Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[Julia]

Julia if you ever decided to run for office , you would have my vote for sure.

Hah, Ijustnewit, I could think of nothing worse

Thanks for that Julia.

It could be a bit of a case of there are three types of lies... lies, damn lies, and statistics!


Because of the Trans Tasman agreements, it could well still be that "most of the people sent to Nauru ended up in Australia anyway".

Perhaps it could, but I doubt very much that that is what happened. I listen to a lot of ABC Radio and, although the original misstatement has been peddled ad infinitum, I have never heard a single suggestion that people being settled in NZ later came to Australia.

I would think a strong deterrent for this is the reality that if NZ accepted people then it would be on a similar basis to that on which they're accepted into Australia, viz with considerable welfare benefits and other supports such as language assistance, accommodation, assistance in finding work etc.

New Zealanders coming to Australia have no access to welfare or other support with the exception of the reciprocal health agreement via Medicare, so I doubt that the presentation of the relevant paperwork which had admitted them to NZ - along with presumably extensive records by the appropriate government departments - would give them access, on arrival in Australia, of the benefits they'd have received in NZ.

So I don't really think such a suggestion in fact excuses the ongoing supporting of a complete untruth by the ABC, especially as such suggestion has never been made before to my knowledge by either the ABC or any of its apologists.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I wonder sometimes if these so called bleeding hearts care about the genuine refugees who are likely being made to wait even longer because of those with money and expensive luggage who push their way in here without ID...

That exact question has been asked of them many times, including of some on this forum. I've never seen a response.

I have long supported migrants arriving on boats over government, at some cost amongst other posters and my friends.

However I am now of the opinion that we are dealing with a significant number of the illegal arrivals by boat over the last few years being predominantly from the "Gucci Gulag".

These rich educated and others of the upper class in their own countries, who through Kevin Rudd's mismanagement of our borders see Australia as a handy place to continue their commercial and ethnic business, before returning with citizenship in place to the "Gucci Gulag".

I feel very sorry for the poor and dispossessed waiting in an everlengthening queue while these rich bastards get in on a Rudd Visa Card.

gg

 

[banco]

I wonder sometimes if these so called bleeding hearts care about the genuine refugees who are likely being made to wait even longer because of those with money and expensive luggage who push their way in here without ID...

They'd only be made to wait longer as a result of Government decisions that the "bleeding hearts" disagree with. There's not necessarily any connection between how many "genuine refugees" are taken from camps and how many people arrive by boat beyond whatever connections the Government wants to draw. The "bleeding hearts" position would be a humanitarian intake of say 50000 annually from refugee camps and that number stays the same no matter how many come by boat.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

They'd only be made to wait longer as a result of Government decisions that the "bleeding hearts" disagree with. There's not necessarily any connection between how many "genuine refugees" are taken from camps and how many people arrive by boat beyond whatever connections the Government wants to draw. The "bleeding hearts" position would be a humanitarian intake of say 50000 annually from refugee camps and that number stays the same no matter how many come by boat.

In other words "Queue jumpers rule, ok "

gg

 

[bellenuit]

They'd only be made to wait longer as a result of Government decisions that the "bleeding hearts" disagree with. There's not necessarily any connection between how many "genuine refugees" are taken from camps and how many people arrive by boat beyond whatever connections the Government wants to draw. The "bleeding hearts" position would be a humanitarian intake of say 50000 annually from refugee camps and that number stays the same no matter how many come by boat.

But why should it stay the same? Are you saying Australia doesn't have the right to set its refugee intake? Because what "the bleeding hearts" advocate effectively gives control of our intake to people smugglers. And since they also want to make it easier for refugees to come by means other than a controlled selection from those in the camps, that would be a massive drawcard for people to come through other channels.

Make it 75K or 100K annually from those in the camps and it will have no effect whatsoever on those choosing to come by other means, if they know they are guaranteed the right to stay in Australia should immigration authorities not be able to prove they are not genuine refugees (which is very hard to do when they have no papers).

If your goal is to maximise the number of refugees that Australia can take in, then stopping the boats is the best policy. I don't have figures, but it must be patently obvious that it costs a lot less per head to bring in, by regular transport, a person who is in a camp and has already been vetted by the UN than it costs to process those coming by boat when you consider all the costs that we are incurring with our navy effectively a taxi service.

The only way to make the costs of unregulated arrivals comparable to those coming from the camps would be for Australia to fly them directly from Jakarta or Colombo or wherever to Australia (which I think is The Greens policy). But that only makes the cost per head comparable from a transportation point of view. We would then have to do the processing in Australia that is currently done by the UN overseas and would additionally incur the costs of returning those not qualified, as well as the costs to keep them while they are here and any legal costs should they be able to appeal decisions.

And would that stop the boats? Of course not. Those that know they would not be accepted as refugees if they arrived with proper documentation will still choose the sea route and destroy their documentation as they do today. But by what you are advocating, they should be accepted as well.

If we assume that Australia has a limited budget that can be allocated to our refugee intake, which every rational person knows is the case, then it is clearly obvious that the biggest enemy of genuine refugees are "the bleeding hearts". Their ill thought through solutions would be an absolute disaster for genuine refugees if implemented and would be an absolute disaster for Australia as well. It is just pie in the sky nonsense.

 

[banco]

In other words "Queue jumpers rule, ok "

gg

In other words until a decision by the Howard Government the number of boatpeople had no effect on Australia's humanitarian intake. Then Howard introduced a policy of for every successful refugee who came by boat Australia's humanitarian intake would be decreased by 1. So screwing over "genuine refugees" in favour of "queue jumpers" was a deliberate policy decision that could be reversed at any time if Australia chose to do so.

In any case the idea that those who are most opposed to people coming by boat are chomping at the bit to increase Australia's humanitarian intake is laughable.

 

[Julia]

But why should it stay the same? Are you saying Australia doesn't have the right to set its refugee intake? Because what "the bleeding hearts" advocate effectively gives control of our intake to people smugglers. And since they also want to make it easier for refugees to come by means other than a controlled selection from those in the camps, that would be a massive drawcard for people to come through other channels.

Make it 75K or 100K annually from those in the camps and it will have no effect whatsoever on those choosing to come by other means, if they know they are guaranteed the right to stay in Australia should immigration authorities not be able to prove they are not genuine refugees (which is very hard to do when they have no papers).

If your goal is to maximise the number of refugees that Australia can take in, then stopping the boats is the best policy. I don't have figures, but it must be patently obvious that it costs a lot less per head to bring in, by regular transport, a person who is in a camp and has already been vetted by the UN than it costs to process those coming by boat when you consider all the costs that we are incurring with our navy effectively a taxi service.

The only way to make the costs of unregulated arrivals comparable to those coming from the camps would be for Australia to fly them directly from Jakarta or Colombo or wherever to Australia (which I think is The Greens policy). But that only makes the cost per head comparable from a transportation point of view. We would then have to do the processing in Australia that is currently done by the UN overseas and would additionally incur the costs of returning those not qualified, as well as the costs to keep them while they are here and any legal costs should they be able to appeal decisions.

And would that stop the boats? Of course not. Those that know they would not be accepted as refugees if they arrived with proper documentation will still choose the sea route and destroy their documentation as they do today. But by what you are advocating, they should be accepted as well.

If we assume that Australia has a limited budget that can be allocated to our refugee intake, which every rational person knows is the case, then it is clearly obvious that the biggest enemy of genuine refugees are "the bleeding hearts". Their ill thought through solutions would be an absolute disaster for genuine refugees if implemented and would be an absolute disaster for Australia as well. It is just pie in the sky nonsense.

+1. Exactly.

 

[bellenuit]

In other words until a decision by the Howard Government the number of boatpeople had no effect on Australia's humanitarian intake. Then Howard introduced a policy of for every successful refugee who came by boat Australia's humanitarian intake would be decreased by 1. So screwing over "genuine refugees" in favour of "queue jumpers" was a deliberate policy decision that could be reversed at any time if Australia chose to do so.

That is why the policy is to stop the boats.

And if, as you are implying, that Australian's humanitarian intake is reduced by 1 for every person arriving by boat, then you must be assuming those who come by boat are not part of our humanitarian intake. Why not, unless you believe they are not genuine refugees?

And if you believe they are genuine refugees, then you must accept that given our resources are limited, then overall our refugee intake will be a lot less than otherwise by accepting those coming by irregular means as I explained in my last post.

In any case the idea that those who are most opposed to people coming by boat are chomping at the bit to increase Australia's humanitarian intake is laughable.

I can't speak for others, but I am completely against boat arrivals for the reason I have given and I have in several posts advocated an increase in intake by regular means.

 

[banco]

But why should it stay the same? Are you saying Australia doesn't have the right to set its refugee intake? Because what "the bleeding hearts" advocate effectively gives control of our intake to people smugglers. And since they also want to make it easier for refugees to come by means other than a controlled selection from those in the camps, that would be a massive drawcard for people to come through other channels.

Make it 75K or 100K annually from those in the camps and it will have no effect whatsoever on those choosing to come by other means, if they know they are guaranteed the right to stay in Australia should immigration authorities not be able to prove they are not genuine refugees (which is very hard to do when they have no papers).

If your goal is to maximise the number of refugees that Australia can take in, then stopping the boats is the best policy. I don't have figures, but it must be patently obvious that it costs a lot less per head to bring in, by regular transport, a person who is in a camp and has already been vetted by the UN than it costs to process those coming by boat when you consider all the costs that we are incurring with our navy effectively a taxi service.

The only way to make the costs of unregulated arrivals comparable to those coming from the camps would be for Australia to fly them directly from Jakarta or Colombo or wherever to Australia (which I think is The Greens policy). But that only makes the cost per head comparable from a transportation point of view. We would then have to do the processing in Australia that is currently done by the UN overseas and would additionally incur the costs of returning those not qualified, as well as the costs to keep them while they are here and any legal costs should they be able to appeal decisions.

And would that stop the boats? Of course not. Those that know they would not be accepted as refugees if they arrived with proper documentation will still choose the sea route and destroy their documentation as they do today. But by what you are advocating, they should be accepted as well.

If we assume that Australia has a limited budget that can be allocated to our refugee intake, which every rational person knows is the case, then it is clearly obvious that the biggest enemy of genuine refugees are "the bleeding hearts". Their ill thought through solutions would be an absolute disaster for genuine refugees if implemented and would be an absolute disaster for Australia as well. It is just pie in the sky nonsense.

Of course Australia has a limited budget but most Western European nations take far more refugees per capita than Australia. As I said Australia has made a policy choice to take a certain number of refugees from camps a year. It could easily make a policy choice to take more if it chose to do so. The idea that the policy choice to effectively take less from the camps due to boat arrivals has been forced on us by those devilish queue jumpers lest the Government go broke is ridiculous given the policy didn't exist until the Howard Government.

 

[banco]

That is why the policy is to stop the boats.

And if, as you are implying, that Australian's humanitarian intake is reduced by 1 for every person arriving by boat, then you must be assuming those who come by boat are not part of our humanitarian intake. Why not, unless you believe they are not genuine refugees?

And if you believe they are genuine refugees, then you must accept that given our resources are limited, then overall our refugee intake will be a lot less than otherwise by accepting those coming by irregular means as I explained in my last post.



I can't speak for others, but I am completely against boat arrivals for the reason I have given and I have in several posts advocated an increase in intake by regular means.

I don't think you're keeping up with things. The argument from the right was that "bleeding hearts" need to think about the fact that these boat people prevent refugees from camps etc. overseas from been resettled in Australia. The obvious response (which Julia never seems to have come across before) is that for the "bleeding hearts" a connection need not be drawn between the number arriving by boat and the number drawn up for Australia's humanitarian intake each year. That way there could be no talk about how "queue jumpers" had diddled genuine refugees out of a spot.

Lots of people who are all for stopping the boats will add that they'd be happy to increase the refugee intake from camps etc. but even if the boats slow to a trickle I'm not going to be holding my breath for Tony to increase the humanitarian intake.


REDUCE HUMANITARIAN REFUGEE INTAKE (save $1.3 billion)

The Gillard government increased Australia's annual intake of humanitarian refugees from 13,750 places to 20,000. Tony Abbott initially said he supported the increase. But in its search for savings, the Coalition has pledged to reduce it back to 13,750 places a year, booking a saving of $1.3 billion across the four year budget horizon.

 

[drsmith]

On 23 September national broadcaster Tony Delroy claimed in his program that 90% of asylum seekers during the Pacific Solution had ended up in Australia. This was clearly completely wrong. I sent in a formal complaint to the ABC Complaints Procedure, pointing out that the actual figure was 43%.

Part of the ABC's reply,

Mr Delroy said that he believed about 90% or more of refugees who arrived in Australia “during the Howard years” were resettled in Australia. The number was clearly an approximation.

That is complete crap. He stated the 90% as fact.

I'm very curious to listen to the audio or read a transcript from that show, particularly in light of the comment above from the ABC about it being an approximation and also the following as part of their justification,

As a point of comparison, more recent data shows that well in excess of 90% of IMAs have been deemed refugees by independent tribunals in recent years http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php

As the data in the justification is acknowledged by the ABC as being more recent than Tony Delroy's, the ABC were unable to defend his comment from what he actually knew at the time, hence the approximation excuse.

Neither the audio or transcript though appears to be on the ABC's Nightlife's webpage archive. This is important to understand firstly his exact words and secondly, the impression he was trying to give from those words (my bolds).

http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/archive_program.htm

 

[Julia]

I don't think you're keeping up with things. The argument from the right was that "bleeding hearts" need to think about the fact that these boat people prevent refugees from camps etc. overseas from been resettled in Australia. The obvious response (which Julia never seems to have come across before) is that for the "bleeding hearts" a connection need not be drawn between the number arriving by boat and the number drawn up for Australia's humanitarian intake each year. That way there could be no talk about how "queue jumpers" had diddled genuine refugees out of a spot.

The reality is that - for budget and any other reason either flavour of government chooses to select - there is a limit to the overall intake. Most reasonable people would agree with that. So, as long as that policy is in place people coming by boat in large numbers are not only filling the capacity, but also stretching the department's capacity for processing.

What would you actually have happen? Do you believe Australia should have completely open borders?
That we should simply welcome everyone who decides they'd like to come and live here?

I'm very curious to listen to the audio or read a transcript from that show, particularly in light of the comment above from the ABC about it being an approximation and also the following as part of their justification,

As the data in the justification is acknowledged by the ABC as being more recent than Tony Delroy's, the ABC were unable to defend his comment from what he actually knew at the time, hence the approximation excuse.

Neither the audio or transcript though appears to be on the ABC's Nightlife's webpage archive. This is important to understand firstly his exact words and secondly, the impression he was trying to give from those words (my bolds).

http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/archive_program.htm

No, "Nightlife" transcripts are never available. Consequently any complaints can be dismissed as this one has. It's now some time ago and he hasn't to my hearing repeated the same claim. Jeez, even Kevin Rudd's claim of 70% wasn't as outrageous as Delroy's 90%. It's the same reason complaints about his constant Labor bias in his frequent political discussions never go anywhere - it's never possible to access the transcript.

I've sent the ABC's reply to Politifact. No idea if they will respond. No idea, either, whether their own political persuasions might mean they would prefer not to look at criticism of the ABC.

 

[drsmith]

Operation Sovereign Borders update Friday October 11

One boat in the past week intercepted off Cocos Island late yesterday.

JUST one asylum seeker boat arrived in Australian waters in the past week. Operation Sovereign Borders Acting Commander, Air Marshal Mark Binskin, said the boat was intercepted late on Thursday off the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

The number of people on board was not released because the passengers were still to be processed at Christmas Island, Air Marshal Binskin told reporters in Sydney on Friday.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...intercepted-govt/story-fn3dxiwe-1226738268143

Michael Smith's thoughts on where this boat may have come from,

That's a long way from Christmas Island and more on the route from Sri Lanka than the course taken by boats departing Indonesia and aiming for Australian territory.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...and-shaz-is-now-home-on-christmas-island.html

Operations in Indonesia since the election,

MORE than 550 would-be asylum-seekers have been stopped from getting on boats in Indonesia since the federal election as a result of cooperation with Jakarta.

Australian Federal Police chief commissioner Tony Negus said three “high-value targets” had been arrested in Indonesia, and a warrant issued for a people-smuggling kingpin.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...sian-authorities/story-fn9hm1gu-1226738304026

Summary of arrivals since this government was elected

08/09/2013 to 18/09/2013 (caretaker period prior to swearing in): 475 passengers on 7 boats.
Remainder of the week to Monday 23/09/2013: 31 passengers on 1 boat.
Week to Monday 30/09/2013: 95 passengers on 3 boats.
Remainder of the week to Friday 04/10/2013: 79 passengers on one boat.
Week to Friday 11/10/2013: An unknown number at this stage on 1 boat.

Operation Sovereign Borders update Friday October 04

The briefing which would have taken place on Monday October 07 was brought forward due to the public holiday on that day.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...-interpreters-families-scott-morrison/4998990

 

[Julia]

It looks as if Indonesia is already demonstrating some intervention at their end.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...ong-alleged-people-smugglers-arrested/5017056

 

[noco]

It looks as if Indonesia is already demonstrating some intervention at their end.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...ong-alleged-people-smugglers-arrested/5017056

It certainly shows up the poor relationship the Labor Party had with the Indonesians.

The silence from Tony Bourke and the Labor Party is deafening.

These people were saying just a week ago, the Sovereign Border Operation would not work.....perhaps it was wishful thinkg.

 

[drsmith]

HMAS Warramunga unloading on Christmas Island today.

Approx 60-70 POB Afghani/Sri Lankan/Middle Eastern - about 6 kids ......maybe a dozen females

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/10/shaz-is-back-heres-hmas-warramunga-unloading-today.html

Unknown as to whether this was the intercept near Cocos Island late Thursday.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The argument viz a viz Australia's management of illegal migrants, and that of Europe needs to take in to account our Secure Borders in Australia.

Europe has lost those, and regrets it.

We have not since the return of the Coalition to government.

That is the great political debate we need to have.

Secure Borders vs Compassionate Access for Needy People.

gg

 

[drsmith]

Secure Borders vs Compassionate Access for Needy People.

Add to that our national interest and that all these objectives shouldn't be seen as competing objectives.

 

[johenmo]

I like to think I have a say over who does and doesn't enter my house, and who can stay or not. And the same applies to our country. Australia is the easiest touch out of all the countries in the region or the boats would be going elsewhere or staying where they have already landed.

 

[bunyip]

This was emailed to me by a friend - it's an interesting read.

*********************************************************************************


The question I ask is; "How can the authorities know if they are letting in radicals into the country?

Arab Mentality

This pretty well tells us what we're up against. These people and their "religion" are not civilized, as we understand civilization.



________________________________

From: Dr. Arieh Eldad:

I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world.

The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her.

Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment.

She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza.

She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt.

She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life.

It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict.

This is a conflict of civilizations or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.

I have never written so seriously before asking to please forward onwards so that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits the world if it is not stopped.



Dr Arieh Eldad