Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[bunyip]

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...n-unchecked-control-over-asylum-seekers-lives

From the link above....
Australia now regards itself as free from the bonds of the Refugees Convention – a treaty Australia helped write, and willingly signed up to, more than half a century ago. All references to it have been removed from Australian law.

Instead of adhering to the established, internationally-agreed framework for dealing with asylum seekers, Australia will follow a “new, independent and self-contained statutory framework”, that sets out the government’s own interpretation of international law.

Excellent - freeing ourselves from the shackles of the refugee convention was long overdue.
The bozos at the United Nations couldn’t care less if our economy is completely wrecked as a result of a hundred thousand or more illegal refugees arriving by boat every year. And make no mistake about it, a hundred thousand a year was well and truly on the cards if the numbers had kept increasing like they were doing under Labor. The escalation of troubles in the Middle East would have, by itself, caused numbers to increase significantly.
Well done Tony Abbot and Scott Morrison for taking decisive measures to address the problem. Their detractors are just miffed that the LNP has fixed the mess that Labor created and was then for six years utterly powerless to fix.

 

[drsmith]

Congratulations to Scott Morrison for getting TPV's reinstated.

IMO it's the best solution to a very difficult problem, and I certainly hope Labor doesn't reverse them when they get back.

By such staunch opposition to TPV's and turnbacks, Labor only weds itself to it's record of gross failure and tragedy.

 

[drsmith]

A case where the last word is by far the most sensible,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-05/early-hours-senate-debate-leaves-tempers-frayed/5946036

 

[Tisme]

Guardian journo doesn't like it

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...n-unchecked-control-over-asylum-seekers-lives

 

[bunyip]

Guardian journo doesn't like it

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...n-unchecked-control-over-asylum-seekers-lives

I’d like to see that Guardian journo (and anyone else who’s opposed to the government’s decisive measures for stopping the boats) explain how we’d afford the massive bill that would result if the Abbot government went soft on border protection. Rudd and Gillard ran up a bill of more than 12 billion dollars over six years by effectively giving the green light to illegal boat people – a bill that’s now risen much higher due to the ongoing cost of keeping them in detention centers until they can be processed.
The numbers were increasing exponentially – of the fifty thousand who paid people smugglers to bring there here, seventeen thousand of them arrived in the final year of the Labor government.
That number could well have grown to fifty thousand a year by now if Abbot & Co hadn’t put an end to it. The 12 billion dollar bill incurred by Labor over six years could easily have become our annual bill if the people smuggling trade hadn’t been shut down by decisive action from the LNP.
These days we hear the word ‘billion’ so often that it’s easy to forget just how much money a billion dollars really is. A billion is one thousand million, 12 billion dollars is 12 thousand million – a colossal amount of money in anyone’s language.
Given the huge debt that Australia now carries (much of it run up by six years of Labor government), and given the huge monthly interest bill on that debt, is there anyone on this forum who is stupid enough to think we can afford to outlay an additional 12 billion dollars each year by bowing to pressure from the United Nations and other bleeding hearts who are sufficiently misguided as to believe that we are inhumane in saying no to the hordes of people who want to come to our country.
Humanity issues aside, the simple economic fact is that we just can’t afford to allow our country to be used as a refuge for every troubled person around the world who wishes to come here.

 

[drsmith]

Stopping the boats is in the long run the best humanitarian solution despite what the critics of the current government's policies say.

People smugglers only care about the profit they can earn from their illegal activities and not the safety or welfare of those who they transport.

Our government should be in full control of any inbound immigration and discussion on the nature of that program should stand alone from people smuggling which itself should be prevented as a matter of principal.

 

[orr]

Our government should be in full control of any inbound immigration l.

I'm not opposed to that and can't see why anybody would be. But it is the case that some of us are happy to send people back to their persecutors to imprisoned for their beliefs, clubbed to death, buried alive or just plain old disappeared. As opposed to here, where we only threaten their children if they don't do what their told whilst we keep them indefinitely in our Gulags.

And then there are those that see some injustice in that. Well I know what side of that argument I'm on, so I'm off to prick the eye's of some sparrows, I like the way they hop around and bump into things while the cat just walks around standing over them. av good day all.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm not opposed to that and can't see why anybody would be. But it is the case that some of us are happy to send people back to their persecutors to imprisoned for their beliefs, clubbed to death, buried alive or just plain old disappeared. As opposed to here, where we only threaten their children if they don't do what their told whilst we keep them indefinitely in our Gulags.

And then there are those that see some injustice in that. Well I know what side of that argument I'm on, so I'm off to prick the eye's of some sparrows, av good day all.

I would agree with you, except, if their motivation was to escape persecution, why wouldn't they just move to a nearby country.
One that has a similar culture and religious beliefs?
Why bypass these countries and risk their lives, to travel all the way to Australia?

I think we all have an idea why, because it is economic asylum they want, and why should they get it? because they can afford it?

What makes them any more deserving, than those who can't afford to bypass the system?

 

[drsmith]

I'm not opposed to that and can't see why anybody would be. But it is the case that some of us are happy to send people back to their persecutors to imprisoned for their beliefs, clubbed to death, buried alive or just plain old disappeared. As opposed to here, where we only threaten their children if they don't do what their told whilst we keep them indefinitely in our Gulags.

And then there are those that see some injustice in that.

What we know for a fact is that approximately 1200 men, women and children drowned at sea in making the attempt.

As I've said before, the so-called moral ground from which the above reasoning is preached is nothing but thin air.

 

[Macquack]

What we know for a fact is that approximately 1200 men, women and children drowned at sea in making the attempt.

As I've said before, the so-called moral ground from which the above reasoning is preached is nothing but thin air.

Crocodile tears are cheap and also come out of thin air.

1200 Australians are killed on the roads every year, who do you blame for that?

 

[drsmith]

Crocodile tears are cheap and also come out of thin air.

1200 Australians are killed on the roads every year, who do you blame for that?

That, tragic as it is, doesn't justify the other.

 

[banco]

What we know for a fact is that approximately 1200 men, women and children drowned at sea in making the attempt.

As I've said before, the so-called moral ground from which the above reasoning is preached is nothing but thin air.

Let's not pretend Abbott could care less if they drowned. He didn't want them here full stop. If they somehow managed to procure more shipworthy ships and the death toll from drowning went to nil do you really think they'd consider that a good outcome?

 

[sptrawler]

I would agree with you, except, if their motivation was to escape persecution, why wouldn't they just move to a nearby country.
One that has a similar culture and religious beliefs?
Why bypass these countries and risk their lives, to travel all the way to Australia?

I think we all have an idea why, because it is economic asylum they want, and why should they get it? because they can afford it?

What makes them any more deserving, than those who can't afford to bypass the system?

Hey guys, what about attacking my post? is it unworthy?

Mcquak and banco, there wouldn't be a drowning problem if we had Indonesias attitude.

There wouldn't be a camp of refugees, sitting at the entrance to the chunnel, if Brittain had the same attitude as Europe.

Does that mean we and Britain just let everyone in, that wants to get there?

Jeez it sounds dumb, when we are having trouble supporting our existing welfare system.
Maybe you should get together and start a fostering system for orphaned children or families in distress, we have lots of them.
I'm not trying to be nasty, but where do you stop? probably not when you want it to stop.

I really would recommend you try to heal your social conscience by helping the needy, we have plenty of them.
Bob Hawke said"no child will be living in poverty by 1990".
What he found out, was no matter how much money you throw at it, doesn't change what they spend it on.

The same with asylum seekers, if they can get to Australia and on welfare, your only limited by how many you can support.
The more you can support, the more will come, untill your system fails.
Then it isn't selective.

 

[bunyip]

Hey guys, what about attacking my post? is it unworthy?

Mcquak and banco, there wouldn't be a drowning problem if we had Indonesias attitude.

There wouldn't be a camp of refugees, sitting at the entrance to the chunnel, if Brittain had the same attitude as Europe.

Does that mean we and Britain just let everyone in, that wants to get there?

Jeez it sounds dumb, when we are having trouble supporting our existing welfare system.
Maybe you should get together and start a fostering system for orphaned children or families in distress, we have lots of them.
I'm not trying to be nasty, but where do you stop? probably not when you want it to stop.

I really would recommend you try to heal your social conscience by helping the needy, we have plenty of them.
Bob Hawke said"no child will be living in poverty by 1990".
What he found out, was no matter how much money you throw at it, doesn't change what they spend it on.

The same with asylum seekers, if they can get to Australia and on welfare, your only limited by how many you can support.
The more you can support, the more will come, untill your system fails.
Then it isn't selective.

Excellent post, SP.
People can whine all they like about how inhumane it is to stop them from coming here, or turning them back if they do come here, but I’m still waiting for them to tell us how we’d afford the 12 or 15 billion dollar annual price tag that would result from doing a Kevin Rudd and throwing our borders open to all and sundry. The interest alone on 12 billion would be around 50 million dollars a month.
I can think of some very needy Australians who are woefully under-funded and would be delighted if 50 million a month was spent on them instead of spending it on illegal immigrants – intellectually disabled people spring to mind as one section of the community that desperately needs additional funding.
These people who keep pushing the humanity argument – I wonder how many of them have been humane enough to take two or three homeless people into their homes, I wonder how many of them are being humane enough to do voluntary work for underprivileged people in their communities, I wonder how many of them have given years of service to community service clubs like Lions or Rotary or Apex.
And I wonder how many of them have managed a business where they’ve had to make tough economic decisions to keep a tight rein on expenditure and debt.
Unpalatable though it may be to many kind-hearted people, decisions about border protection have to be made first and foremost on economic grounds, not on humanity grounds. Being humane on a massive scale costs massive amounts of money, as Rudd and Gillard found out the hard way. If we can’t afford it then we can’t do it, and we would have destroyed our economy if we’d kept trying.

 

[orr]

Let's not pretend Abbott could care less if they drowned. He didn't want them here full stop. If they somehow managed to procure more shipworthy ships and the death toll from drowning went to nil do you really think they'd consider that a good outcome?

That's the whole point isn't Banco, All they are in the end is political pawns. Nothing scared the 5hit out of the bully boys more than the outcome that was plausible with Labors Malaysia resettlement because it would of robbed them of the capacity to turn the rabid xenophobic underbelly into votes. What's been said here about Morrisons $12 million bribe to Cambodia for how many refugees resettled, was it 6... There's no winners in this just bloody mindedness, ignorance and suffering bent to serve the cause of the sociopaths who'll grease themselves with into power with it through the sloppy sphincter human indifference.

Any connection between Ros Packers $500,000 donation and her litle boys casino in Rajapaksa's deathstate and Tony's love in with him? them both I should say......

take that as a reply SP

 

[luutzu]

Excellent post, SP.
People can whine all they like about how inhumane it is to stop them from coming here, or turning them back if they do come here, but I’m still waiting for them to tell us how we’d afford the 12 or 15 billion dollar annual price tag that would result from doing a Kevin Rudd and throwing our borders open to all and sundry. The interest alone on 12 billion would be around 50 million dollars a month.
I can think of some very needy Australians who are woefully under-funded and would be delighted if 50 million a month was spent on them instead of spending it on illegal immigrants – intellectually disabled people spring to mind as one section of the community that desperately needs additional funding.
These people who keep pushing the humanity argument – I wonder how many of them have been humane enough to take two or three homeless people into their homes, I wonder how many of them are being humane enough to do voluntary work for underprivileged people in their communities, I wonder how many of them have given years of service to community service clubs like Lions or Rotary or Apex.
And I wonder how many of them have managed a business where they’ve had to make tough economic decisions to keep a tight rein on expenditure and debt.
Unpalatable though it may be to many kind-hearted people, decisions about border protection have to be made first and foremost on economic grounds, not on humanity grounds. Being humane on a massive scale costs massive amounts of money, as Rudd and Gillard found out the hard way. If we can’t afford it then we can’t do it, and we would have destroyed our economy if we’d kept trying.

How about doing something that's both cheap and humane?

Let say, I don't know... set up a refugee camp near where most of these refugees are and tell them very clearly that this and that conditions must be met for you to be considered a refugee. If you do not have evidence of these persecutions etc., we will not accept you into Australia. That if you make your journey there and do have have these evidences, and if you survived, we will send you back.

Maybe even bring in the international community to help with funding and resettlement.

That would be more humane than let these refugees do what they do to try and get to Australia, then at the last leg... we play tough and let them drown or turn them back and if all that fail, play tougher and making examples out of them by locking them up and stand tall spouting tough words like not going to be morally blackmailed.

Not only does the current policy costs Australians, and Australian alone, a lot of money - increase surveillance, building and keeping the camps etc., chartered flights etc.... It harm a lot of people, including our own moral standing.

We got to be a lot smarter, and a lot kinder, than simply using lives to make examples out of.

Refugees and boats are not going to stop because we're tough and hard-arsed, they will stop when there are no wars and persecution to run away from. I'm not saying that we're responsible or could or should help all the world's refugees... but maybe people ought to at least be heard and we can see what we and our friends can do to help.

While there certainly are non-genuine cases, there are also definitely genuine cases of political persecution... It might be a bit too simplistic to think that people would pack up and leave their country on a boat just so they could live off of our welfare payment.

Would you take that boat ride from Australia to any of those country if at the end of it you'll get paid $50,000 a year for the rest of your life? How about $100,000? How much are the Centrelink payment to poor Australians anyway? $10K a year?

How many Indonesians have claim asylum in Australia? Their country isn't that rich, they're next door practically... so if people would escape to another country for welfare, why aren't the Indonesians? Maybe their country is not at war... maybe they're poor but they will just have to make do.


----

Isn't there a song that goes something like... Ain't no mountain high enough, ain't no sea deep or wide enough to keep me from you? That to show how much I love you, I would travel through ice and fire just to be with you?

We Australians seem to look upon that and say, yea your love is nice and touching... and such devotion might drive your ambition to work harder and contribute to our commonwealth, that and the fact that I help you in your moment of darkness might naturally obligate you to love me just a little more than usual... but you're poor so go get stuffed. I got a date with this rich and clean and professional immigrant who could date anyone but he chose me, and he and his money makes me happy.

I suppose love is nice, but money is the real thing though.

This country is full... unless you got serious dollars on you.

 

[SirRumpole]

While there certainly are non-genuine cases, there are also definitely genuine cases of political persecution...

Yes, on this site for example. Labor supporters are a persecuted minority.

 

[bunyip]

Nothing scared the 5hit out of the bully boys more than the outcome that was plausible with Labors Malaysia resettlement because it would of robbed them of the capacity to turn the rabid xenophobic underbelly into votes.

Are you sure the Malaysian Solution was as wonderful as you seem to think?

First, we had to take 4000 processed refugees from Malaysia in return for them taking just 800 asylum seekers from us. That sounds like a pretty good deal for Malaysia but not for us!

Second, the 800 asylum seekers we were going to pass on to Malaysia were a drop in the ocean – almost twice that number were descending on us every month!

Third, the High Court ruled the Malaysian Solution illegal.

The Malaysian Solution was just another of Labor’s many ill-considered policies that promised little and would have delivered even less, even if the High Court had allowed it to go through.

By the way, Orr – have you worked out yet how we’d afford the colossal price tag of taking what you consider to be the humane solution of laying out the welcome mat to illegal boat people like Labor did?

 

[orr]

Are you sure the Malaysian Solution was as wonderful ............

Third, the High Court ruled the Malaysian Solution illegal.

I said it was plausible. and Monash university agrees; pays to pay attention .

'Does this ruling mean the Malaysia Solution is dead?

Effectively yes unless two things happen. The government can seek to change Section 198a which was the section in question to lower the threshold in relation to human rights standards. '
'The government would obviously have to get that through parliament and I would say given the minority structure at the moment, the Gillard government doesn’t have a majority so it would have to get cross-bench support and that might be difficult.'

But we would not any baby steps toward addressing the pull factors would we. as explained above.
the other problem is with your imagination, nothing is going to solve that. Young people can be seen as a resource.

And what no comment on the half million Rajapaksa Packer Abbott oiled up threesome. Or the Cambodian 'bargain'. hardly surprised.

 

[bellenuit]

How about doing something that's both cheap and humane?

Let say, I don't know... set up a refugee camp near where most of these refugees are and tell them very clearly that this and that conditions must be met for you to be considered a refugee. If you do not have evidence of these persecutions etc., we will not accept you into Australia. That if you make your journey there and do have have these evidences, and if you survived, we will send you back.

Maybe even bring in the international community to help with funding and resettlement.

That would be more humane than let these refugees do what they do to try and get to Australia, then at the last leg... we play tough and let them drown or turn them back and if all that fail, play tougher and making examples out of them by locking them up and stand tall spouting tough words like not going to be morally blackmailed.

Isn't that what is happening right now? Genuine refugees are in UN run refugee camps throughout the world and Australia takes a significant number of these processed refugees in each year, giving them the rights to full Australian citizenship. We obviously can't take every refugee as we would be overwhelmed, but we do our share (perhaps we could increase the intake a bit). Those trying to enter by other means (boat arrivals) are rejected and will not ever be given settlement rights because they jumped the queue so to speak.