Over the years I've heard it repeated on many occasions that there are more refugess and asylum seekers arriving by plane than by boat.

Yesterday morning, the Sunsrise expert on international and foreign affairs Keith Souter stated less than 1% of asylum seekers arrive by boat, arrivals by plane excced boat arrivals 100 to 1 and the whole boat arrival issue is nothing more than scaremongaring by both sides of Government.

That statistic didn't sound anywhere close to being feasible to me and this morning after some internet research I discovered the official government stats.

For the year ending Jan 31, 2013
Irregular Maritime Arrivals - 7502
Irregular Air Arrivals - 67

The myth that asylum seeker boat arrivals is not significant compared to air arrival numbers is totally busted.

sbr108 - Good work, regrettably there there are some people that just do not care about facts they are too blind to any facts and will ignore anything that does not support there belief that all refugees are genuine and good people.

Oh, really....?

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/taxpayers-wear-burden-of-60000-illegal-immigrants/story-e6frfkvr-1226200664868

Poirot - To quote you "Oh, really....?" that is all you had to say, you could not say anything else but tried to distract people with an article that is meaningless to the context of the original post.

I notice your linked article is dated November 21, 2011.

More importantly the people in the article you supplied are not on welfare and are not eligible to receive it or free legal services etc.

I am sure none of them have burnt down any detention facilities or caused $60 Million dollars damage whilst here.

It is truly stunning.
That threads like this can be so very remote from the truth.
Unauthorized? what are unauthorized statistics?
However you cut the cake it is still not something to serve up at meal time.
I note,question, and invite others to, the inference Rudd,s solution will not work.
Because we are told, thousands of people will over come our neighbor!
Is it not so very clear that already, word has reached smugglers and their customers?
A side issue or not? it seems clear *the opposition, its followers, want no end to the boats,* based on their need for props to keep our eyes away from the failure they are*.

Oh really poirot. I see you are up to the same old tricks again, deflection.

We have known of the illegal arrivals Myth for a long time. I do have a solution. When anybody applies for a Visa to visit Australia they sign a form that they are NOT going to apply for Asylum. Also on the Customs declaration there should be a tick box declaring that they are NOT going to claim Asylum. That will take care of that problem.

I have just received an email from an old Digger who just found out that he is an illegal entrant.

He arrived in Australia on his parents Passport at aged 10. He did two tours of Vietnam. He is a TPI Pensioner & he ran his own business since getting out of the Army. He applied for his Citizenship & was refused. Apparently he had two minor Drink Driving Charges in the late 70's just after DD was brought in. He has said, Bugger it. They can deport me."

So what's the story? Illegal Boat people & entrants & all sorts of criminals can get to stay but someone like him gets kicked out. Something wrong? I think so.

Jayb,

So you are fine with illegal residents, as long as they don't come on a boat or claim asylum.

Okay......

Belly >
Unauthorised Arrivals are those trying to enter the country without a Visa and/or those breaching their visa conditions, including over stayers.

My statistics come from the Immigration Department; they are not unauthorised statistics and I did not say they were.

sbr108, and how did you obtain these stats from the Immigration Department? would you like to elaborate.
New Zealand is concerned about the large numbers of Kiwi's obtaining "economic asylum" in Australia. John Key has raised the problem with our PM. Half my partners whanau (family) are living in Oz and doing well. It a problem for NZ they are losing their skilled people, mostly to Australia. at the moment its running at over 1,000 a week. i have no problem with it but I can see their point.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/key-to-raise-visa-rules-for-new-zealanders/story-e6frfq80-1226570484092

poirot: So you are fine with illegal residents, as long as they don't come on a boat or claim asylum.

From a simple minded Bigot, thanks poirot. When he arrived from Britain he was am member of the British Commonwealth, as such, did not have to apply for Citizenship. He automatically was. They changed the rules in the 80's I believe. I not sure what year exactly, can someone input a year here.

Oh, poirot, you forgot, above all, Muslim.

Paul1405 - You try to compare 2 different things, the majority of people on boats do not speak English therefore they will be a burden on taxpayers for years or life, because no one can give them a job legally. If they have an accident they just say "I could not read the signs or instructions, or verbally I did not understand The Government will have the employer in court very quickly.

Maybe next time you will be better served by sticking your argument to the context of the original post, rather than diverting to New Zealand people legally here especially since at the moment you are only on page 2.

Yes of course fly-in asylum seekers and visa-overstayers should be clamped right down on as well as onshore asylum seekers.

If Rudd was to look at this holistically, he would do all of this.

I implore all the refugee advocates and stop-the-boatists alike to lobby him to do this and to thus tidy up all aspects of border control rather than just one part of it.

It is quite despicable that there is a constantly large number of illegals in our country who are taking jobs and not paying tax… and who are essentially seeking or getting asylum for many years.

However this number is more or less constant, as the number of arrivals is approximately the same as the number of these people who get caught and ejected or who go home of their own volition.

But the continuous stream of Kiwis is a separate thing, which also needs to be clamped right down on!

BTW Jayb, I am not necessarily saying that all long-time officially illegal residents should be ejected. There is no doubt a very good case for people as per your example to be allowed to stay. But of course it should be formalised and brought in line with the law of the land.

Phil If they say "I could not read the signs or instructions" I say you can speak English, should they not be saying " la la la la la la la" Do you believe every worker in Australia can speak or read or even write English, Not so, I spent years working with people who could not do any of the above, in many cases they could not read or write in their own language.
I have asked sbr108 to substantiate the claim in the original post with "sbr108, and how did you obtain these stats from the Immigration Department? would you like to elaborate."
Phil you called it "good work" and "facts" maybe you can elaborate for me, as you unquestioningly accepted them. At least Poirot post had a link, unlike sbr108 "facts" you accept so readily.

Ludwig: BTW Jayb, I am not necessarily saying that all long-time officially illegal residents should be ejected. There is no doubt a very good case for people as per your example to be allowed to stay. But of course it should be formalised and brought in line with the law of the land.

These Commonwealth Members residents should have been granted automatic Citizenship when, I think it was Goff Whitlam, changed the rules. It's one of those things that was over looked when they changed the rules. Now, some young Uni student has a job in immigration & doesn't know much about history or when & how to apply the rules. They have a check list & they just tick boxes, no thinking involved. Brain dead PS.

I have another mate who was a Techie in the Air Force sent to France to pick up a Radar system for the Australian Air Force (all Top Secret Stuff)ex British Green Jackets, SAS, MI6 before he immigrated. When he arrived back in Australia some silly Customs Clerk refused him entry because he didn't have Australian Citizenship, all about the same time. The Air Force rescued him of course & he got his Citizenship rushed through. There are lots of stories of genuine stupidity when it comes to who is & who isn't eligible.

Paul1405 - Like usual your replies defy any logic. You quote Poirot link but fail to mention it is old and has nothing to do with the thread his link was designed to divert the thread, next time he may start his own rather than hijack someone Else's.

You also tried to hijack this thread by diverting to New Zealand people in this country, if you are so against it start your own thread.

To Quote you "I could not read the signs or instructions" I say you can speak English, should they not be saying " la la la la la la la"

Not a very intelligent reply as I am sure you know, there is a big difference between speaking very basic English and understanding instructions regarding industrial machinery etc.

Sorry about the "ancient" (2011) link....

I'm sure there are no (real) "illegals" here now.

For those of you who don't trust my stats you can have a look for yourself... see the pie chart on this link to varify my numbers: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1295782/Asylum-seekers-Where-Australia-stands

If you have time to read the 49 pages of official statictics released by the Dept of Immigration & Citizenship be my guest:
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/asylum/_files/asylum-stats-march-quarter-2013.pdf

The thread seems to have gone astray. I offered up these figures to dispell the myth that most refugees and asylum seekers are arriving by plane.

For those of you trying to drag the Kiwis into this, that is a whole different issue. Kiwis are here legally; they arrive legally and they are entitled to stay; they share the same culture and 95% of them are productive members of society. Regretably the Kiwis are put into a limbo non-citizenship status where they pay equal taxes but are not entitled to equal social benefits of the other permanent residents; Kiwis are regarded as 'permanently temporary visitors' if they arrived after Feb 2001. The treatment of Kiwi immigrants is legalised discrimination rather than the ANZAC spirit.

sbr what ever sorry but yes I understood your numbers.
And that they are totally wrong.
Bet you know that.
This a mornings ABC breafAst had statistics for fraud in just Indian students, over staying here.
I n the region of 9.000.
Over stayers are in your funny claim like it or not.
You have a few friends here would love these type of threads.
Enjoy but watch the maths OK?

Belly >

I don't make up the stats. Look at the links and then send your complaints to the Dept of Immigration if you disagree or think that somehow you know better.

I don't even understand what your arguement is. Are you saying you can proof more asylum seekers arrive by plane? Do you really think more than 7000 have arrived by plane in the last 12 months... that's 19 a day. Don't you think that would make the nightly news if it was actually happening?

Just try and be logical about this. This is not slight against your beloved Labour Party, its just the facts about arrivals.

sbr108 The ABC has revealed that thousands of Indian students, skilled workers and 457 visa holders have been admitted to Australia on dodgy travel and work documents.
Briefings prepared by the Immigration Department and obtained by the ABC's Fact Checking Unit under Freedom of Information show out-of-control, large-scale fraud of the visa system.
Your figure of 67 is people who fly in and when asked to produce a visa simply can't, they are not necessarily seeking asylum more likely they made the mistake of not applying for a visa in the first place.
Overstayers are people who arrive legally, but then fail to leave by the due date, thus becoming illegal in Australia.
The ABC story is about people with dodgy travel and work docs.

How come that any Company can wack a Green sticker on their product then up the price by 20% to rip off people trying to do the right thing. It happens all the time.

I don't know what your post has got to do with Unauthorized Arrival Statistics Akavan

sbr108 - You need to understand the refugee advocates on this site if they can't prove you wrong will either ignore and questions or in this case try to hijack the thread.

Belly - If they are wrong you post what are the real ones, but make sure you read what the statistics are for.

HERE is the critical part you failed to comprehend "heard it repeated on many occasions that there are more refugees and asylum seekers arriving by plane than by boat."

Indian students are not claiming asylum.

PS as you know we do not get along.
It is never a good thing that two posters differ to the point of anger.
Let us start again OK?
We cannot come to together on any subject related to politics.
I never hide my ALP owned heart.
Or as my history here tells the faults I see in them.
A rare thing, invisible if it exists in your teams posts, self reflection.
This link talks about unauthorized arrivals, it try,s desperately to both blacken policy on boat people and *HIDE* by ignoring , the real numbers of other ileagle migrants comeing by air.
We differ but let us both respect each others rights to do that as of this day.
Differ? I race off, with pride,to man an ALP pre poll center, you are unlikely to do that.
This country needs to wind down the increased anger we are seeing in politics.

<<The ABC has revealed that thousands of Indian students, skilled workers and 457 visa holders have been admitted to Australia on dodgy travel and work documents>> : Paul 1405

This debate about fly-ins versus boat-ins is a false A dichotomy.

If there are illegal flyins, boot them out!
And the boaties are ALL illegals --it is their intend to scam the system from day one --boot them out!

Refugee advocates play a sneaky little game trying to offset the two issues.

People like Paul are Ok with any amount of clamp down on 457 visas holders--just so long as those affected appear to be light skinned.

However, I'll wager, that should any crack down on his mentioned <<indian students>> eventuate, Paul will be one the first to scream - RACISM.

The reality is, the fly-in V boat-in issue is merely another ploy by Paul and like (non) thinkers to muddy the waters --don't be sucked in.

SPQR,

Boat arrivals, asylum seekers - grey area legally.

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/03/scott-morrison/asylum-seekers-arriving-boat-are-illegally-enterin/

Poirot,

You have caught the Lexi disease --the length of your hyperlink now exceeds the length of your actual comment.

No namby-pamby advocates fifty shades of grey here.

They are illegal in at least half dozen different ways:
--Destroying papers --illegal
--Telling lies to immigration --illegal
--Sabotaging boats,endangering life & limb --illegal
--Destroying facilities ---illegal
--assaulting staff & police --illegal
--conspiring with smugglers to flout the law -- --illegal

SPQR: Boat arrivals, asylum seekers - grey area legally.

You are right. It's because Laws are framed to be "Half Truths" That way the Law can be used get someone convicted & someone else off the same charge using the same Law, (precedents) providing they have the money to pay the Lawyers.

The case is usually discussed in the Magistrates Chambers well before the Trial Date as to which Precedents are used. Then at the start of the Trial they go through a ritual dance of Precedence acceptance of those Precedence's already approved. Most Convictions & Dismissals have been predestined which is usually evident in the Magistrates summing up.

All Politicians use Half Truths because, depending on which the ball falls, they can say they were right & ignore the other half of their statements. People are starting to wake up to this fact.

Some stalwarts have a long way to go in realizing that though, on all sides of the fence. Stalwarts have the notion that whatever their Party says it must be right no-mater-what, no thinking involved.

Half Truths sell papers & are exploited by the Media for sensationalism. It really doesn't matter the what or why for to the Media as long as they can create derision to increase their sales.

Spqr,

It's not illegal to seek asylum.

Full Stop.

Poirot: It's not illegal to seek asylum. Full Stop.

True, Poirot, but it has to be done legally, if it's done illegally then it's illegal. Isn't it?

So if you land somewhere and request asylum, how do you do that without crossing borders without permission?

(unless you fly in and decide to stay and request asylum - in which case you won't be sent to PNG)

Is that what you mean by legal?

Poirot must be one of those green harpies from the south.

No one else could be so dumb or so misguided.

poirot: So if you land somewhere and request asylum, how do you do that without crossing borders without permission?

From a Simple Minded Bigot. Thank again poirot. For God's sake poirot. Read the UNHCR Convention. It states that you can cross the border for where you are fleeing to escape, whatever. It doesn't say that you can shop around for the best option. I says that Crossing multiple Borders is not a grounds for claiming Asylum. Once you have crossed a border to safety then that's it. You can then ask a country to accept you. You cannot just sneak in to a country thousands of K's away & demand that they take you in.

You are using Half Truths to deflect again.

It is going to be interesting, because there is a large slab of the victim industry with their snouts firmly in the trough of TAXPAYERS' money and directly or indirectly helping the criminal gangs who act as travel agents.

The hundreds of professionals, bureaucrats, ethnic groups and sundry others will be doing their very best (or is that their worst?) to ensure that their source of income, the 'asylum seeker' gravy train, continues.

It is an education how unethical and unprincipled some professionals can be where there are $$millions of taxpayers' money available annually.

Hi Jayb,

You are 100% correct,and the proof is there for anyone who WANTS TO SEE.

If you were a genuine refugee fleeing for you life why would where you end up --as long as it offered sanctuary --make an iota of difference.

Yet persons the ABC interviewed in Indonesia told the report that now they risked ending up in PNG they would not make the trip ---even blind Charlie could read that as "we are really seeking to elevate our economic status", but apparently blind Poirot cannot

Hasbeen,

"Poirot must be one of those green harpies from the south.

No one else could be so dumb or so misguided."

Just think of me as Bugs, to your Sam.

Why, last week you were all for blasting them out of the water.

http://myblairmore.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/16-yosemite-sam-mustach.jpg?w=490

: )

Poirot may I man up?
On behalf of all the respectful men here.
And Hasbeen, who puts little thought in to his words I say sorry.
PS still think they are illegal as are the over stayers and fraudsters in numbers multiple times more than the boat refugees.

Speak for yourself Belly old mate. I have no requirement for you to speak for me.

I find Poirot & her continual sniping, without ever saying anything totally disgusting. Let me assure you I have put considerable thought into this finding, probably more than you have put into your strange loyalty to the thing which claims to be the Labor party today.

Poirot's attitude & techniques are so similar to those of the chief Green harpy that I am starting to wonder if she is not one & the same person. Surely there can not be 2 such unpleasant green ladies in one country of such small population.

PS I'm still for repelling this invasion in whatever way works. I am however definitely against inflicting these people with their vicious religion & dysfunctional society on the simple people of PNG.

Hasbeen as you are no doubt I can be a very bighting contributor.
And as you should know I take to my mob too.
IF you ever took to yours, *and you never have* I would be forced to look again at the merit in your slander of my right to an opinion other than yours.
Poirot did not deserve your words.
Yes she is left of almost every one here, but her right to her thoughts is a right we know all too well.
I am no angel but even when under attack from a *menacing troll* who said she was a woman, who even sent a male fool to my front door, I doubt my words to her matched yours.
I have a soft spot for you, we clash then talk but bloke as a rule if you could not use the words in a mixed sexes group my thought is they need not be used here.
Last? yes me and nearly half this country,s voters are in the end ALP but are you saying every, lets be kind to you, one in three Australians are dirty/wrong/mad/for voting LABOR?
How truly silly are those thoughts but seen with ease in your scrambled words.
Yet Hasbeen quite a few would gladly join in that thought here.
And never understand it is all the evidence needed to say they know nothing about politics.

Belly,

Thanks for that.

However, rest assured that the opinion is mutual.

Hasbeen doesn't like it when someone has the nerve to speak in opposition to the tribal garbage that makes up the general consensus around here.

On the subject of "disgusting", I haven't come across any poster who regularly trots out such odious sentiment as does Hasbeen.

I recall one stunning example where his "great idea" was to lock asylum seekers in a room with a knife....etc, etc....

Yep, Hasbeen's a real man, who likes dishing it out, but doesn't like taking it.

Belly old mate, I'm sorry you can't see what Rudd is. It would be good for you to wake up, but never mind, at least you are totally honest, which gains my respect.

Poirot is not of much use to anyone. She has never said anything, just shot barbs at everyone.

It is probable that she is too ashamed of Greenie policy to actually voice it, but of course hates anyone who speaks true of the rabble, so snipes from the sidelines.

Respect her, you've got to be kidding.