Hi Poirot,

Yes, of course, refugees who are part of our annual intake should be able to fly here after paying standard commercial fees. And I think that the intake should be higher.

But with respect, you may have missed my point. I'm presuming that you think that refugees who arrive here by leaky boat etc., should be given asylum ? Don't turn back the boats ? My string of questions then suggests that, if this is the case,

(1) why by leaky boats ?

I'm fairly sure that you would agree that, if refugees should be allowed to settle in Australia if they arrive in leaky boats, they should also be allowed to settle in Australia if they come by quite seaworthy boats.

And if by seaworthy boats, perhaps overseen by Australian maritime authorities in Indonesia,

(2) why should they have to pay exorbitant fees to smugglers ? Why not allow them to settle after paying standard commercial fees ? Why force them to pay exorbitant fees to smugglers ?

And if they can settle in Australia after coming here by seaworthy boats after paying standard fees,

(3) why should they have to come by boat ? Why not take anybody in who can fly here ?

(4) From anywhere ?

Can you see the progressive shift: once one supports the notion that people can come here without papers etc. on leaky boats, after paying exorbitant fees to smugglers - that why not fly here on commercial rates from anywhere ?

Maybe I'm just too thick, but this seems to be the logical outcome of allowing illegal entry. Please correct me where I've gone wrong.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Yes, you are acting "a bit thick".

I'm not referring to "refugees" which are part of our intake.

They've already been processed and are accepted on the basis of that processing.

I'm referring to people who originally enter this country by air and at some point after apply for asylum...as I pointed out, in 2011-12 over 7,000 applications were made on that basis.

Again - they do fly here...and we don't hear a peep about them from the likes of you because your argument with "asylum seekers" is apparently only concerned with the ones who come by boat...the rest are invisible. Why don't you shriek about the non-IMAs?

Now I'd like to continue to play your silly game of twenty questions but I have better things to do...it's pretty boring having you repeat the same inane questions over and over again.

Loudy,

You've got Pirouette's bottom lip all a'quiver.

Don't expect him/her to follow the inevitable path of Green logic. It's a no go area in the mental schema, running headlong into the notion that any IMA should expect Australian citizenship if deemed a refugee.

There are no limits on immigration into Oz, be it by IMA or being drawn from UN refugee camps globally. You just don't get it, Loudy, there is no queue, and shame on you for concocting one!

Redneck eejut!

What Poirot and other left whingers suffer group amnesia over is that the vast majority of those flying in and applying for asylum are deported immediately and declared persona non grata as their passports and other documents required to enter the country make it impossible to fabricate a story of woe and persecution, whereas those flying in from Sri Lanka and Iran to Indonesia, then taking a boat are able to destroy their documents.

"What Poirot and other left whingers suffer group amnesia over is that the vast majority of those flying in and applying for asylum are deported immediately and declared persona non grata as their passports and other documents required to enter the country make it impossible to fabricate a story of woe and persecution..."

Thanks for the expertise, SM.

Regarding non-IMAs:

"There were 5792 applications considered and decided in the first instance by officials in 2011-12.."

Grants - 1467

Refusals - 4325

Primary grant rate was 25.3% (non-IMAs)

"Asylum seekers arriving by air whose applications have been refused may appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal. In 2011-12, nearly 90 per cent of refused applicants sought such review, a rate that has been
largely constant for the past half decade."

Final decisions overall:

In 2011-12 there were 5159 Protection visa applications finally determined following a primary decision,
review by the RRT and/or consideration by the courts
.
The average final grant rate in 2011-12 remained steady at 44 per cent."

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/asylum-trends-aus-annual-2011-12.pdf

Considering these applications were not only processed in the first instance, but many also reviewed - it's pretty clever of Australian authorities to do all that in the short time it takes to immediately deport someone who has just entered the country.

How about a bit of due diligence, SM....you're a great one for sounding like you know what your're talking about only to construct your argument on thin air.

Here's another:

"....whereas those flying in from Sri Lanka and Iran to Indonesia, then taking a boat are able to destroy their documents."

Erm....Iran topped the list for applications being granted to "non-IMAs" in 2011-12 with 351 grants and 22 refusals.

.....

Luciferase still has his nose out of joint because Poirot preferred the opinions of economists to that of a self-interested negative-gearer who made a profit from a tax break.

Hi Poirot,

There is a migrant intake. There is a refugee intake, and presumably most of those come by plane rather than leaky boat.

The argument is about refugees coming without authorisation, i.e. part of that intake, by leaky boat.

So it's a simple question: do you agree that people coming by leaky boat without authorisation, i.e. not being part of the annual intake ?

Yes/No.

If yes, then see questions (1-4) above.

I hope this clears the matter up for you.

Cheers,

Joe