Scott Morrison has just informed us that 41 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka were handed over to the Sri Lankan military at sea.

Assuming that the direction to do this came from Scott Morrison, I think this may be a criminal act on the part of Scott Morrison, and was wondering if there are any legal experts on this forum who could give a legal view regarding this? It's clearly in breach of international law, but I think it may be in breach of our own law.

What a heartless, vile man is Scott Morrison. He "claims" to be a Christian, yet he has shown he has nothing in common with Jesus Christ. Scott Morrison deserves to be charged, and if found guilty needs to serve a prison term for a crime against humanity.

Keep the brown skins out. We don't want them, we don't need them. Send 'em back and let 'em terrorise their own countries, not our country.

Scotty's doing a great job. He's an Aussie hero. He's keeping the brown skins out and he deserves a medal.

As long as they don't get here, he's got my vote.

Jay,

Yes....

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/53-australian-lawyers-condemn-return-of-asylum-seekers-to-sri-lanka-20140707-zsz13.html#ixzz36lT5f9z7

"Australian international law experts have uniformly condemned Australia’s return of asylum seekers to Sri Lanka as a violation of international law that risks sending vulnerable people back to persecution and torture."

"A statement, signed by 53 international law scholars from 17 Australian universities, said Australia’s conduct under Operation Sovereign Borders “clearly violates international law”.

“We are profoundly concerned by reports that asylum seekers are being subjected to rapid and inadequate screening interviews at sea and returned to Sri Lanka," the statement says.

"This raises a real risk of refoulement in breach of Australia’s obligations under international refugee and human rights law.

“Such summary procedures do not comply with minimum standards on refugee status determination under international law. Holding asylum seekers on boats in this manner also amounts to incommunicado detention without judicial scrutiny.”

Scot Morrison is merrily violating international law.

Is the handing over of asylum seekers at sea to the military of Sri Lanka a criminal act?
Jay123,
No !

High Court injunction blocks handover of 153 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/high-court-injunction-halts-handover-of-asylum-seekers/5579726

"The High Court has granted an interim injunction to stop more than 150 asylum seekers being returned to Sri Lanka by the Australian Navy."

I wonder if Scotty will be as keen to violate Australian law?

High Court injunction blocks handover of 153 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka
Poirot,
Fine, as long as it is the High Court judges paying & not us.

Scott Morrison may not be an international criminal but he's an international grub.

Dear Jay123,

Well it appears that some of our best experts in the field happen to think so.

"A statement, signed by 53 international law scholars from 17 Australian universities, said Australia’s conduct under Operation Sovereign Borders “clearly violates international law”."

“We are profoundly concerned by reports that asylum seekers are being subjected to rapid and inadequate screening interviews at sea and returned to Sri Lanka," the statement says."

"This raises a real risk of refoulement in breach of Australia’s obligations under international refugee and human rights law."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/53-australian-lawyers-condemn-return-of-asylum-seekers-to-sri-lanka-20140707-zsz13.html#ixzz36nBo1FJr

That is good enough for me.

SteeleRedux,

Indeed.

And refoulement is exactly what we've achieved if this report from Reuters is anything to go by...

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0FC00N20140707?irpc=932

Sri Lanka asylum seekers returned by Australia face 'rigorous imprisonment'

"SYDNEY/COLOMBO (Reuters) - Forty-one Sri Lankan asylum seekers returned by Australia are to be charged with leaving the country illegally and those found guilty face "rigorous imprisonment", police said on Monday, fuelling concerns about Australian policy and rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

Australia said the 41 were transferred to Sri Lankan authorities at sea on Sunday, but declined to comment on a second boat reported to be carrying an additional 153, saying only that it was not currently in Australian waters.

Australian border patrol personnel intercepted the first vessel carrying 41 Sri Lankans west of the remote Cocos Islands last week, after they were suspected of entering Australian waters illegally.

Australia declined to give details of how the group was transported back to the site of the transfer, which Australia said was off the eastern Sri Lankan port of Batticaloa.

The Sri Lankan navy handed the group to the police and police spokesman Ajith Rohana said they would be produced before a court in the southwestern port of Galle. He did not say when.

"Everybody will be produced before the Galle magistrate," he told Reuters. "They will be charged under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act. The sentence for those proved to have left illegally is two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine."

One wonders what delights the term "rigorous imprisonment" might denote?

What is very clear is that the UNHCR charter applies only to asylum seekers that apply for asylum in Australia, and does not apply in international waters. Similarly the interception of boats headed for Australian waters is also completely legal, and finally, the Australian courts do not have jurisdiction outside Australian territory.

The only possible way that the high court can be involved at all is to try and make the Australian ships Australian territory.

Secondly, of the 41 asylum seekers that were returned, only 4 were Tamil, the rest were not, and had no serious chance of claiming asylum.

I see the old Piorot-Redux comedy act is at it again

Shadow Minister made the telling point that:
<< of the 41 asylum seekers that were returned, only 4 were Tamil, the rest were not...>>

But he missed another telling point:
ABC AM (07/07/14) reports that the ONE illegal who might have merited further investigation, when told he would have wait on Manus Island till his processing was completed--OPTED TO RETURN TO SRI LANKA.

So much for fleeing in fear of his life --what a joke!

SteeleRedux, to be fair we have on the one side "A statement, signed by 53 international law scholars from 17 Australian universities, saying Australia’s conduct under Operation Sovereign Borders “clearly violates international law”."
and to balance that learned opinion, we have that well researched opinion of that eminent legal expert Judge Indi, For the edification of all, I'll reproduce Judge Indi's learned legal opinion in full.

"No!"

Judge Jeffreys will never be dead whilst ever Judge Indi is with us. LOL

Yes,Paul, I have no idea why we bother to cite 53 international law scholars from 17 universities..when we have our own experts on ths common garden variety forum.

For example, Shadow Minister, the expert international law, has just assured us above that Rogue Scotty is perfectly in his rights to do what he's doing.

Not to mention further Lolz from SPQR quoting:

"....that the ONE illegal who might have merited further investigation, when told he would have wait on Manus Island till his processing was completed--OPTED TO RETURN TO SRI LANKA."

Info which would have come straight from Scotty's "Information Department" - the same Scotty and the same Information Department that initially fed us a pack of lies in the wake of the Manus atrocities

P'rot,

<<Info which would have come straight from Scotty's "Information Department" ->>

How typical!

I am very sure that if it had been the testimony of an illegal angling for a technicality to gain entry, or an advocate riding the illegal immigration gravy-train you would see fit to give it headline billing.

Here you go, SM...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-tears-up-un-treaty-with-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-20140707-zsz5j.html

"Under international law, Australia has an obligation to ensure people are not exposed to refoulement. This isn’t something forced upon us by the UN, but a commitment we made voluntarily.

The principle of non-refoulement means that Australia is prohibited from returning people to any territory where they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Australia is also prohibited from returning people to where they face a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life, subjected to the death penalty, tortured, or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Australia’s duty arises by virtue of our ratification of a range of treaties, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, its 1967 Protocol, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This obligation extends to any place where Australian officials exert control over asylum seekers – whether within Australian territory, in another country, or on the high seas.

In order to ensure that asylum seekers are not exposed to refoulement, they must have access to a fair and rigorous status determination process. Even though the Refugee Convention does not stipulate how refugee status determination should take place, UNHCR’s Executive Committee (which includes Australia) has set out minimum standards that countries should observe."

Regarding the 153, of whom we know nothing of their whereabouts officially.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CED/Pages/ConventionCED.aspx

"Article 17

1. No one shall be held in secret detention."

(Just one article among many where we appear to be in breach)

Sleazy, crooked ambulance chasers can always be relied on to say anything to lengthen a courts deliberation. They allow barristers to avoid all tax by going bankrupt every few years and have no claim to be anything other than human filth! Lets see them band together and stop this fraud and then they can talk about justice. I suggest the lawyers and judges on this bit of nonsense address this national disgrace first.
By the by the law of the sea is that if you are rescued then it is your rescuer who decides where you are going. So they were rescued and sent where they did not want to go? Boo hoo!

The usual panic and flat spin is going on.
I have seen just one report that the UN Refugee Organisation has decided
that there is now no risk in Sri Lanka and is itself returning refugees there.

If this is so then all this is just political waffle.

Poirot, Manus atrocities? A bunch of arab stand-over men who attacked the police with rocks and racial abuse?
Well here is the thing sweetheart have a go at the wallopers but do not start crying when what you dish out you get right back.

Prosecutor Poirot,

It has obviously escaped your attention --that's one of the downsides of only viewing things through one jaundiced eye-- but your whole case hinges on this << Australia is prohibited from returning people to any territory where they have a well-founded fear of persecution...>>

And it was established ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS that there was no WELL FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION --just a WELL CULTIVATED DESIRE FOR ECONOMIC ADVANCIEMENT.

So, Sorry prosecutor case is thrown out!

Weird !
The UN HCR website has a page of concern about handing over at sea of
asylum seekers, yet the sidebar has a list of videos and article links
on how happy many are to be returning home to Sri Lanka.
They are returning from India by the ferry load.

http://www.unhcr.org/53baa6ff6.html

This cannot be reconciled against the outrage being shown here.
One has to ask is this another example of Abbott Abbott Abbott !

Of course, one expects nothing less than manic barking by the usual suspects around here on this subject.

You haven't disappointed me.

Never mind, Rogue Scotty is just the type to overplay his hand (we haven't had a genuine human rights abuser in govt in modern times)...should be fun to watch when he gets his comeuppance.

@P'rot,

<< manic barking by the usual suspects >>

ROFLMAO (that ones for you P'rot)

If anyone wanted to do a study of *manical barking* they could find no richer lobe that your anti-Abbott's rants since--since--since before he was sworn in!

ROFLMAO

For years we have been told that the reason we need to keep asylum seekers behind razor wire in off shore detention camps is that it takes a long period to determine if they are true refugees. The task is supposedly made more difficult because so many of these poor unfortunate people have chosen to throw their documentation over board.

Now it appears that it can be done with a series of 6 questions and the documentation is indeed present to make a proper assessment.

I suppose it is up to apologists like SPQR to explain which one is the biggest lie.

@Steele & co,

<<For years we have been told that the reason we need to keep asylum seekers [in detention was because ] it takes a long period to determine if they are true refugees>>

Nonsense –it was never a case of *proving* anything.
The majority were never refugees (in the Refugee Convention sense)
What slowed things down was that they had all strangely lost their papers –and all strangely told the same story-- and when some of them did muffed their lines and were rejected they could launch Oz taxpayer funded appeals –until inevitable given the benefit of the doubt .

What we have been told -–for years and years -- is that *TAMILS * were fleeing persecution from the Sinhalese . Now we are getting boats where 37 of the 41 passengers are * ENTHNIC SINHALESE * (and still the advocates are running the same lines –knock, knock chaps!)

Of the 4 Tamils the only one who merited further investigation opted to return home when told he’d have to wait on Manus while they processed his request .

The whole thing reeks of a massive scam—come Steele wake-up to it!

Poirot, SR et al,

While only having a limited legal background, I guess that I am the only person on the forum to have actually read the entire contents of the UNHCR charter. I note that virtually all these legal "experts" have a history as refugee activists, and in this open letter declaring Morrison's actions illegal they are incapable of defining why it is illegal. After a lecture at my son's school several years ago by Julian Burnside, I asked him directly whether the charter applied outside Australian waters, and he admitted that they don't but tried to imply that they should have some precedence.

Having done the reading there are several thing that are crystal clear:

The charter was written specifically to set a framework for the treatment of those refugees that have arrived on one's territory and as such applies only to refugees applying for asylum in Australian. The charter does not apply to what happens in international waters, and the only governing law is the international maritime law.

Maritime law allows the interception of boats under various circumstances especially when they have called for help, and does not define what happens to those intercepted.

Finally, the civilian courts in Australia do not have jurisdiction in international waters, so there is a serious question as to whether the injunction has any weight. I guess we will find out this afternoon.

SM,

"...I guess we will find out this afternoon."

I guess we will.

Again the desperate abc/Greens embarassed that many sent home were not even Tamils as they first suggested. The real shame is on the 'progressives' who encouraged over 1000 deaths and are now so pig headed that they still pretend to be the 'compassionate ' ones. You would think they would hide with shame instead of taking the high 'moral'ground.

So true JBowyer. The lawyers all got their knickers in a knot when it was not one of the old school tie mob who was appointed chief justice here in Queensland, & what a stink.

Could it be some of them missed out on more tax payer money.

Now we can see the truth. There is a hell of a lot more taxpayer money in representing illegals than there is in a couple of judges jobs. More than a few practices are likely to go to the wall, & many lavish lifestyles are going to be lost, without all this taxpayer money going in legal aid to represent a bunch of gate crashers.

Thank god we no longer have those lefty hypocrites in government, who intentionally made border protection fail, to buy the Muslim vote, & bring in more of them.

Lester1, said"Keep the brown skins out. We don't want them, we don't need them. Send 'em back and let 'em terrorise their own countries, not our country.

Scotty's doing a great job. He's an Aussie hero. He's keeping the brown skins out and he deserves a medal."

So, Lester, you don't have any brown or black ancestors like most of us.
Congratulations.

Our treatment of asylum seekers is going to be
remembered as an extraordinary period in our history.

Much has been hidden from the Australian public.
Much is not as it appears and many people are
engaged in covert activities of which we know
nothing. It seems that maintaining their slogans
are more important to the current government
than people. There is so much that remains obscure.
And, why our government is behaving the way it is -
in face of the unambiguous policies of retaining
legitimate refugees - beggars belief.

The explanations given by both the Prime Minister and
the Immigration Minister are totally inadequate and
inconsistent - and look like being a
cover-up operation of extraordinary ingenuity and
persistence. This is very disturbing and
should be of great concern to all of us.

I would like to remind people of the case of
Tamil asylum seeker - Leo Seemanpillai - who set himself
on fire in Geelong. His family were denied a visa to
attend his funeral:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-18/asylum-seeker-who-set-himself-on-fire-remembered-at-funeral/5533194

This is not the Australia that I grew up in.
No longer is it a country that we can proudly claim
to give a "fair go to all."

Like the Reichskinder they spawned from Fuhrer Howard, the current cabinet is keeping the status quo. Just a bit more brazenly, no boats...why then a 3,500 pax centre being built at Mokerang then?

Poirot et al,
If you can't wait for the trouble you're so keen to invite, why not go to places where this kind of idiocy is already in place ? Why not go to the Ukraine or Syria or Aghanista or wherever ?
I don't share your stupidity of bringing trouble here. So, if want that sort of life then go there, don't drag us into it.

'No longer is it a country that we can proudly claim
to give a "fair go to all." '

Oh dear Foxy when did we ever give a fair go to all. There are literally billions on this planet who don't get a 'fair'go. Many of them have been waiting for years in camps for a 'fair' go to come to Australia. Many who hate the Western lifestlye have come on boats, happy to steal our welfare and go and fight in other countries.

By all means up the intake of refugees but to encourage illegals is stupidity as well as heartless.

Foxy,

<<This is not the Australia that I grew up in>>

Yes alas –as you are so fond of pointing out – we now live in multicultural Australia!

--A place where criminal gangs make fortunes smuggling --anyone who can pay their fee-- halfway across the world to our shores.
--A place where satisfied & now settled people smugglers (former) customers channel monies to relations overseas so they try the same trick, and
--Where sympathisers prowl social media bombing us with cut and pastes or links which intend to malign & silence anyone who seeks to rein-in the scam.

Fair go! ...I don't think those in camps waiting to be selected would see more of the Gillard-Rudd open business to smugglers as a fair go.

Foxy, "This is not the Australia that I grew up in. No longer is it a country that we can proudly claim to give a 'fair go to all.'"

So you finally concede that Australians have been generous in welcoming many thousands of refugees and migrants since WW2 and always did the very best possible for them?

Checked, the moon is Waxing Gibbous, 79% full. The super full moon occurs on Monday, 11 August 2014 at 4:10 AM (Sydney). The next blue moon? Gosh, that is a rare event isn't it?

Keep multiculturalism, terrorism, Islam and the brown skins OUT of Australia.

Scotty's doing a great job. Australia for Australians.

Steele the reason that they can be examined so promptly in this case
is that there is no doubt where they have come from. Also they may have
documentation. It really is that simple, or is it that you do not want
to see that simple explanation ?

Foxy & Poirot, you really are letting your political bias get in the
way of your reasoning.
If the UNHCR is happy to send them back why do you object ?
The UNHCR even has people on the ground helping the returnees.

You both really need to get you nose out of the history.
Frankly you are both starting to look a bit stupid.

Yes Bazz, totally stupid. Maybe we should export these 2 to Sri Lanka, Afghanistan or Iran as they seem to love the brownskins.

Dear Bazz,

It's not intelligence that is in question here.
But the facts.

The UNHCR has clearly stated that:

"International law prescribes that no individual can
be returned involuntarily to a country in which he or
she has a well founded fear of persecution."

The High Court of Australia agrees with this statement.
And has issued an injunction against the actions of our
government.

Dear Bazz,

Talking about history ...

Between 1944 and 1947 the Western Allies handed over
to Stalin more than two million Soviet citizens, who
had surrendered to Field Marshall Alexander's forces
advancing into Austria from Italy. At the same time
many thousands of anti-Communist Yugoslavs, were
handed over to Tito's partisans. Both categories were
either summarily or eventually slaughtered, often in
circumstances of extreme cruelty.

Over 40,000 Cossacks and White Russians including many
women and children were handed over. And were killed.

It seems we've learned nothing from history.
As Colonel Tatalovic, in response to a Chetnik staff
officer's queries, 24 May 1945, stated:

"If the moral and political wisdom of the so-called
civilised and Christian West is of such kind, than
God help Europe and the world."

Foxy,

It is exactly that kind of populist fuzzy thinking that led to the deaths of over 1200 asylum seekers. Labor's epitaph will be "we thought we were doing the right thing".

Unintended consequences are a bitch. Doing the "right" thing and killing thousands is just as bad as selecting 4 asylum seekers out of 100 and shooting them.

Now we all know the consequences, doing nothing to stop the boats is criminal negligence.

Dear Shadow Minister,

UNHCR states quite clearly - that:

"International law prescribes that no individual can
be returned involuntarily to a country in which he or
she has a well founded fear of persecution."

Australia's High Court agrees with that statement and
has issued an injunction against our current Government.

Egad!...should I be mortally wounded because OLO's intellectual giant, Bazz, has just called me "stupid"?

I sincerely don't know if I can carry under such onerous judgement.

But I think I will...as the fabulous (and wholly bigoted) Lester 1, who appears to support abusers up and down this forum has just graced this thread with his irksome presence.

Lester1,

Was your 5th great-grandmother black?

Foxy,

A snippet on the issue of refoulement:

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13756/000-wouters-B-25-02-2009.pdf?sequence=2/

As has been said, in general the prohibition on refoulement aims to prevent individuals from being subjected to human rights violations; it protects people from future harm. The prohibition does not apply to every human right. Looking at the treaties which are the subject of this study such harm is defined by such concepts as persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1.3.2.3b Diplomatic assurances to guarantee safety
The practice of diplomatic assurances to guarantee the safety of people after their removal is another method used to allow the removal of aliens without violating the prohibition on refoulement...The
assurances aim to minimise or negate the risk of proscribed harm and are provided by the country of origin, most commonly at the request of the removing State.

To put it simply, for the coalition to return the boat people it must only satisfy itself that there it is reasonable to expect that those returned will not be subjected to persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The 5 years of peace, and vastly improved human rights, along with the guarantee from the government is more than enough.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Australian Government is actively colluding in the
imprisonment and torture of dissidents fleeing
one of the most brutal regimes in Asia. A regime
currently being investigated by the UN for war crimes.
We are handing the persecuted back to the persecutors.
You may not have a problem with this.
I do.

What's happened to our country which once had a proud
liberal democracy that peacefully settled hundreds
of thousands of refugees from all over the world?

Dear Bazz,

You might have been born yesterday but give the rest of us a little credit.

Suddenly it seems a boat load of asylum seekers has turned up and apparently rather fortuitously with all aboard having their documentation intact (a singularly rare occasion as we have been repeatedly told by you lot and sneering politicians that they throw it away), without having learnt the correct spiel (the one we have been told that the cunning people smugglers insist they learn), 90% who are apparently Singalese rather than Tamil, and who have all been prepared to answer the 6 questions put to them freely and without obfuscation (which we have been told they never have done in the past).

Further except for one individual in a boat load of refugees coming from a country which has almost universally condemned for continuing human rights abuses and has had valid questions about genocidal behaviour hanging over its head have found to perhaps have a valid claim for asylum.

And you really think we are not being lied to? Particularly by a government which has such a infamous track record of deceit?

You might indeed be a mug along with SPQR but please don't insult our intelligence my friend.

Deleted for abuse.

Foxy,

You are talking complete bollocks. You cannot compare what was happening 5 years ago with what is happening now. For a country of about 21m people there are relatively few abuses, and those predominately are aimed at ex Tamil Tiger guerrilla leaders who themselves are far from innocent. The vast vast majority now live in relative peace.

Those coming in boats are also not dissidents, nor are most of them fleeing persecution or torture. That 37 of the 41 recently returned were Sinhalese supposedly from the winning side puts kills that theory.

Reality check!

<<Foxy whinges: The Australian Government is actively colluding with …one of the most brutal regimes in Asia.>>
<< Redux whines: a country which has almost universally condemned for continuing human rights abuses …>>

What rubbish!

All you two are doing is demonstrating the limits of your knowledge --or limitlessness of your gullibility. Practically every country in south Asia has been labelled an abuser and torturer by one group or another--care to name one that has not?

Stop the beat-up --stop your nonsense.

What better test or demonstration can we have than to see that under the supervision of the UN thousands of Tamils from various sites (except Oz of course!)have been resettling in Sri Lanka!

That will do Lester 1, I didn't like Gillard but your language is not what we want here.

Yes Steele I am sure we are being lied to by boat loads of liars.
The UN is happy to send people back so why didn't you follow my link
and read about the returning Tamils ?
The UNHCR has people on the ground ready to help them resettle.

Why is it that those so ready to quote the UNHCR will not accept what
the UNHCR says ? Really weird, and they get upset when I say their
attitude is stupid. I know they are not stupid people but like everyone
else they can do stupid things.

The only reasonable way to understand their attitude is to believe it
just follows their long held political belief.
Doesn't backing oneself into corners ring a bell ?

to ALL -

“Australian international law experts have uniformly condemned Australia’s return of asylum seekers to Sri Lanka as a violation of international law that risks sending vulnerable people back to persecution and torture”

. . . However . . . . . the REAL issue here is HOW exactly we wish to define the key terms of “vulnerable person”, “persecution”, “torture”.

For instance, if Australia were to accept that their legal definition of these terms could potentially amount to any possible arrival claiming to be a refugee who fled from “persecution” and that IF we return them to their origin place THEY CLAIM [i.e. heresay] that their life would be in danger, then what is to stop EVERY potential refugee using this clause to FORCE our nation to grant them full status and entry?

Dear Shadow Minister, and others,

The following link may put things into perspective
for you:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/asylum-seekers-my-country-my-shame-20140704-zswgi.html

"Human rights issues transcend mere political issues
and they give rise to a duty to espouse them!"

Nicholsen is not only a lawyer and judge but the very epitome of all that is wrong with the legal profession. He gets an extravigent pension from my taxes and then bags me and our country. If I had his money I could afford to swan around the world big noting myself too.
With his money, he can leave the pension behind and relocate to another more freedom loving country.
Any suggestions? Keep yourselves nice!

Foxy,

I seem to remember Juliar crowing about sending back 1000 Sri Lankans and there was not a peep from you. Was it a different Sri Lanka then?

As for your silly little homily that you linked, it is quite clear that there is a small minority of people living with severe amnesia towards the nearly 1000 illegals arriving a week and the 1000 that perished at sea in the last year of labor's border protection disaster.

Some here should understand it is my, & my countries human right to defend my home, & my country.

It matters not if we are suffering an armed invasion, or an unarmed one, we are being invaded by people most of us don't want here, & we are perfectly within our rights to reject them, in what ever way is required, to keep them out.

Anyone who wants to become a citizen of the United Nations should apply to them. Anyone stupid enough to let them try to rule here should be locked up in a mental asylum, as they definitely are not of sound mind.

I refuse to be controlled by the most corrupt organisation this planet has ever spawned.

Get over it kids, this government is trying to do exactly what it was elected to do, & is going to succeed. The best thing they have going for them right now is this interference with them stopping illegal boat people. Keep it up, & watch their polls rise.

Wow...all you fellas are sounding a little rabid.

Whatcha reckon Scotty's gonna do with the 153 men, women and children he scooped up in Australia's contiguous zone and then floated out to the high seas?

Sri Lanka's not going to take them (apparently)

So clever Admiral Morrison (your hero) really isn't as clever as he - or you - thinks he is.

153 "humans" bobbing around on the high seas presided over by a jumped Immigration Minister with the ethics of a polecat.

And fancy Scotty being forced to actually admit these people exist...he must be frothing at the mouth. Scotty thinks why can't people just keep their noses out, it's all much easier for him to do a Sir Humphrey Appleby impersonation while keeping people disappeared.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I shouldn't be surprised at your attempt to
brush aside any newspaper articles that don't agree
with your political outlook or agenda. Even if
the article happens to be written by an experienced
Judge talking about his experiences and the Law.

Then you try to divert with your usual Liberal tactic
of blaming others for your problems.
Nothing new here.
You need to be reminded that -
This discussion - is about the current Government's actions.
And blaming others for their current behaviour - simply
won't wash.

The Age newspaper tells us that -
The Prime Minister states that while Sri Lanka may not
be an ideal society it is a "peaceful" country and that
"all of us should be grateful that the horrific civil
war is well and truly over."

These comments betray Mr Abbott's fundamental lack of
understanding about the principles underlying the UN
Refugee Convention. Mr Abbott implies that because
Sri Lanka is no longer at war, Sri Lankans don't need to seek
asylum in Australia.

But war and peace have no bearing on the validity of claims
made by asylum seekers under the Convention.

The Convention doesn't just apply to people fleeing or
displaced by war. It applies to all people who fear being
persecuted on human rights grounds, on the basis of their
race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or because of their political opinion.

To that end, whether their home country is at war or not is
entirely irrelevant to a person's claim for asylum.

Conditions may be "peaceful" in Sri Lanka but the fate that
awaits these people is highly uncertain.

To Australia's shame - immigration officials have made only the
most fleeting inquiries about the legitimacy or other wise
of the requests for protection. Four questions were asked
during interviews - conducted via video conference calls.
Only one of which asked why they sought protection.

Foxy
What about the rights of the Sri Lanka government to protect their country from
being divided up by the demands for a separate state by the Tamils.

The Tamils immigrated from India to Sri Lanka and after a couple of hundred years
decided they wanted to cut off a piece of Sri Lanka to form their own country.

They fought a 20year war with the Sri Lanka government with this aim.

Just who is the injured party here? The Tamils or the Sri lanka government.
Doesn’t look good for the future of multi-culturalism.
Some of these groups here will probably try to divide Australia up into different countries
too, eventually. Can you blame people for not wanting to import this kind of trouble into
Australia.

The Tamils could return to whence they came to the
Tamil community just a short trip away in India.

Why do they shun that safe option to come to Australia instead.
They are simply using the events in sri Lanka to try for
economic betterment.

Can't blame them for trying it on but they do not have to come
to Australia, when they have a safe haven, being the Tamil community in India.

People are always talking about the lessons of history but it seems
to me a lot of people have only a surface knowledge of the war
in Sri Lanka and Tamil history.

don't insult our intelligence
SteeleRedux,
No-one's doing that however, many here are wondering if you have any at all because you're not displaying any.

Scott Morrison astounds me, as a self professed Christian he fails to exhibit such Christian qualities when it comes to his portfolio of Immigration Minister. The High Court, commendably has stepped in, at least temporally, to prevent this secretive government from acting unilaterally against people who's refugee status should be determined correctly under both Australian and International law.

Paul,

Quick question:where did the current boat come from?

Do you even know?

INDIA - they had been living SAFELY in INDIA - what a joke!

SPUD, I thought they set sail from Luxemburg yesterday, not Southern India 3 weeks ago. I'll just have to bow to that superior SPUD intellect of your's. I bet you look rather dapper in your snappy black uniform.

<<SPUD, I thought they set sail from Luxemburg yesterday>>

Yep. I would not be at all surprised if Christine told you in the Greens briefing

And I'll bet Adam told you Luxemburg was an province of Sri Lanka!

Dear CHERFUL,

The Sri Lankan Government is one of the most brutal
regimes in Asis. A regime currently being
investigated by the UN for war crimes. We are handing the
persecuted back to the persecutors. A Member of the
Australian Government is openly and blatantly lying
to the Australian people about a matter of life
and death at sea. The military is now
completely in charge of Australian Immigration
operations. A general is in command of civilian agencies.
To Australia's shame immigration officials have made
only the most fleeting inquiries about the legitimacy
or otherwise of their requests for protectioon.
Four questions were asked during interviews - conducted
via video conference calls, only one of which asked why
they sought protection.

Why are you assuming that these people are going to be
trouble for Australia when records show the contrary.
Leo Seemanpillai is just one example of a Tamil
who lived here and contributed greatly to our society
during that time:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-18/asylum-seeker-who-set-himself-on-fire-remembered-at-funeral/5533194

Hundreds of Australians came to his funeral in Geelong - so
Leo had made quite a positive impact. However, sadly his
family were denied a visa to attend his funeral.

Lexi,

I am well aware that you would like to limit the discussion to only what the present government is doing, as to compare your outrage now to your silence when Labor did much the same must be uncomfortable.

Please at some stage read the UNHCR charter. It is only a few pages and is in plain language. It is clear as has the Government's legal team stated that the migration act and the UNHCR charter only applies to those asylum seekers in Australia or at least within the 12 nautical mile territorial waters. As per the document I linked in the other post, the only legal limits to the government's action to repatriate the illegals is the human rights requirement that the illegals are not in danger of torture, abuse or persecution. This can be solved by a simple commitment by the Sri Lankan government.

Secondly your claim of the 41 illegals being "dissidents" is complete bollocks as 37 were not Tamils and thus not at risk of discrimination or persecution.

Finally, the second boat of 153 illegals was not destined to be returned in spite of all the left whingers' hype. They, however, can be sent directly to Manus or Nauru, and as they have never been in Aus territory have no claim to come to Aus.

Spot-on, Shadow,

<<Secondly your claim of the 41 illegals being "dissidents" is complete bollocks as 37 were not Tamils and thus not at risk of discrimination or persecution.>>

One of the fathers of the above 41 was interviewed on ABC AM this morning. Bemoaning their arrest on return to Sri Lanka he said: all they were doing was looking for jobs.

all they were doing was looking for jobs
all they were doing was looking for jobs
all they were doing was looking for jobs

Betya Foxy doesnt cut and paste that one!

Foxy,

For some reason I called you Lexi Sorry.

You claim that Sri Lanka is one of the most brutal regimes in Asia. I can easily name plenty that are worse, in fact of the 43 countries in Asia, Sri Lanka is not even in the top half with respect to brutality today. Today the country is at peace. It is far from perfect, but the vast majority of Tamils are not at risk of persecution.

As for the mentally ill tamil that burnt himself, why on earth would we want to bring his relatives here if it is going to cost us hundreds of thousands to send them back?

Paul,

I am continually astounded by the cold hearted Sarah Hanson Young who when asked about all the drownings of illegal essentially said #$& happens, bemoans a resettled refugee being drowned, yet remains silent when asylum seekers commit rape or murder in Aus.

Shadow you may be naive enough to trust "a simple commitment by the Sri Lankan government." Others are not, yet again you have placed your trust in Abbott and co to do both the moral and the legal right by these people.

Another good post by Foxy, Shadow your going to have to lift your game, your getting beat on all fronts. I do understand that Abbott and co give you little ammo to fight with, whilst loading up their opponents with tons of dynamite to throw back.

The discussion is now redundant as those on the first boat have admitted
that they were economic migrants not asylum seekers.
This seems to be an early project for the people smuggling firm.
No doubt the those on the next boat will be better instructed to throw
their passports or other documentation away and claim political asylum.
Also they will be told to keep the boats location quiet until within
12 nm of Australian territory.

Their biggest complaint seems to be that the food was past its best use date.

Under the Labor/Greens government not so long ago,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

There are some here with very short memories, particularly of the number of deaths at sea from criminal smuggling gangs and the quick-witted country-jumping rogues they transport.

For those touting here Sri Lanka as being all warm and cuddly to assuage their own guilt about Australia's actions may I remind you that less than a year ago both the Indian prime minister and his Canadian counterpart boycotted CHOGM in protest about past and continuing human rights abuses. British Prime Minister David Cameron did turn up for a short while, visited Jaffna, and gave a scathing critique of the violations that are occurring and left before talks got started.

What did our PM do? He explained away the torture and systematic rape by saying “In difficult circumstances difficult things happen.” Then he handed over 2 warships to their military, the same military the UN wants investigated for war crimes.

Well Hasbeen, Shadow Minister, SPQR, Cherful et al this was all done in your name, so the fears you wrap around your little selves can be calmed, so the nightmares about being invaded can be soothed. Father Tony and Uncle Scott are going to make sure things are going to be alright, they are going to look after you. They won't tell you how of course because it might bring you some distress and they really wouldn't want to trouble you. They really have your best interests at heart.

Cowards.

So the question becomes 'Has Scott Morrison succeeded in stopping the boats?'

The obvious answer is no but I am keen to see what flawed logic will be applied to make the opposite case.

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“don't insult our intelligence SteeleRedux, No-one's doing that however, many here are wondering if you have any at all because you're not displaying any.”

I would hold my intelligence quota up to your empathy quota any day. You had absolutely none for the victims of Rolf Harris nor for those fleeing a brutal regime. You are nothing but consistent.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We are not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue.
That is obvious. You seem to find political issues
more important than human rights issues, whereas I
find that human rights issues transcend mere
political issues and to me they give rise to a duty
to espouse them. I have criticised Labor's actions
many times in the past - especially on the issue of
asylum seekers. Neither major party has anything to
be proud of on the way they've handled things.
Deaths at sea occurred under both governments.
As did suicides in the detention centres.

Today we have Ministers of the Australian Government
openly and blatantly lying to the Australian people
about the matters of life and death at sea.
It's now reached the point where nobody (apart from
a few rusted-on supporters) believe anything this
Government says. That is the reality that currently
exists.

What on earth happened to the Liberal Party that my
parents and family supported for decades.
Where are the decent Members of Parliament who
believed in transparency and accountability, in
compassion, human rights, and an egalitarian society.
Sir Robert Menzies must be turning over in his grave.

Once again for Foxy's sake

One of the fathers of the above 41 was interviewed on ABC AM this morning. Bemoaning their arrest on return to Sri Lanka he said: all they were doing was looking for jobs.

So how about cutting the human rights waffle,eh!

SteeleRedux asked, "has Scott Morrison succeeded in stopping the boats?"

The clear answer is YES, because not 1 boat has successfully landed their cargo of economic illegals for a very long time indeed.

100% success.

Congratulations Scott Morrison, we need good Christian men like you to protect us from overseas scum. You're doing your job brilliantly. The socialists here hate that.

Dear Foxy,

The pugnacious lack of transparency has really gotten completely absurd.

Annabel Crabb gave us the following verbatum piece correctly referring to it as Pythonesque, a very apt description.

“What follows is the edited transcript of an actual doorstop press conference given by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison last Saturday:

Q: Minister, is there a boat in trouble off Christmas Island?

A: It is our standard practice as you know, under Operation Sovereign Borders, to report on any significant events regarding maritime operations at sea, particularly where there are safety of life at sea issues associated, and I am advised I have no such reports to provide.

Q: Is there a boat?

A: Well, I have answered the question.

Q: … So are you saying that boats are not leaving (for Australia)?

A: We are always ready for boats that may arrive and we always anticipate that they may seek to come and we are always ready. We are ready today, we were ready yesterday and we will be ready tomorrow and the government’s policies will continue to prevail.

Q: So Mr Morrison, you are not even going to confirm there is a boat, you are not going to say what is happening if people are in the water? Their boat is leaking, we are told – leaking oil – and you are not going to say anything about that situation?

A: What I have said is that it is our practice to report on significant events at sea, particularly when they involve safety of life at sea. Now there is no such report for me to provide to you today. If there was a significant event happening then I would be reporting on it.

Cont..

Cont..

Q: So what does that mean?

A: You are a bright journalist. I’m sure you can work it out.

Q: No, we are asking you, Sir. You are the minister.

A: And I have given you my response.

Q: So could you clarify, Sir, for us – at what point does an event become a significant event involving a boat on the water?

A: When you see me here standing and reporting on it.

Q: And you are standing here reporting.

A: I am not. I am saying there is no such report for me to provide to you today.

Q: Are you saying that it could be a hoax that people are saying they are in trouble?

A: I am not saying anything of that at all. I am not confirming any of these matters. This should come as no surprise to you. This has been our practice now for the entire period of this operation. This is another day at the office for Operation Sovereign Borders.”

http://m.smh.com.au/comment/scott-morrison-interview-takes-on-pythonesque-proportions-20140704-zsw9n.html?skin=dumb-phone

Astounding.

Thinking about the 153 aboard the Customs vessel, SM, I think it was,
suggested that as the ship was in international waters no Australian
law could restrict what was done with the passengers.

Not being a lawyer, I think that might be wrong.
If you commit murder on an Australian registered ship you would be
charged under Australian law.
The same with any ship, the country of registration sets the rules.

SteeleRedux <For those touting here Sri Lanka as being all warm and cuddly to assuage their own guilt about Australia's actions may I remind you that less than a year ago both the Indian prime minister and his Canadian counterpart boycotted CHOGM in protest about past and continuing human rights abuses.>

Well then, India won't mind accepting the Tamils back into the
Tamil community in India then, or is the Australian government
coming up against a barrier with the Indian Authorities and that's
why they have to hand them back to the Dri Lankan government instead.

maybe the Indian government is a hypocrite when they protest against
human abuses not wishing to take the tamils back themselves?

Foxy <The Sri Lankan Government is one of the most brutal
regimes in Asis. A regime currently being
investigated by the UN for war crimes. We are handing the
persecuted back to the persecutors.>

Dear foxy,

I do agree that the Tamils would be safer being handed back
to the Tamil community in India. The bitter resentments from
the recent civil war in Sri Lanka are no doubt there on both sides.
Families killed by one side or the other still harbouring great hostility to the other side and with the Tamils being the
losers they will be at more risk of reprisal.

I have not seen however the Indian government putting up their hands
to take this ship load of 100 or so Tamils back to their bosom.

My heart went out to that beautiful little girl on one of the Tamil boats and I feel such sadness when I see the terror on the faces
of the little Syrian children as the bombs rain down around their
shelters and homes. The awful part is they know Mummy and Daddy can't protect them and they are terrified. I can picture myself as a child and the faces of my own grandchildren in the faces of those children.

Then the other side of the coin:-
This has been the way of mankind since time memorial. I know saving these people will not change
the nature of mankind and that saving the world poses a huge threat
to the countries that do it in the long term. We have already lost
10's of thousands of our young sons and daughters in peacekeeping
operations around the world, Maybe it is time to let other countries
sort out their own messes at their own cost in blood and mayhem instead 0f us trying to do it for them and failing.

It also changes the course of history which is something that couldn't
be done in past conflicts on the planet and I wonder what the
future consequences of that might be in centuries to come.

Dear Cherful,

Instead of blaming India why don't you ask Mr Morrison
if the Australian Government has even approached India
regarding taking these asylum seekers back.

Good luck with getting an answer from him though.
He can't comment on "operational matters!"

That's his excuse and he's sticking to it!
Which the Australian public is supposed to simply accept.
And we're supposed to be a democracy - not a totalitarian
state.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The way things are headed is very worrying.

The way the Government's message is dressed up to
attract us with the simple slogan of "We will stop the boats!"
is a smoke screen behind which lurks a philosophy that is
both hard to swallow and is causing this country a great deal
of harm. What's happened to social equity, compassion, or the
idea of an egalitarian society. That uniquely Australian
quality of, "We're-in-this-together-and-no-one-should-be-
considered-to-be-anything-other-than-equal" that's been an
integral part of politics in this country for decades.
It seems to be one that's rejected by
the current Government

SteeleRedux <Well Hasbeen, Shadow Minister, SPQR, Cherful et al this was all done in your name, so the fears you wrap around your little selves can be calmed, so the nightmares about being invaded can be soothed.>

Dear SteeleRedux,
The agreement to take assylum seekers when it was signed all those
years ago was never signed in my name, in fact I thought "why are the
silly fools signing that?" There were no boatloads of assylum
seekers coming then, but Labour and the Greens thought it looked good
to sign a treaty like this and say look aren't we good, we are going to save the world.

It was easy to sign when it was just a signature with no real assylum seekers in boats on the horizon. Their, Utopian-Save-the- World-Hippy-Zealotry, blinded them as usual, as to the actual consequences of their signing of this document. I knew it could
turn out bad. Common sense appraisal isn't something "the save-the
world-crusaders, have a lot of". Emotional feelings yes, common-sense big picture probable outcomes, No.

<nstead of blaming India why don't you ask Mr Morrison
if the Australian Government has even approached India
regarding taking these asylum seekers back.

Good luck with getting an answer from him though.
He can't comment on "operational matters!"

Dear Foxy,
This is a valid point. the Australian government
should have asked India their position on the return of the assylum
seekers. However, I just took a quick look at some Indian Newspapers
on the said boats and they are well aware of what's happening.
If they are so against human rights abuses as reported earlier
you think they would have made an offer immediately to take them.

Maybe they have. It will be interesting to see what happens as
regards India in this case, if anything, and as you say the Australian
government is not commenting.

we see how 'progressives' twist and pervert the facts as they are. It seems only sensible policy by the Government from feeding them to much information to distort and misreport on. Mr Abbott should do some series cutting to the abc. It acts against Australias interest.

The progressives of Australia have caused the worst regress this country has ever experienced.
it's high time we stopped feeding them.

Stop feeding the lawyers at taxpayer expense to represent the economic invaders.

Dear CHERFUL,

Thank You for your civil responses.

I'm all argued out at this stage,
and as you stated - all we can do is wait and see
what happens next.

Fingers-crossed that things will work out for the
best for all concerned.

Hey Lester1,

How's the family tree going; found the Arab members yet?

Here’s a couple of minor but enlightening points:

Firstly from Steele, who charges: <<The pugnacious lack of transparency has really gotten completely absurd>> !?

My dictionary shows that “ pugnacious” means: eager or quick to argue, quarrel, or fight.

So what could “The pugnacious lack of transparency” mean?
The best representation of “eager or quick to argue, quarrel, or fight” on this thread has been a few open border types.
By the way people like Steele only want to be briefed on every little detail so they can nit-pick.

And then we have this (Freudian slip) from Poirot:
<< 153 "humans" bobbing around on the high seas presided over by a jumped Immigration Minister with the ethics of a polecat.>>
Don’t the Australian ships crews count as “humans”—apparently NOT in Poirot’s calculation of things!

SPQROFLMAO!,

Are you suggesting that a rogue govt such as our charming representatives cannot embody both pugnaciousness and a lack of transparency?

They are certainly pugnacious. They are also secretive.

Warmed the cockles of my heart to see those pics today of Morrison living it up with the Sri Lankan leaders at their Tin Pot ceremony for the boats....he looked right at home with that lot who, as we know, are viewed around the world as having serious questions to answer on torture, etc.

Oh well...

I'm supposing the naval personnel aren't held against their will below decks on a ship on the high seas.

Of course, they're following orders, poor souls..... blindly obeying Australia's first official govt humanitarian abuser in modern times...

Poirot,

Nice try --and 2000 brownie points for the mother hen act -- BUT your little chickadee used "pugnacious" in reference to transparency,
and as much as I love unorthodox thinking and expression, it just doesn't mesh.But to be fair to Steele, he was a little worked up at the time...

As for:
<<I'm supposing the naval personnel aren't held against their will below decks on a ship on the high seas>>

Neither are your illegals, they can sail back to India at any time of their choosing--and it would be a safe bet that most Australians would encourage them to do just that!

yep and the usual culprits who were silent when 1200 or so drowned still taking the high moral ground. Not surprising.

runner,

You can take your fake compassion and dangle it in front of someone else.

You couldn't give two figs who died trying to flee to safety.

It's merely a convenient hook to hang your bigotry on.

You display as much compassion as Tin Pot Morrison...which adds up to precisely zilch.

....

SPQR,

Pedantic much.

You're such a hard-hitting commentator here, aren't you.

Boggles the mind.

(Why don't you toddle off and grow up a bit)

Dear SPQR,

Really?

Okay if I need to speak slowly then so be it.

Please look at the following excerpt I gave earlier;

Q: So what does that mean?

A: You are a bright journalist. I’m sure you can work it out.

Q: No, we are asking you, Sir. You are the minister.

A: And I have given you my response.

Q: So could you clarify, Sir, for us – at what point does an event become a significant event involving a boat on the water?

A: When you see me here standing and reporting on it.

Q: And you are standing here reporting.

A: I am not. I am saying there is no such report for me to provide to you today.

Pugnacious “eager or quick to argue” or in this specific case aggressively evasive.

This is pure Clarke and Dawe stuff a sample of which can be found below.

http://youtu.be/vTXPmp5r96I

http://youtu.be/j6gouUO0Klw

The only difference if any is the real life Morrison's attitude is notably more belligerent.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

The socialists here could not care less that 1,200 people died at sea. They are happy to see them keep coming, and if 1,200 of them die well too bloody bad.

Well, people like runner and I do care that people die coming here. Scott Morrison has stopped those deaths, and he's a good Christian man for doing that. But the socialists don't care.

'runner,

'You can take your fake compassion and dangle it in front of someone else.'

sorry Poirot the 'regressives 'dominate the abc and other tax funded institutions not olo. Won't don't you preach your hyprocrisy elsewhere?

Dear runner and Right is Right,

There had been 262 person who drowned at sea under Labour. Gillard attempted to bring in the Malaysian Solution to address the losses. Abbott, for purely political reasons, blocked the move and subsequent other attempts. After that 755 more people died just so Abbott could get himself elected. He told Windsor he would do anything to gain power short of selling his arse, it seems he had no compunction with selling his soul and our reputation as a country.

Fine Christians we have in Morrison, Abbott and runner.

SteeleRedux

yea we know Steele Abbott, Morrison etc are the devils and Christine Milne and yourself are the saints. The sad part is I think you have convinced yourself of this. I am beyond being surprised by the 'regressives'.

The Australian Government is actively colluding in the
imprisonment and torture of dissidents fleeing
one of the most brutal regimes in Asia
Foxy,
And you et al are colluding with dissidents to destroy Australia. I think that puts you in a far more sinister category than the Government that wants to protect this country. Do you know what they do to traitors in the countries whose dissidents you are actively ecouraging to ruin Australia ?
Treason under the guise of compassion is extremely hypocritical & serious.

This is classic Left-think: Poirot accuses me of being Pedantic then Steele nit-picks Morrison’s interview because his responses were not “transparent” enough! (read: provide Steele with in-depth details of Oz border protection moves so he could find something more to whine about)

Here is the bottom line:
1) The first boat
-- contained manly Sinhalese whom advocates up till now had been characterising as the oppressor class
--The one passenger who merited further investigation opted to return home when he learnt he would have to wait till his processing was finalised on Manus (so much for running for his life!)
-- A father of one of the passenger later admitted they were only looking for jobs/work

2) The second boat
--Originated from India. which has a Tamil state which offers sanctuary and support (though apparently --judging by their 7,800+ Kms reroute-- it's not as generous as what is on offer down-under --COME ON DOWN have we got a deal for you!)

So all the posturing from Steele, and all prefabricated rants from Poirot, and all the (boring,school marmish) human rights rhetoric from Foxy mean naught!

PS and Poirot your mind has been boggled for a long long time.

Is Malcolm Fraser the last living 'Liberal' in Australia. Mr Fraser has characterised Australia’s interdiction and detention of more than 150 Sri Lankan asylum-seekers at sea as "piracy on the high seas." Although I have never been a supporter of the Liberal Party when it came to economic matter, I never doubted in the past many Liberals commitment to civil liberties and justice. Unfortunate today it is almost impossible to find Liberal Party politicians who embrace true liberalism in the way former Liberal Party PM Malcolm Fraser does.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/piracy-on-the-high-seas-malcolm-fraser-20140709-zt1eq.html

SPQR,

Well I expect my mind will be boggling even more for some time to come.

Watching our esteemed Immigration Minister playing "best friends" with an internationally regarded regime of ill repute sort of sits one back on their heels.

Scotty appears to be the real deal when it comes to psychopathic and sadistic autocrats.

Not only have we got ourselves a real live fascist govt...our "Immigration Minister" appears to be throwback to the Dark Ages.

Foxy,

We are not going to see eye to eye. You seem fixated on potential human rights, yet seem not to care for the thousands drowning.

So far none of the illegals' human rights have been violated, yet hundreds have been saved from drowning.

now appears the progressives even made up lies about attempted suicides. Abbott's greatest crime is to allow the abc/sbs to waste tax payers money pushing lies.

Paul1405,
I think Malcolm Fraser is going senile hence his appealing to the Left apart from still costing us a fortune same as the Goaf. At least those two didn't invite & pay to bring our worst enemies here with our tax dollars.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If you and your party were that concerned about
the drownings at sea they would have supported
earlier solutions that were on offer by the previous
government. They didn't and blocked everything they
could for political point scoring. You seem to have
forgotten the carryings-on of Mr Abbott and Mr
Morrison during their time in Opposition. They
forced Labor to take the stands that it did at the
time, and now have the audacity to blame Labor.

The current Government is now in a position to
really do something positive and what we are getting
is human rights issues being totally disregarded
for political gain - so your concern (and those of the
Party you blindly support), about the drownings at
sea - have no credibility whatsoever.

Foxy,

I am surprised that after all the moral grandstanding you are still happy to advocate the worst treatment of illegals yet proposed or enacted.

The Malaysian solution had some major problems for the Coalition,

Firstly it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working. Even after the boats slowed subsequent to the announcement, the 4 year / 800 refugee limit would have been filled in weeks.

Secondly it was far worse than anything the coalition had in place and contravened Australia laws put in place to protect refugees,

Thirdly Juliar had promised before the 2010 election that Labor would never send illegals to a country that was not a signatory to the UNHCR,

Finally, now that Nauru was a signatory to the UNHCR, there was no impediment to implementing the far more human Pacific solution. Which the coalition has now done and stopped the boats.

SM,

Yar...and isn't it warming to see Morrison sitting amongst his chums in Sri Lanka.

(I wonder when he's going to order some uniforms and matching medals?)

Good ole one-track Poirot -you can present her to new information but you sure as hell can't make her adsorb it!

<<The first boat-- contained manly Sinhalese whom advocates up till now had been characterising as the oppressor class>>

Just an observation does anyone agree that there is a striking resemblance between Scott Morrison and Hermann Goering. Oh well, just an observation, could be wrong.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We seem to have vastly different recollections of
why the Liberals did not support the previous
government's Malaysian Solution. The following link
may jog your memory as to the realities of that
time:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-21/danby-liberals-want-it-both-ways-on-immigration/4155674

Paul,

Herman was a bit fatter at the same age.

Since we are discussing resembles --I just can't get over the feeling that I have seen this line-up before.

Note the non-human glare in Sarah Hanson-Young's eyes!
http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/articles/8380807464debb08fee3ac5ef95fc126.jpg

And is this Richard Di Natale channeling the mother ship?
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/POoL5NQShfs/0.jpg
Here's a clearer one of Richard Di Natale (he's the one at the back with the Dracula like focus on Bob's neck)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-13/greens-senators-and-mps-bob-brown-adam-bandt-sarah/3949408

And even this one, of their founding father:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hZeTR0I4rJw/T_3NOOLjGSI/AAAAAAAAAeg/hlu6KuLw8Kk/s1600/image815_bob+brown.jpg

I mean, how does one party garner so many otherworldly figures ...or has someone mixed the publicity photos and what we are really looking at here are the aliens from a Dr Who shoot?

Foxy,

We are all aware of your selective amnesia.

There are several undisputable facts which blows your selective recollection out of the water.

Firstly, the Malaysian solution had a major weakness in that it was limited to 800 people over the 4 years of its proposed existence. From the time that Juliar announced that all illegals would be sent to Malaysia, to the time that Juliar introduced the proposed changes to parliament this "quota" of 800 was almost full and the deterrent factor was dead.

Secondly, the reason that the MS was rejected by the courts is precisely because it abandoned the protection and safety measures that were in place under the Pacific solution. That Juliar had promised not to send illegals to non signatories of the UNHCR shortly before this was yet another labor lie.

Finally, the only reason the MS was proposed, was because it was politically inconvenient to re implement the tried and tested and far less harsh Pacific solution, which has yet again been shown to work.

The real answer was freely available to labor all the time, as it has clearly been shown. It could have stopped the boats in a couple of months if it swallowed its pride. Labor chose instead to kill another 1000 people

Australia, is not the only developed country with a refugee problem. America has been subjected to a mass influx of immigrants from Central America through Mexico. Since September 2013 at least 52,000 children alone have arrived in the United States, with 90% coming from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Obama has described the mass migration as a "humanitarian crisis".
The UN estimates there are some 43 million refugees world wide and growing. No matter how much petty internal political squabbling Australia engages in, and no political party is guiltless in this regard, including my own party The Greens. With what is, using Obama's words, a humanitarian crises. Australia cannot expect to be untouched either willingly or unwillingly, by this world wide problem

This is how Paul’s post should have read:

Australia, is not the only developed country with a [illegal immigration] problem. America has been subjected to a mass influx of [illegal] immigrants from Central America through Mexico. Since [well before] September 2013. At least 52,000 children alone have [been smuggler into] the United States, with 90% coming from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. [in the hope that pictures of their sad lost little faces will tug at the heart strings of gullible Americans and once they've accepted and settled in, they can then sponsor their in-laws ].

The UN estimates there are some 43 million refugees world wide and growing. [though in reality most would better be described as TEMPORARILY DISPLACED PERSONS --who should and would return home at the cessation of their local conflict]. No matter how much petty [point scoring by the Green & allies] , [they have no answer and are guilty of aiding and abetting this multibillion dollar peoples smuggling scam]

Come off it Paul. Quoting Obama, what next. He is as guilty at Labor of pandering to undesirables to buy some votes/acceptance.

Hell even his own party recognise he is just a bad joke.

SPUD, No, my post was what I intended to convey. You may have a different view, with your continued reference to "illegals". I simply put forward an observation. The mass movement of people across the planet will continue, and is most likely going to accelerate. I agree with Obama in calling these events a humanitarian crisis, something Australia, and the world in general is going to have to deal with. We cannot isolate ourselves from this growing problem, no matter how we may desire to do so. For many and varied reasons Australia is an attractive, and most desirable destination for displaced persons. That is a fact of life and how we deal with that problem now and into the future is something we as a nation are going to have to come to terms with. The "stop the boats" mantra, the "solutions" so far, are an aberration and until the problem is delt with in a constructive way, its not going to go away, now or ever.

What Paul should have written is:

Australia is the only developed country no longer with an illegal immigrant problem.

Note that the US turns boats back from Cuba and Haiti.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Denouncing Malaysia's far from perfect human rights
standards is something the Coalition was
good at. And of course, our own - Curtin and Villawood
were paradises of sublime liberty. At least Malaysia
was a substantial and genuinely sovereign member of
the world community, in good standing - as was argued
at the time. This meant it was subject to international
pressure to "lift its game" and align itself more closely
with international standards in this area - which is more
than might have been said about that empty shell of
national sovereighty, Nauru.

Much was made by the Coalition about Malaysia not being a
signatory to the Refugee Convention, yet this same
scruple did not stop the Howard government sending people
to Nauru following the Tampa confrontation and it didn't
stop using methods personally overseen by our Defence Minister -
Peter Reith - methods glimpsed on TV despite the restraints he
imposed that fell far short of these same humanitarian
requirements.

BTW - our current PM, Tony Abbott did apologise to Malaysia
for being against the Malaysian Solution - on his first
visit there as PM.

Selective memory is something you seem to excel in Sir!

Dear Shadow Minister,

For your information Sir -

We never had an "illegal Immigrant problem."
We are signatories to the Refugee Convention
and thus far 9 out of 10 asylum seekers have been
found to be genuine refugees.

As to what currently happening to our asylum seekers -
the PM and Mr Morrison prefer not to talk about that
subject - so we really don't know what's happening.
If you happen to be privy to information that the
rest of us are not - do tell!

Foxy,
Did it slip your mind?

Every non citizen arriving in Australia must have a valid visa.

Those arriving without a valid visa can be classed as 'illegal entrants'. We can, and do, place such persons an detention.

Love to get a dollar for every time I have had to inform some posters of this fact.

But thanks to Scott Morrison, we have not had any illegal entrants for six months.

Foxy,

At least I see that you don't dispute that the Malaysian solution was unworkable.

As for Malaysian's human rights record, Malaysia had a bad reputation for xenophobia, with roaming militia's routinely robbing and beating non citizens. As the illegals were to be released to fend for themselves amongst the general population, they would have little to no protection.

Labor promised not to send illegals to non signatory countries, not the coalition. The total Australian control of the detention centre obviated the need for the host country's involvement.

I wonder if the progressives give xtra points at uni for learning how to self harm in order to attract maximum attention.

Paul- <<simply put forward an observation. The mass movement of people across the planet will continue, and is most likely going to accelerate>>

But they aint "refugees" are they --that's the *pretext*!

_________________

Banjo --good to see you back on-board and helping to keep the open-borders mob in check!

Dear Banjo,

You back again with this claptrap?

Here you go mate.

“Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not acting illegally. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal” entrants, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.”
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php 

@ Steeleredux

<<Here you go mate.“Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not acting illegally...[because Refugee Council says so]

ROFLMAO X 100

The Refugee Council (like SBS) depends on the continued inflow of asylum scammers!

What a joke!

Steel you conveniently forget these illegals go through several countries before trying to land here. They have a safe haven but they want our welfare and money that's the nub of it.
I find it particularly distressing when they rock up in Burkas, which are totally inappropriate in Australia after going through half a dozen muslim countries. They land here an address women without burkas as "Uncovered meat".
Mate you must be a latte sipper who will only meet the muslin professional. I suggest you poll a few housing commission estates.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why then did Mr Abbott once he became PM -
on his first visit to Malaysia, find a need to apologise to
Malaysia, for being against the Malaysian Solution
when in Opposition?

Dear SPQR,

I love it when I bring this up because you lot bleat about the Refugee Council but never offer anything up yourselves. I just know mate that you are the one who is going to change that. You are going to put an official definition to counter that of the Council rather than pluck one out of your arse as is normal practice from your side.

Well mate the floor is yours.

Dear JBowyer,

You still banging on about Muslims and head scarves? Tell me mate just how many Muslims do you think were on the latest 2 boats from Sri Lanka?

Dolt!

Well,I just sat and watched tonight's news
It was stated that India said, "it was not their problem."

If the country the Tamils originally came from says, it is not their
problem, then why is it ours?

It would seem odd if there were 150 Australian refugees on
that boat instead of the Tamils and Australia said , It it not
our problem, India, you take them"

India's attitude here strikes me as bizarre, and heaven forbid
racist, something they are always accusing Australia of being.

Foxy,
I imagine Abbott felt so ashamed about Rudd/Gillard that he thought an apology was appropriate. After all Malaysia is a country with culture.

Steele,
<< are going to put an official definition to counter that of the Council rather than pluck one out of your arse as is normal practice from your side. Well mate the floor is yours.>>

Steele we have been down this road sooooo many times before. It usually starts when you or one of your confederates comes running to us shouting: “EXTRA, EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT, HERE’S PROOF POSITIVE THAT BRIBING, BULLING & BARGING YOUR WAY TO OUR SHORES IS LEGAL –JUST AS LONG AS YOU MENTION THE MAGIC WORD “ASYLUM”. And the rest of us go through the process of unpicking it –and pointing out that it is yet another puff-piece from a illegal immigration support group. And then you or your confederate having had his/her backside thoroughly tanned limps off with his/her tail between his/her legs –till the next time when you try it on again.

Your motive is not that you support it because it is legal – your support it because you want it to happen.

The net is littered sites which provide pre-packaged excuses as to why anything the asylum scammers do is AOK. And if that wasn’t enough we have *TAX-PAYER FUNDED* groups like The Refugee Council, SBS and the ABC spruiking it at every opportunity.

SR,

The definition of an illegal immigrant is:

Illegal immigration refers to the migration of people across national borders, or the residence of foreign nationals in a country, in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country.

Coming into the country without a valid visa by boat violates Australian immigration laws, Ipso facto the boat people are illegal immigrants. (often shortened to illegals)

So until the english language is altered, the left whingers attempts to greenwash the people smugglers can be ignored.

As for the definition of the "Refugee council": - Self appointed group of sanctimonious whingers funded using taxpayers' money by Labor to act as a cheer squad for Juliar's and the greens more insane policies.

SM,

"Coming into the country without a valid visa by boat violates Australian immigration laws, Ipso facto the boat people are illegal immigrants. (often shortened to illegals)"

Bandying the word "Illegals" about like he does is merely Scotty's "official" dog whistle to all the rabid and fearful bigots in Australia....although this fact check found he was technically correct.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

"Until September 1994, it did refer to "illegal entrants". This reference was removed in 1992 to simplify and clarify the existing categories on immigration status.

The Migration Act now says that a person who was classed as an illegal entrant before September 1994 became an unlawful non-citizen after that date.

In a provision dealing with people smuggling, the Act says a non-citizen has "no lawful right to come to Australia" if that person does not hold a valid visa.

Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa.

The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law.

It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them."

"Mr Morrison's office referred ABC Fact Check to the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants, which was signed by Australia in 2001 and ratified in 2004.

The protocol defines "illegal entry" as "crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State".

The protocol in itself does not make anything illegal. Criminal offences for people smuggling, modelled on those required by the protocol, are included in both the Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code and the Migration Act."

I wonder where Scotty gets off running secret prison ships on the high seas? Surely says something about his efforts to pretend no-one is coming so the govt can keep their slogans running.

@Poirot,

Speaking of "facts checking" what happened here <<"Until September 1994, it did refer to "illegal entrants". This reference was removed in 1992 >>

Ah! was there some sort of time warp?

And as for:
<<bandying the word "Illegals" about like he does is merely Scotty's "official" dog whistle to all the rabid and fearful bigots in Australia....>>

Niiiiiiice! coming from someone who regularly berates others for ad hominem abuse!

SPQR,

"Niiiiiiice! coming from someone who regularly berates others for ad hominem abuse!"

Let's face it, the righties around here are masters at ad hominem. I've never denied giving as good as I get...but I will highlight the likes of JKJ screaming "ad hominem" when we all do it occasionally - and he's one of the worst offenders.

Some on here childishly play their negative little parlour games, ignoring and blurring the very serious crimes and human suffering. Who would put a child into the hands of a criminal gang in the hope of getting into Australia?

The crime of people smuggling doesn't only refer to those who actually transport the human cargoes, it also refers to any who support and assist the criminal activity.

It would not be at all surprising if many of the criminals and their supports including paid professionals involved in people smuggling are also implicated in or have links with people trafficking both in and out of Australia and other countries.

The crime of people smuggling doesn't only refer to those who actually transport the human cargoes, it also refers to any who support and assist the criminal activity.
onthebeach,
You mean people like Poirot, Paul1405, Foxy et al ?

Come on Individual, you, OTB, JoM and SPQR et al couldn't give a damn about the people smugglers and their 'human cargo'.

The only agenda for you guys is the drive to keep Muslims and other 'undesirables' out of Australia.
An Australian branch of the ku klux klan maybe?

Suseonline,
if being wrong in assessing others would hurt than they'd hear you screaming in pain in the Middle east during a bombing !

Poirot,

Thanks for the link:

"Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country." That left whingers prefer PC / green washed terms is fine as long as they don't mind the rest of us calling a spade a spade not flat faced digging tool.

Notwithstanding, SM, that it is merely a descriptor, for...

"Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa."

Nevertheless Prison Ship Scotty dog-whistles the descriptor whenever the opportunity permits....knowing precisely which ilk will start barking in response.

Clever guy, our Scotty, in the realms of secretive faux military Ops and manipulative dog whistling.

That's the kind of leadership that set him down in history...not necessarily in the right annals, though.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda for
Nazi Germany once wrote that, "It would not
be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition
and a psychological understanding of the people
concerned that a square is in fact a circle.
What afterall are a square and a circle? They are
mere words and words can be re-molded until they
clothe ideas in disguise."

Our current government leaders are using
misinformation, half-truths, and false statements to
cement incorrect ideas about asylum seekers into
the minds of the Australian public.

If their main aim was to save boat people from
the "drownings" or from people smugglers - why would
they spend so much time and effort vilifying them?

Steele,
This has been gone over thousands of times and still you persist with incorrect information. I am sick of constantly referring posters to the DIAC website, which obviously you have not done, for the correct information.

Look it up, it is there in black and white.

In the interim, here is a letter from a senior staff member to the press council relating to the matter.

file:///C:/Users/ADMIN/Documents/Illegal%20immigrant%20-%20correct%20terminology.htm

As well, you might like to consider on what basis do our immigration officials detain those without a valid visa. If they enter legally, how come we can detain them? The fact is they are breaking our laws and that is the sole reason we detain them. We do not detain persons who enter legally.

But you and Foxy know all this and it is tiresome to have to keep repeating it. Look it up yourself

Steele,
Here is another reference I just found in my files.

file:///C:/Users/ADMIN/Documents/Immigration%20Detention%20-%20Detention%20Services.htm

Do take note.

Poirot,
Good to see you posted something positive.

The advocates introduced the term 'asylum seekers' simply to paint the illegal entrants in a more favourable light when trying to convince the Aus public that they were poor, persecuted souls who need our pity and care. The truth is they are shonks, gate crashers and con artists who get here by corruption and bribery. They do not deserve any pity and are coached in the lies to tell our officials.

The illegals can also be termed as 'unlawful' as unlawful and illegal mean the same. My understanding is that they should not be termed as asylum seekers until such time as they actually apply for asylum.

I will continue to refer to them as illegals and trust it will not be for much longer and they will stop trying to come here completely.

Foxy,

You are right, by changing the way people are referred to is pure propaganda, which is exactly what the greens and left whingers are trying to do. The term used for decades was illegal immigrants. Now the whingers are trying to push the "appropriate" term as being unlawful entrants. That is the gold standard in spin.

If you wanted to replace the words with synonyms that we consider more appropriate we could get:

Crooked invaders,
felonious alien,
prohibited intruder, etc.

Banjo,

"As well, you might like to consider on what basis do our immigration officials detain those without a valid visa. If they enter legally, how come we can detain them? The fact is they are breaking our laws and that is the sole reason we detain them. We do not detain persons who enter legally."'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

"Mr Morrison correctly states that Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

It is used in the context of stating that parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence"."

"Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa.

The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law.

It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them."

So Banjo, it appears they can be referred to as "illegal entrants" but only to determine their status - and not because they have broken the law...because according to Act, they haven't.

Dear Shadow Ministers,

You seem somewhat confused Sir.

However to set the record straight for you.

These people are not "immigrants."

They are asylum seekers. There is a vast
difference between the two.

Foxy the definition of an immigrant is:

"A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another."

Please refer to your dictionary (if you have one) to check before posting something that is clearly wrong.

These people are not "immigrants."

They are asylum seekers. There is a vast
difference between the two.
Foxy,
Please stop using Goebel's tactics.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I've got several dictionaries and am
quite aware of the definition of an
immigrant - hence my previous correction
of your invalid statement about "illegal
immigrants."

An asylum seeker is not an immigrant.
And that's the point being made.

An asylum seeker is a person
who, from fear of persecution - for reasons
of race, religion, social group, or
political opinion has crossed an international
frontier into a country in which he or she hopes
to be granted refugee status.

And I repeat there is a vast difference between
an immigrant and an asylum seeker. But then
you know that - only you choose to keep parroting
on with your Party's misinformation.

Here's Doktor Strange-Scotty in Columbo the other day..

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/nervous-dfat-staff-scott-morrison-nothing-to-do-with-me-20140712-zt5h3.html

"t was 8.35am on Wednesday and the locally engaged staff member at the Australian High Commission in Colombo whose job was to take media calls that morning was asked a simple question: What time was Scott Morrison attending the launch of the two patrol boats?"

"That Mr Morrison was frantically looking for a friendly government to accept 153 refugees being held at sea by the Australian government made the visit especially topical.

"Can I put you on hold?" said the man at the High Commission. A few minutes later, he came back and said: "We don't have any details at all about the minister's visit to Sri Lanka. We are not handling it. It has nothing to do with us."

Do you know if the High Commissioner Robyn Mudie is attending the event? After several minutes more on hold, the man came back with an answer: "No," he said. "We are not handling the minister's visit."

"The Sri Lankans were much more helpful, and half an hour later Sri Lankan officials were offering shade and refreshments on the docks at a Colombo naval base ahead of the event scheduled to start at 10am. The place was crawling with Australian officials, of course, who did their best to glare and look daggers whenever a journalist came within three metres."

""I'm with the High Commission," said one man wearing dark glasses. He didn't have a name. "I'm Nadia," said another fretful official. "I'm with Immigration," she said, nearly breaking into a canter to get away."

Dodge-o-rama!

Dear SPQR,

I had expressed the following hope;

“Dear SPQR, 

I love it when I bring this up because you lot bleat about the Refugee Council but never offer anything up yourselves. I just know mate that you are the one who is going to change that. You are going to put an official definition to counter that of the Council rather than pluck one out of your arse as is normal practice from your side.”

But I got nothing.

Which is of course rather sad because it really only leaves one question, are you an arse plucker?

Dear Shadow minister,

Making it up again I see. Please show me an official government website where the department refers to those arriving by boat collectively as 'illegal immigrants'.

Dear Banjo,

In my line of work the capacity to hack someone else's computer is not beyond my skill set but even when you post links to files on your personal hard drive without your IP address I am a little hampered.

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“it also refers to any who support and assist the criminal activity” and of course my mind immediately leapt to you referring to 8 year olds leading a convicted sex offender on for the money. Your credibility had always been pretty shaky but now you have none, zilch. It is going to be terribly hard for you to make any credible points on this forum in the future. Retract.

Of course the Muslims and other ethnic groups here are in favour
of bringing in as many of their own kind as they can, the Tamils included. The truth be told, they would
like to ship all us Anglos and Aboriginals and other ethnic groups out of
the place and bring as many of their own in to replace the other groups.
Now isn’t that the truth deep down, admit it you lot.

This is the hidden racist agenda behind this support the asylum people cry.
It is dressed up as, “we are the people doing good.”
The amazing thing is they twist it around as though us not bringing them in
is the immoral agenda. Not facing their own deep down twisted human
self-interest reasons

Speaking of Goebbels, Foxy, Hitler said, He wanted, “ A German State,
world wide, populated with the blonde German ideal of people, preferrably”.

Notice the similarity, when the Muslims say, “We want a Muslim state, worldwide.”.

I doubt whether they are talking about religion when they say Muslim state but
are instead talking about their bloodline in the same way Hitler was.

The two statements are too similar to not mean the same thing, I think.
Human beings being too similar in what they covet for it not to mean the same thing also.

Don’t forget Germany was a dual-cultural country , and when the bottom dropped out
of the economy after the Great Depression,, one side of the dual- cultural country turned on the other ethnic group.
Again, doesn’t bode well for dual-cultural or multi-cultural societies.

History is the teacher of what the future holds. It’s a shame humans haven’t
learnt and understood the true lesson of what happened in Germany.

They think they can change it by social engineering. Might as well try and
catch the wind.

Cherful,

"Of course the Muslims and other ethnic groups here are in favour
of bringing in as many of their own kind as they can, the Tamils included. The truth be told, they would
like to ship all us Anglos and Aboriginals and other ethnic groups out of
the place and bring as many of their own in to replace the other groups.
Now isn’t that the truth deep down, admit it you lot."

Lol!!

I'm an "Anglo"

Just not a bigoted one....

And speaking of Goebbels....I see this govt has taken a few pages out of his book on repeating simplistic slogans ad nauseam until the population are well and truly brainwashed by them.

"He openly acknowledged that he was exploiting the lowest instincts of the German people – racism, xenophobia, class envy and insecurity. He could, he said, play the popular will like a piano, leading the masses wherever he wanted them to go."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

I'm an "Anglo"
Poirot,
Yes, & pretty strange one at that. I guess you're one of those educated ones, the ones who sell the house so that they can afford nicer furniture ?

I'm an educated, Aussie born 'Anglo', Individual, and proud of it.

I just don't feel the need to act superior to other races or cultures in order to feel better about myself.
You might want to try it yourself...

SR,

Caught you out again. This took me 20 seconds with google. Next time please do your own research.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib9900/2000CIB13

Foxy,

The definition of immigrant is not motivation dependant.

Boat people are immigrants, people that come by plane on 457 visas and apply for permanent residence are immigrants etc.

Simple logic.

Cows are mammals, dogs are mammals. Being a mammal does not mean that one is a cow or dog, and being a cow or dog does not exclude one from being a mammal

Suse,

Pure Anglo? Define?

Pure Anglo? Define?
is Mise,
She didn't say pure, you made that up. She left out the pure so she can still claim pride in being a Leftie :-)

Dear Shadow Minister,

I shall try to keep it simple.

A refugee is a person who is unable to return to
their country of origin because of a well-founded
fear of persecution on racial, religious, ethnic or
political grounds. Australia uses this definition of
"refugee" to determine the legitimacy of claims for
refugee-status in Australia.

If a person is found to be a refugee - Australia has an
obligation to offer support and ensure the person is
not sent back to the country of origin against his/her
will.

An asylum seeker is a person who applies for protection and
is awaiting a determination on his/her status as a
refugee.

Whereas refugees are people who have already been determined
as meeting the criteria for refugee status. Asylum seekers are
people whose status is in the process of being determined.

Migrants on the other hand choose to leave their country to
seek a better life. They choose where they migrate to and
can usually return whenever they like. They have time to
prepare for their trip and their new life.

By contrast, asylum seekers are forced to leave their country,
often without warning and preparation and cannot return.
The concerns of asylum seekers are human rights and safety,
not economic advantage.

I trust that this clarifies things for you.

Is Mise, what do YOU mean by 'pure' Anglo?

I have all Anglo-Saxon (English) ancestors, how about you?
I know this because I have done extensive research on my ancestry because I enjoy genealogy.

Cheers,
Suse.

Suse,

By pure Anglo I mean not crossed with any other groups such as North Africans, Egyptians, Nubians, Celts, Goths etc.
I too have done extensive genealogical research and as a consequence realize what a mongrel mix my ancestors were.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote; “Caught you out again”.

Lol.

There have been quite a few occasions when I have had to retract something I may have posted on OLO but never in my memory was it because of you my friend, you are just not that good.

Now I asked; “Please show me an official government website where the department refers to those arriving by boat collectively as 'illegal immigrants'.”

The website you posted from 14 years ago did nothing of the sort. Would you like to try again?

SPQR,
Banjo --good to see you back on-board and helping to keep the open-borders mob in check!

I haven't been away, just watching from the sidelines. You and others have done well and no need for my input. We have had enough training over the years and the illegals advocates still persist with the same propaganda.

Anyway, I think it is nearly 'game over' for the illegals and the bull the advocates spread. Thanks to Minister Morrison, he deserves a medal.

Still his opponents are not very bright, a few people apparently like gate crashers and being conned.

Banjo,

"Anyway, I think it is nearly 'game over' for the illegals and the bull the advocates spread. Thanks to Minister Morrison, he deserves a medal."

Lol!...you guys are so funny!

I expect Tin Pot Morrison is at this moment clad in his dressing gown and his bunny slippers scouring the internet for suppliers of Tin Pot Medals and made to order off-the-peg military-style uniforms...just like a few former "juntas" I could name....or any other of those dodgy world govts who treat "humans" like cast-off remnants.

Wait for it...should be a hoot!

I trust that this clarifies things for you.
Foxy,
Perfect theory, can't argue with that. what about the reality of many claiming asylum but not actually being asylum seekers ? Like those who travel through several countries without asking for asylum there ? What about the fact, not a theory, that once Australia is flooded with people who do nothing but pray & cause trouble & you become someone who wants to leave for another country, can you claim asylum status then, after all you want to leave because you did everything in your power to bring these people in ? In my book you're one of the worst hypocrites on OLO.

SR,

It is the second time in a short span that you have challenged me and I have produced the evidence to support my claim. That you change the subject and fail to acknowledge your error is testament to your character rather than your infallibility.

As I stated previously, the left whingers especially in government started sanitizing the language as far back as 1994, so there are very few modern websites that use the term illegal immigrant along with many other terms that the vocal minority find offensive.

As for the link I provided the link to boat people and illegal immigration is clear to anyone with even the basic literacy with:

"Boat People, Illegal Migration and Asylum Seekers: in Perspective"

"The boat people who arrived in 1999 represent numerically only a tiny fraction of non-citizen entrants, and a small proportion of Australia's 'illegal' population."

SR, it is now up to you to man up and admit your error or will you try and weasel out of it?

Dear Individual,

You sound concerned.

Don't be.

Both major political parties re-iterate their
commitment to mandatory detention, offshore
processing, Manus Island, and all the rest.
So you can rest easy.

I can understand your hostility to asylum seekers,
(and those of others on this forum), or
at any rate the kind of asylum seekers that bring
people you don't like to our shores in ways that
you don't approve of. And I realise that you feel
the current developments are simply a matter of
just dessert.

You and others want them to be - sent back - the faster
the better. Well you're not the only ones with this
view. You can find this view in any focus group or
social media forum (including as we've seen - on
OLO).

And I know that - as with other emotive issues like
climate change, no explanations of the facts of cries
of anguish will budge your ingrained prejudice or shift
your - self-satisfied bias.
For you people, the issue is simple - deterrence will
work. The fact that it hasn't - is not important to you.

That's why both major parties cling to the justification of
"saving lives at sea." In this way blame can be laid on
the people smugglers - and by extension on anyone
who advocates a humane response.

This is the political tendency to divide the world into
groups. "Them" and "Us." When politicians talk about
"controlling borders," and the need for "orderly process,"
they're in fact dog-whistling to you and those who
fear unregulated invasion of teeming "undesirable" masses.
It's a fear as old as White Australia itself.

So don't worry - be happy.
We are afterall setting an example for our children
and the rest of the world.

I can understand your hostility to asylum seekers,
(and those of others on this forum), or..
Foxy,
No, you don't understand at all because those of us who are against this religious invasion are not, repeat ARE NOT hostile to asylum seekers. This is where you are so utterly wrong. What we are against is simply handing this great country over to people whom people like yourself are inviting in without asking those who are actually contributing the this country's greatness. Those people whom you invite in do not have this country's nor it's citizens interest at heart. They are agenda merchants & the agenda is crystal clear to most. Why are you so blind ? You really need to get out of your link library occasionally. When was the last time you went for a sunday afternoon to Cabramatta or Lakemba or any western Sydney suburbs ? Did you really feel at ease there as an Australian ? Do you really want the whole of Australia to become like that ? Well, I & many others don't so please keep your misguided compassion to yourself. it's only fake anyway. How can you claim to have compassion when you're an advocate for ruining Australia ?

Oh Lordy, Lordy.

Dear Shadow Minister,

"Boat People, Illegal Migration and Asylum Seekers: in Perspective"

Three distinct groups.

"The boat people who arrived in 1999 represent numerically only a tiny fraction of non-citizen entrants, and a small proportion of Australia's 'illegal' population."

Look at the punctuation my friend. Are you really that dense that you need a translation? Actually best not to answer that. Here you go;

The boat people who arrived in 1999 represent numerically only a tiny fraction of non-citizen entrants, and a small proportion of Australia's so called illegal population.

Come on mate I'm sure you have something a bit more concrete. Whatcha got for us big boy?

'So don't worry - be happy.
We are afterall setting an example for our children
and the rest of the world. '

Try telling that to the fathers/brothers of those girls raped in the Western parts of Sydney.

SR,

I thought you would try and weasel out. It is crystal clear to all rational people.

Are you going to put you nuts where your mouth is and declare that illegal immigrants has never been the official lexicon for boat people?

I guess not.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“Are you going to put you nuts where your mouth is and declare that illegal immigrants has never been the official lexicon for boat people?”

No I'm afraid it is only your side that is capable of those sort of contortions. I suppose extreme flexibility with the truth always helps.

We still haven't got from you said 'official lexicon'. Come on mate I'm sure you should be able to dig a quote up from somewhere. I will even take a statement from a department head.

SM,

The official lexicon for "boat people" before Tin Pot Morrison came to power was "Irregular Maritime Arrivals".

The official lexicon for those who came by air was "Non Irregular Maritime Arrival".

Immigration Dept pdf covering 2011-12

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/asylum/_files/asylum-trends-aus-annual-2011-12.pdf

Non-IMA: In 2011-12 there were 7036 applications for asylum by people who originally arrived by air, an increase of 11% on 2010-11....and was almost exclusively attributable to lodgements by international students....The number of people arriving by air and seeking protection has been rising since 2004-05...

IMA: In 2011-12 a total of 7379 people who arrived by sea and were screened into a refugee status determination process.

7379 people..
Poirot,
And now please tell us what that number of unskilled people translates into actual Dollar cost for each australian taxpayer. Of course you'd need to calculate their immediate descendents into that cost as well because we have evidence that they too are hanging off our aprons for some years.
Also please provide figures on how much this takes away from pensions for people who have paid all their working lives only to have their contributions misappropriated in this way ?

SR,

Here are a few more:

http://www.immi.gov.au/

"In Part 1 of this report, it is noted that despite the public interest in interceptions of sea vessels carrying illegal migrants"

http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/news/afp/2001/June/illegal-immigrants-detained-by-indonesian-authorities.aspx

"The Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, today confirmed that the Indonesian National Police have detained a total of 416 illegal immigrants who were destined to travel illegally to Australia."

etc, etc.

I can continue feeding you crow all day.

Poirot,

"The official lexicon for those who came by air was "Non Irregular Maritime Arrival".

Really?

SM,

On that Immigration Dept document I posted it states:

"Non Irregular Maritime Arrivals. Non-MIA generally refers to Protection Visa applicants who arrived by air and are already in Australia's migration zone".

Poirot,

The term is not official lexicon, and is glaringly so. I was giving you a chance to rectify an embarrassing faux pas.

The paper is comparing those that came by boat to those that didn't. Referring to airline passengers as non boat passengers in any other context is a grammatical snafu that my kids would not make.

SM,

From my previous post:

"Mr Morrison correctly states that Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

It is used in the context of stating that parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence"."

"Irrespective of these sections, "Mr Morrison correctly states that Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

It is used in the context of stating that parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence"."

"Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa.

The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law.

It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them."

The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law.

It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them."

Yes, referring to those who come by boat as Non Illegal Maritime Arrivals appears counter-intuitive - yet in the Immigration document that's what they do - to define a difference between those who arrive by air and those who arrive by boat. (There's a great big banner headline for each section)

Just because Morrison the Tin Pot General grabs a line from Article 31 and decides to dog-whistle the population with the word "Illegals" doesn't say anything except to define him as a propaganda fiend.

Repeat: It is "not" a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa.

Before the rabid dog-whistlers came to power, "Irregular Arrivals/Migrants" was generally used for these people.

SM,

Typos in the above:

"Yes, referring to those who come by boat as Non Illegal Maritime Arrivals appears counter-intuitive.."

Should read:

"Yes, referring to those who come by "air" as Non "Irregular" Maritime Arrivals appears counter-intuitive..."

Sheesh!

Poirot,
Despite attempts by you and the ABC to spin it, our laws state that all non citizens must have a valid visa to enter Australia. To attempt to enter without a valid visa is breaking our law and thus is illegal. There may well be some definition of exactly what is 'criminal' but the absence of a valid visa is serious enough for the person to be locked up, whether or not the person subsequently applies for asylum.

Paul Keating first introduced detainment of boat arrivals so you can be assured that, over the years, it has been closely looked at by the legal eagles.

Hopefully there will no longer be attempts to come and the matter will only be a rare occurance. The foolishness and incompetence of the previous government has caused huge cost and inconvienience

Dear Shadow Minister,

Not even close.

I think the wick in your old blunderbuss is rather soggy my friend.

The first of your offerings was not ever a Department of Immigration document and the second was a quote from a politician.

Care to dry things off and try again?

Come on mate I know you have it in you.

Banjo,

It is not a it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa.

The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law."

Fullstop.

Both descriptions are merely to "define the status" of the arrivals.

And Morrison is employing "illegals"in his commentary merely to dog-whistle the likes of you.

Simples....

"I think the wick in your old blunderbuss is rather soggy my friend".

Just to be pedantic, the blunderbuss doesn't use a wick.

SR

The correct website was

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/7/F/5/%7B7F54421B-F3B9-49C5-8D82-B87F34083D3B%7Dfull_report.pdf

You said " Please show me an official government website where the department refers to those arriving by boat collectively as 'illegal immigrants'."

I have done so several times. So suck it up, you were wrong yet again.

SR,

Here are a few more:

http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/1998-99/html/prog2_4a.htm

This involvement is sometimes limited to transporting people to other countries, by boat, across land borders, or by air. In other cases criminal involvement extends to commercial interest in the activities of people after their illegal entry into a country, including exploitation. As well as breaching domestic law, illegal migration compromises the operation of orderly migration and temporary entry arrangements.

http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/publications/platypus/previous-editions/2000/september-2000/1psmugl.aspx

"Factors underpinning illegal immigration
The factors behind illegal immigration include push factors such as war; civil unrest; persecution (for religious, racial, political and other reasons); poverty; environmental catastrophes and degradation; and the lack of opportunity for legal movement. Pull factors include the existence of a safe, secure environment; improved economic opportunities; familial and cultural connections; and lifestyle considerations. The push and pull factors are augmented by facilitating factors such as the breakdown of national borders; the revolution in communications and information; the availability of transportation; and the accessibility of people smuggling services."

That is about as close to a slam dunk as you will get.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SEE THE MEDIA IS A LIE
here is some histry of the media/ITS A SUPPRESSED BOOK FOR VER A CENURAry[read it and see why]

IT LAys out the Base for todays problems/COMPOUNDED MANY FOLD
ignorance of histry is NO EXCUSE[WHAT THEY DID THEN..97 YEARS AGO;they do far more affective today,

its harder to bury a book
but word search FINDS IT ALL
ONCE THE INFO IS OUT OF THE MEDIA eye/the issue is gone

mooove on
IM NOT SUBSCRIBING TO A MEDIA BEAT UP

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/anstey%27s%20kingdom%20of%20shylock.html

lest we forget/lab..began these exreem measures
the libs merely continued..it[im refusing to rwad a THRAD I KNOW IS CHEST BEATING HOW THEY DIDNT DO it we did..just like the big guys like it

DIVIDE AND DIVIDE FURTHER
LIE TILL THEY DONT KNOW TRue from faulse

HERE I A RARE TRUTH..SUPPREssed for 97 years
at least bother reading ral news/of the daY;AS IT HAPPEND
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/anstey%27s%20kingdom%20of%20shylock.html

This thread is ridiculous. During world war 2 the English were bombed day after day for years. Scotland and Wales and the Isle of Man were possible safer havens, but did the English flee there, or anywhere else? No, the women stuck it out and stayed in their own country and helped it to continue functioning, and too many of the young men went abroad to stop an invasion. Those too old to do this still did their bit for the country in many various ways.
Now it seems that their humane policy of allowing refugees from later conflicts in other countries to flood in to England is having unwanted repercussions, as it is for many other countries who have allowed this.
All the mainly young males who flee here should be back in their own countries if they are serious about wanting to change their current regimes. Instead they think only of themselves and the easy way out we offer.
How dare they protest in our streets about the conditions 'back home'!
If they are so concerned, why aren't they back in their home countries shouting and carrying their protest flags there?
As proud Australians you all should be concerned about the path we seem doomed to tread with our misguided welcome to all policy. Oil and water DON'T mix, and neither do some of the radically different cultures and ideology some of you are so keen to embrace. This could only work if newcomers accepted the principle of "When in Rome etc. etc." which they can't do because their culture forbids it.
If you don't agree with this statement try getting a law passed which forbids all muslim women to wear burqhas or headscarves or any long black robes. Then sit back and see how that goes over!
cont'd

As an atheist I am not for or against any religion, but as a pragmatist it is obvious that religion is often at the heart of conflict. One would think that those who flee persecution because of their faith would at least understand this is precisely why they should throw off the restrictions which have been placed on them.
As for those who come here wishing to retain all their old hatreds, we' re better off if they stay put and fight their own wars in their own lands, and not come here to make their voices heard.
My Asian friends happen to agree with me on these points. They are what one would call moderate muslims, but have retained their faith, do not try and convert, do not join in vocal protests, and have very successfully integrated in Australian society.

SM. with your man Abbott being such a flunky of the US, do you think we should take a few thousand of those Mex's refo's the Yanks have such a problem with. What do you say to that?

Paul,

With your Lee Rhiannon being such a flunky of Hamas perhaps we should send her to Gaza to act as a human shield just as Hamas is doing to all its women and children.