallow" was simply the whistle-blower
for a whole flock of swallows. He was informaing the authorities
as to what was going on illegally. BTW had you Googled the
subject there's even more information on the subject on the
web - from more than one "swallow."

Try this on for size about illegal immigrants:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/taxpayers-60000-illegal-immigrants/story-e6frf716-1226200664868

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Here's another site:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/down-under/illegal-immigrants-australia-visa-americans

No Tax File No, No medicare, No australia card, No dole, They must be all working or filthy rich. A little bit more legislation may do the trick, instead of more detectives. Employers will employ them with no TFN and pay peanuts. America is overrun with illegal mexicans, These supposed people are not showing up on unemployment figures.

Bazz, if the link I offered in my last post lists the actions of the Australian Navy in response to an SOS, then the situation is worse than I thought! God save our wretched Australian souls when we knock on the pearly gates after treating our fellow man in this manner.

Lexi, not a word of a mention of false papers, as you claimed.

Visa overstayers indeed they are, as was my claim. Visa overstayers
don't suck on the Govt teat, they don't cost us billions. When they
are caught, they are deported.

The thing is, your claims were an insult to the Australian Customs
service. Are you aware that the AFP are a member of Interpol?
Are you aware that the Interpol database of stolen and lost travel
documents is over 12 million?

For somebody to spend 30-40k$ as claimed by your one person, to then
risk instant deportation and a loss of all that money, would be
downright foolish.

Just as the Australian Taxation Office knows of every bank account
that you own, all the shares that you own, how much interest you
were paid, how much in dividends you were paid, all through data
matching, data matching is used extensively by the Customs service,
internationally, through Interpol. 194 countries participate.

Boat people don't just want to live here, or else they would be
quite content with temporary protection visas. They want full
access to our many cushy benefits and the benefits of permanent
residency, which indeed are some of the cushiest in the world.

Given the the 1951 Convention is 60 years out of date, its full
of holes, open to economic migrants to grab their place. Never mind
those people stuck in refugee camps, who can't afford to push their
way in. Never mind those women and children who have nothing,
our heart on your sleeve brigade just react to whats on telly,
in front of their noses.

Ludwig, yes to every word, I agree.
Are you aware we me you and others can/will be targeted for thinking/knowing that is true.
We let our emotions, biases, political side form our opinions.
And we let our selves BE BOUND AND TIED by PC and minority's.
We truly, can not.
Talk freely of the impacts of separatism built in to boat arrivals or over stayers ext.
20% want to control the debate, to over rule the majority, and to ignore the impacts.
The divisiveness separatism we are importing, the conflicts, the costs.
Above all this link is remarkable, our Conservative Gentleman poster,who assures me he is not Christopher Pyne.
Claims a better understanding than.;
This country's best legal people.
I understand the negative effects to Doctor NO if the off shore system worked.
I know too it is far more important for the Negatives to score points than fix issues.
But soon the NO coalition will be seen for what it is.
Any one think of Tony's next job?
He has the form to try tax return inspector.

Dear Yabby,

All I did was provide you with the relevant data.
If you don't like the data or can't comprehend
it - that's your problem,
not mine, and personal insults don't make for
good discussions. As for illegals not costing the
Government or the Australian taxpayer anything -
may I suggest that you again re-read the last two
links that I listed. In any case I'll leave you
with the information that I have provided. If you're
not happy with it - do your own research - which is
what I have been suggesting all along. See you on
another thread.

*As you well know, I am not referring to "backpackers,"
but to those who pay vast amounts of money for
false papers - obtained from professional racketeers
and who arrive in this country under false pretences by plane.
This is common knowledge and their numbers far outweigh
those poor people arriving by boat*

The above was what you had posted previously, Lexi.
You have shown no evidence that this is correct.
As I have pointed out, false papers are rare.
Most are indeed visa overstayers, like backpackers,
with a home to go to, papers and an airticket.

So your "common knowledge" is actually flawed information.

Perhaps in your older age, the memory is slowly going :)

You have to be joking . The only reason these people are poor is they have spent their last dollar getting here. Arrive broke and we foot the bill. At least Back packers come with cash. These boaters should be exterminated for what they are doing to this country.

Hi guys...found this doc on the subject.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

"Until recently, the vast majority of asylum seekers applying for protection in Australia have arrived originally by air with a valid visa and then applied for asylum at a later date while living in the community.....boat arrivals still comprise less than half of Australia's onshore asylum seekers."

"...These boaters should be exterminated for what they are doing to this country."

Gawd!

<< Hi guys...found this doc on the subject>> says Poirot.

OH GAWD!

That is the same old bone Lexi tried to sell us as a great find about six month back. And it was debunked here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4733#124825

and here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4733#124893

You advocate guys & gals must do something to improve your powers of retention!

The argument that until recently most of the arrivals of asylum seekers was by air is a self defeating one, considering that this was because the pacific solution had stopped the boats. The air arrivals is constant but now about 50%. The stark difference is that only 45% of air arrivals get approved, compared to about 95% of boat arrivals (despite original assessments being far lower), simply because with no documentation, verifying boat arrival stories is nearly impossible, and the court in the absence of evidence grants asylum. Compare this to the 70% approval at Nauru.

The Pacific solution worked, and will work again. The only reason that the government can't implement it, is that they would have to admit that their policy for the last decade was a pile of dung.

SM, Pacific solution = !guns! The present Gov't stopped using guns because it was WRONG, which is also why it won't reintroduce them. You think it's fine to use guns, OK, you're in the minority for now at least. Mr Abbott is trying to build a majority by sitting on his hands, so we seem to be stuck with seeing how his putrid, stinking strategy to become PM goes. I'm hoping Australians won't roll.

SPOR wrote "...and Luciferase who think that by giving away our citizenship to every Tom, Dick & Ali who cry's poor they are and doing something noble and making <<Australia...a better nation>>"

look me up as a user and read my posts on border control topics, I am not about giving citizenship away and The Malaysian solution is not about that either.

SPQR,

Debunked, eh.....

579,

Just to reassure you regarding "...what they are doing to this country.". I attended an Aussie Christmas carnival yesterday afternoon. It abounded with overweight Anglo-Saxon types partaking of Australian cuisine. All sorts of fat an sugar laden delicacies were on offer ranging from sausage in a bun to the scintillating sensation of a multi-flavour "slushie"......and to top off the cultural experience, the place was awash with kiosks selling cheap Chinese crap.

Culcha - we've got it all wrapped up in OZ.

I noted Poirot slash at our culture and week end habits, bit of a joke, are we to force billy tea and damper?
While singing bush Ballards? give me the Chinese tucker and long black mates!
SM you will know, the boat people is a separate issue, and that it again and again is invaded with the one about other illegals.
Fact remains, most Australians want the boats stopped.
And like it or not right or not, more of us than the total protesters, would vote to deport the protesters too.
In a battle, if victory is impossible, try for the achievable outcome.
OFFSHORE processing, increase migration.
And define, true, who is a refugee and who is not.

I have just re-read Ludwig's opening post, and the linked news item therein.

I think you have misread what Minister Bowen has in fact said or been credited with, Ludwig. The proposed increased intake from 13,200 to 20,000 per year does not represent an additional 6,800 accredited-by-UNHCR refugees from camps of the like of Kakuma in Kenya. Reading between the lines, what it represents is a means of re-classifying the existing and anticipated-as-continuing boat-people traffic, taking them out of the asylum-seeker category and henceforth referring to them in the statistics as 'refugees'.

This little bit of statistical prestidigitation is presumably intended as the basis for some yet-to-be made claim as to Labor's having 'solved' the problem of the boat traffic.

Bowens actual words:

"We want to give more people a life in Australia
but we need to tackle the dangerous boats coming
to Australia, ..."

and;

"Then we can have that conversation with the people
of Australia to increase our refugee intake further."

First, note not all the boats are to be 'tackled', just the 'dangerous' ones.

Second, note the outcome of the Minister's foreshadowed future conversation between the Labor government and the people of Australia is already pre-determined as being one of "increasing our refugee intake further". Of course it has to be, for the boat traffic will only increase if it is not totally stopped. That the present Labor government sees itself as either unable or unwilling to halt this traffic is witnessed to by its retention as policy, at its just-concluded national conference, of offshore processing of asylum seekers.

All of which only emphasises the 'unfair dismissal' nature of the recent forcing of the resignation of the Ombudsman in both breach of privilege, and usurpation of the prerogative of the Parliament, by the PM. The accelerated releasing of boat people from detention is a defacto admission that the Ombudsman's investigations and findings were consistent with the government having not applied its established policies.

When is Allan Asher being reinstated?

SPQR, I fully share your concerns. I doubt there are many who would be more cynical than me about Labor’s performance.

It seems that Labor has already shifted its position from the news as I understood it when I started this thread.

Although… I find it hard to know just what to believe, due in part to poor journalism.

Check this out:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/half-a-win-for-refugee-advocates/story-e6freuy9-1226213210089

From this article:

< LABOR has agreed to double the intake of refugees so long as they are processed overseas. >

and

< The motion, put forward by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, means the party supports an aspirational refugee intake from 13,750 to 20,000. >

From 13 750 to 20 000 is not double the intake!

Am I missing something here or has the author just got no idea at all about basic mathematics….or does she think that a ~50% increase is close enough to double for it not to matter!

Just the same sort of thing has appeared in The Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/double-or-nothing-on-refugee-intake-20111203-1ocp9.html

What else have these authors bent, omitted or perhaps even invented??

Anyway, I support Chris Bowen’s concept as outlined in the opening post. Nothing else.

I most certainly DON’T support an increase in our 20 000 refugee intake unless onshore asylum seeking is decisively curtailed. And even though fly-in asylum seeking hasn’t been mentioned by Bowen, it should most definitely be clamped right down on as well…..before we increase the formal refugee intake at all.

Luciferase,

Pacific solution = guns
on shore processing = self mutilation and suicide
Malaysian solution = child battery and rape.

etc Can you think of any other silly irrelevant slogans?

This increase of refugee acceptance is an attempt to make the government look generous instead of being forced by incompetence to raise the numbers to match reality.

"Pacific solution = guns
on shore processing = self mutilation and suicide
Malaysian solution = child battery and rape"

The third statement in this trilogy is hysterical speculation on your part, SM, and certainly does fit the bill as being an utterly stupid slogan.

You should also note that self mutilation and suicide were an issue on Nauru, thus leaving us with either guns (100% effective but completely inhumane) or Malaysia (likely to be effective).

Nauru and onshore detention did not and will not stop boats coming

Forrest, yes you’ve got to wonder. Read between the lines, be suspicious, doubt everything… because things are seldom as they seem at first impressions…. even if it the message appears to be perfectly clear!

Belly,

I think you realise I was a making a point to 579 regarding his concerns about what these people are "doing to our country".

Couldn't find any evidence myself that any other culture is making significant inroads on our present generic "Western" appetite for bland fatty/sugary food and plastic crap.

Luciferase,

I was being sarcastic. All three statements are equally ridiculous.

Considering that in 2001 when the pacific solution was installed the number of boat people dropped quickly from 4000 p.a. to close to zero, where it stayed until KRudd dismantled the policy in 2008, and it quickly rose to 5000+ p.a.

There is no other viable explanation.

More boat arrivals have come in Nov 2011 than from 2002 to 2007.

To claim that the pacific solution which included TPVs won't work again given its past success needs a bit more evidence than a civil servant thinks so.

Labor has lost control of the borders and is now trying to pretend that it would have happened anyway. labor is spin over substance.

Yabby and SPQR,
I have read all these posts with ammusments. You blokes have done very well and the advocates still bring up the same old debunkeed arguments.
Most ammused at Lucifers claim that he does not want to see our navy fire warning shots to stop an illegal vessel again. He carried on as though they sank the boat, instead of boarding it.

Wonder where Lexi got her 60000 refugees arrived by air from. Is that supposed to be an annual figure? I also wonder why she does not use figures from DIAC.

Ludwig, welcome back and Forest I appreciate your input.

I think our current intake of refugees is about right, but I suppose a few more would not hurt. But am addament the illegal arrivals must stop. I think now it will take far tougher action than previously to stop them coming, because they now know we are a pushover.

Dear Banjo,

Re-read the last lot os links that I gave for the 60,000
numbers as quoted from the Herald/Sun and other newspapers.\
I don't make these things up, I actually get the information
from various sources, including Government Departments.
You also can get the same information if you Google it or
access Government Departmental souces. It is freely available.
It gets a bit tiresome to keep repeating the same thing -
"Google the subject..."

Lexi,
Comon My dear, you know the majority of those refered to in those articles are short term overstayers (tourists) who stay a bit longer and then leave on their own volition, after spending more of their own money. The figure is static because they are replaced by others who stay a bit longer as well. I do not accept the citizens of the UK or US apply for asylum. In your first few posts you spoke about 60000 illegal refugees who had came by air on false papers. Untrue. Maybe a deliberate ploy to confuse others?

You will note who gave the info to the press. A lawyer who derives income from pressing asylum claims. These lawyers have a direct interest in presenting their clients in the best light possible.

The DIAC website is easy enough to follow and has all the info most people would want.

Dear Banjo,

The Herald Sun got its information from Government Departments
under the Freedom of Information Act. I did not make the stuff
up. But enough said on this topic. I'll know next time not to
get involved.

cont'd ...

BTW ; short-term overstayers are not included in the
given figures. Read the following link again:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/taxpayers-60,000-illegal-immigrants/story-e6frf716-1226200664868

As the article tells us:

The costs to the Government in more ways than one are
quite substantial. More than half have been here for five
or more years, 20,000 for a decade or more. One in three
who've been here for more than 10 years indicate that there's
something very wrong with the system.

76 illegals caught picking fruit, 100,000 cost. Employers are to blame and they hopefully, are billed for the 100,000 it cost to delete them.
All workers are required to have a tax file number.

SM says, "I was being sarcastic. All three statements are equally ridiculous." Aaah, good that you admit that about the Malaysian Solution, at least. You can stop your hand-wringing now.

He alo asserts "There is no other viable explanation." for the flow of boats stopping following the inception of the Pacific Solution of which the final ad hoc stage, following the failure of the disincentive of processing offshore in Nauru et al, was the Australian Navy turning boats away by armed force. Yep, that worked very well, dropping arrivals to zero.

Didn't follow the civil servant reference, SM. If it was about me you're way off.

Have to admire Lexi's noble persistence in trying punch real published information into the minds of some posters here. None is so blind...etc. It's a tough crowd here, Lexi, good luck

Enough from me for awhile. I'll just settle back and see what Mr Abbott comes up with next to save his bacon. God he's on the nose!

*BTW ; short-term overstayers are not included in the
given figures*

Err, that is less then two weeks, Lexi, so very short term.
I see it all the time, with backpackers. They come to Australia,
fall in love with a local, shack up with them then really don't
want to go home.

Some would indeed have been here for a few years. They cost
the Govt nothing.

*All workers are required to have a tax file number.*

So 579, what number would you like? Tax is still deducted from
their wages, even if the number is false.

Dear Yabby,

Actually, they cost the government a great dealand I quote
from the Herald-Sun link that I cited earlier:

"Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria chariman, Sam Afra said
illegal residents attracted little of the outrage associated
with boat people, despite taking jobs and housing, using
public services, and not paying taxes. He said it was far too
easy to stay here if you knew how to "work the system."

"To have one in three who have been here more than 10 years...
suggests something's wrong with the system."

"Nobody's talking about it. It is a problem, and the question is,
don't you think the damage justifies putting more resources
in (to find them."

"He said the involvement of illegals in criminal and other
dubious activities also sullied the reputations of legal
migrants."

"Illigeal immigrants have also beein involved in drug cartels,
sexual slavery, and fraud. Illegals accused of guarding
marijuana crops in Melbourne and regional Victoria were among
43 people arrested last year in raids focusing on a $400 million
crime syndicate."

"A charter flight to deport 76 illegal...from Malaysia and
Indonesia, busted picking fruit in Mooroopna las year,
cost taxpayers $100,000."

"Australian Human Rights Commission president..., said it was
important to remember many more overstayed visas, or arrived
by plane and sought asylum, than arrived by boat."

But hey - if you don't believe the Herald Sun investigation -
and the fact that it found that nearly 60,000 people - is in
the country unlawfully sparking renewed calls for a crackdown.
That's fair enough - just don't be surprised if from now on
you shall subsequently be ignored.

Dear Luciferase and 579,

I'm pleased that there are voices of reason left
on this thread. We do tend to walk a precarious path
in ensuring free and uncensored information is
available - as the WikiLeaks controversy
has shown us. Some powerful lobby groups and pollies have
firm views in the matter (including conservative posters)
and don't hesitate to express them. The person seen to be
upholding the right of freedom of access is often the
target of personal and vitriolic attacks usually from those
challenged or embarrassed by the information itself.
Ah well - that's par for the course. As no doubt the comments
that will follow will show.

Deary me, Lexi, the Murdoch press would love readers like you,
who suck in ever word without question. Don't you think that the
people quoted in that story each have their own little axe to grind?

The press thrives by making stories sound controversial, or people
would not bother to read them.

I remind you that when the Govt tried to introduce the Australia Card
in 1985, there was public outrage. People felt that it was an
infringement of their civil liberties. It never got anywhere. Well
sorry, but without an identity card of some sort, you will have some
local illegals, as its much harder to catch them. That was the
public's choice, fair enough.

The fruit and veggie industry survive on backpackers, legal or illegal.
Aussies don't want the jobs. Without them, you would eat alot more
Chinese food, for growers would go out of business due to lack of
willing labour.

These people still pay tax, its deducted from their wages. They just
don't get a refund. They get no medicare, no dole cheque, no housing
subsidies, no baby bonus, no childcare assistance, no free language
training, no free ipods, unlike boat people, who cost us a frigging
fortune, as they claim their rights.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The UN 1051 Convention
is 60 years out of date and is full of loopholes, exploited by anyone
who can tell a good story. There is a simple solution. Take all
refugees from refugee camps around the world. They would not be
there, if they were not genuine refugees. They are the people who
really need help, many have nothing. Unlike those who push their
way in through the boat trade.

People arn't silly, they know what's going on. Apart from the
gullible of course, who live in their own little world of fairyfloss

The subject as always is submerged in emotions.
Yabby is right, I fought my party at the intrusion on privacy the Australia Card would have been.
Labor, intends to introduce it by stealth.
As a medical records/entitlements card.
We do not live in the same world we did when we beat the AC, privacy is far harder to control.
But just as every thing from banks to almost any one wanting to know who we are, wrongly but insistently demands our drivers license we will rue the new card.
I understand and now except we must fight fraud, so some of our privacy will go.
And that those the system targets will still gain false ID.
can we look at these points.
Is it true most Australians want the boats stopped.
Is it also true both major sides say they too want this.
Then it must also be true the many are not getting their wants.
The minority's are.
And government and opposition could, with the will, act.
In not acting minority's rule.
Abbott, due to polling and concerns within his party will put on a new face next year.
He may well change the NO NO NO to say ok lets try it.

Lexi,
While I agree with what Yabby says, I conceed that there are a number of illegals here that have just stayed on for years after their visa had run out. Some have been here for many years and i haven't seen the numbers of long term overstayers, from DIAC, for quite a while, but certainly there is not 60000 illegal 'refugees' as you said in your first post. They are illegals pure and simple. Now to get legitimate work and participate in our society they have to engage in the criminal activity of aquiring false tax numbers and medicare cards, etc.

I feel sorry for the girls that were lured here under falsehoods and end up in brothels, but the rest I have no sympathy for and they are wide open for exploitation by unscrupulous employers and landlords.

Our laws are a joke. The article mentioned one bloke who was illegal for years and now has permanent residence. I recall another migrant who was convicted of drug dealing and after prison he appealed his deportation and won the right to stay because he had fathered a couple of kids here.

The question has to be asked, just how far do we go in apprehending the overstayers? We could clamp right down but that would make us a police state and the tourist industry would suffer greatly and us all inconvienienced.

I do not have symphaty for any illegal that deliberately sets out to deceive us.

Tax is still deducted from wages even if the number is false, and passed into the tax office, i trust. That is a very trusting statement. I think it would end up in the bosses pocket. It doesn't take much to account for that number. A name must match a number. This problem lies with sleezy employers, willing to hide illegals for their own benefit.

There are significant differences between visa over stayers and asylum seekers.

Visa over stayers face instant deportation on discovery and being barred from re entry. They cannot access free public health care or schooling, cannot own land, open a bank account without withholding tax, and cannot legally work. If they do work, their wages cannot be deducted by the employer for tax purposes, and the employer faces heavy fines. So if they do work, it is generally for significantly less than what they would clear after tax.

In short they cost the tax payer nothing in stark contrast to the economic "refugees" on the boats who destroy their papers who cost the tax payer tens of thousands each after they are accepted and far more before.

This is why the cost of boat related border protection has more than quadrupled under labor.

*That is a very trusting statement. I think it would end up in the bosses pocket.*

579, I don't think you know how the tax office works, with cross
referencing. My wages declared has to match up with my PAYG
statements. If they don't, the little tax office bell rings and
they will visit.

So to pay people cash, I'd have to include the money in my own
income and pay tax on it. Now there are some cash industries out
there, but most things today, like fruit, vegies, fish and all the
rest, buyers must declare to the Tax Office who they buy from.

Name and number don't have to match. A bloke can walk in for some
casual work and give me any name and number that he feels like.
By the time I've sent the form in, he's long gone.