Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[drsmith]

Junuary was another month of happy no boats.

February was also another month of happy no boats as was March.

Also encouraging to see is the happy voluntary returns to country of origin from offshore detention centre increase in Feb and March. From 1 in Jan, this increased to 10 in Feb and 16 in March taking the total to 585 since the inception of OSB.

There were 25 more happy returns to country of origin with the interception of an asylum boat trying to reach Australia in March. The people smugglers are still trying.

During this same period, Australian authorities detected and intercepted a vessel attempting to reach Australia illegally. The Australian Government subsequently worked with the Government of Sri Lanka to return 25 people consistent with Australia's protection obligations.

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...tion-sovereign-borders-monthly-update-march-3

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...s/releases/monthly-operational-update-march-4

Feb,

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...n-sovereign-borders-monthly-update-february-3

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...eleases/monthly-operational-update-february-5

 

[luutzu]

February was also another month of happy no boats as was March.

Also encouraging to see is the happy voluntary returns to country of origin from offshore detention centre increase in Feb and March. From 1 in Jan, this increased to 10 in Feb and 16 in March taking the total to 585 since the inception of OSB.

There were 25 more happy returns to country of origin with the interception of an asylum boat trying to reach Australia in March. The people smugglers are still trying.



http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...tion-sovereign-borders-monthly-update-march-3

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...s/releases/monthly-operational-update-march-4

Feb,

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...n-sovereign-borders-monthly-update-february-3

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...eleases/monthly-operational-update-february-5

Heep heep, hooray.

You do know that it is not illegal to seek asylum, right? Even if the applicant is later found to have lied, it is still not illegal for them to claim then have their claim assessed for asylum.

What we, in our nobility and sticklers for the legal code, have done is to order our Border Patrol to not ask.

Don't ask, don't tell, don't know.

Hence, we assume that people who cramp into boats are all seeking a fun week or two at sea with a chance to get on welfare and live the rest of their life in heaven, on our dime.

So off they go. Float off somewhere. It's not like there's any war around the world or something.

 

[noco]

Heep heep, hooray.

Hence, we assume that people who cramp into boats are all seeking a fun week or two at sea with a chance to get on welfare and live the rest of their life in heaven, on our dime.

Unfortunately the young single Muslims won't find 72 virgins up there in heaven as promised.

 

[luutzu]

Hence, we assume that people who cramp into boats are all seeking a fun week or two at sea with a chance to get on welfare and live the rest of their life in heaven, on our dime.

Unfortunately the young single Muslims won't find 72 virgins up there in heaven as promised.

I heard somewhere that that 72 virgin business for terrorism is something some racist made up and attributes to Muslims and the teaching of Islam. That it is not true, not written or taught in Islam.

Probably worth checking out though. Else you'd keep blaming them for things they don't blow themselves up for.

You know, kinda like the US and alliance of the willing being blamed for liberating the Middle East for oil when in fact it's all for freedom and saving the children. Like how Clinton's secretary of state once said it's tough but ultimately "worth it" that 500,000 Iraqi children were starved or otherwise died from malnutrition and preventable diseases because of US sanctions.

I mean, you can't say it's "worth it" that some half million kids have to starve to death, then suddenly after a decade or so decided it's time to free them by destroying what's left of their country.

That and shrugging off the deaths of some 14 children in a botched raid; or accidentally taking out some 200 civilians in a strike on a school [could have been a Mosque]... but then got all furious and all heart ached that you literally directly start another war when your enemy kill 74 or so civilians.

That's as bad as banning all refugees from the very same country you are claiming have a dictator for a leader and will go to war to avenge the death of those civilians you order to ban from ever seeking refuge.

The mind boggles at all these double talks and hypocrisy.

 

[drsmith]

It's so much better for the country to see these boat arrivals leaving under a Coalition government than it is to see them arriving under a Labor government.

Happy no boats.

 

[luutzu]

It's so much better for the country to see these boat arrivals leaving under a Coalition government than it is to see them arriving under a Labor government.

Happy no boats.

It's always better to break laws and obligations when you can get away with it.

Not sure what message and example it would send though.

It's like Tony Sopranos kicking the homeless and disabled in front of his kids because why not... then turn around and tell the kids to seriously look after each other. Because we're family!

 

[drsmith]

It's always better to break laws and obligations when you can get away with it.

That's what people smugglers think. Look how much their attempts have slowed under the example the current Coalition government has sent.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's as bad as banning all refugees from the very same country you are claiming have a dictator for a leader and will go to war to avenge the death of those civilians you order to ban from ever seeking refuge.

That's the reason why we have an approval system of refugee intake so we make sure that we take the people who really need asylum and not those who are economic refugees that are willing to buy their way in.

We can't take everyone who wants to come here, there have to be rules, verification and vetting otherwise the voters will say "don't take anyone".

 

[luutzu]

That's what people smugglers think. Look how much their attempts have slowed under the example the current Coalition government has sent.

You sure about the zero arrival being due to tough thinking by the Liberals?

Not, I don't know, don't ask/don't tell, drag you outta here and if I see you again I'll sink your boat kinda deal?

 

[luutzu]

That's the reason why we have an approval system of refugee intake so we make sure that we take the people who really need asylum and not those who are economic refugees that are willing to buy their way in.

We can't take everyone who wants to come here, there have to be rules, verification and vetting otherwise the voters will say "don't take anyone".

No one's saying just let any boat people become citizens.

I know there are some who are economic refugees; I know there are people smugglers too.

Does that mean we either tow their boats away from our waters, or we let them all in?

Those are false choices.

Other options includes... work with a third country, vet any asylum application while they're under some sort of temporary protection visa.

Anyway, there's a reason why no body give a dam about poor people.

 

[SirRumpole]

Other options includes... work with a third country,

Rudd tried to do that with Malaysia but the Libs scuttled that deal. Now we are doing it with the US. Any problem with that that you can see ?

 

[luutzu]

Rudd tried to do that with Malaysia but the Libs scuttled that deal. Now we are doing it with the US. Any problem with that that you can see ?

Not enough coffee money?

Our policy towards refugees have been pretty stupid, and I mean stupid, not just immoral and all that fairy airy stuff.

What we, both Labor and Liberals, have been doing is to deny there is such a thing as refugee problem. We demonise asylum seekers. Blaming them for all wanting to come to Australia because we're a rich country - no kidding, why in the world would anyone, seeking asylum or not, want to go to a poor country if given the choice?

So in us calling them all illegals, wanting to take advantage of Australia.... we're given all other countries a pass and take on the responsibility ourselves. Ey, we said it's our problem, so we better deal with it. Right?


What if we're a bit smarter. And somewhat kinder and realistic about the situation.

We go to the UN, recognise and bang loudly that there is a refugee crisis in the Asia/Pacific region. All the freedom loving, humane countries of the world ought to be involved, particularly those within the region.

Then some third country chip in with an island or two; all chip in with a camp or two; and all countries get into the refugee vetting business.

This way, the costs and burden are shared.

It will also mean that genuine refugees get a chance to live in a country that doesn't kill them. Doesn't have to be in Australia.

But if I'm cynical about it, I'd figured that if we were to do these kind of thing, how will that Aussie company of ours is going to get paid all those billions all to themselves.

 

[SirRumpole]

We go to the UN, recognise and bang loudly that there is a refugee crisis in the Asia/Pacific region. All the freedom loving, humane countries of the world ought to be involved, particularly those within the region.

Then some third country chip in with an island or two; all chip in with a camp or two; and all countries get into the refugee vetting business.

This way, the costs and burden are shared.

Yes I think it's a great idea if all countries take a share of refugees. We take our share, how about Japan takes some (28 in the last 12 months), so there is a freedom loving humane country to convince.

 

[qldfrog]

Rudd tried to do that with Malaysia but the Libs scuttled that deal. Now we are doing it with the US. Any problem with that that you can see ?

obvious one is people pretending to come here to be stopped and have a ticket for the US, and obviously getting stranded at our cost as I doubt the US will take many ;

 

[Tisme]

What was the fracas about a boat arriving a short while back, but Dutton couldn't talk about it because it was his portfolio and the Minister wouldn't approve?

 

[noco]

Rudd tried to do that with Malaysia but the Libs scuttled that deal. Now we are doing it with the US. Any problem with that that you can see ?

Rumpy, I think if you some home work on Malaysia, it was Gillard who tried to do the deal with Malaysia and it was not so much the blame on the Libs for stopping it but the fact that Malaysia was not a party to the UN Human Rights Commission......Malaysia has an atrocious record on human rights.

https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/viewFile/3755/4007

 

[noco]

Yes I think it's a great idea if all countries take a share of refugees. We take our share, how about Japan takes some (28 in the last 12 months), so there is a freedom loving humane country to convince.

How many has rich Saudi Arabia taken?

 

[Ves]

How many has rich Saudi Arabia taken?

Estimates range from any where between 500,000 and 2.5 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians_in_Saudi_Arabia

Saudi Arabia doesn't actually report 'refugee' numbers to the UNHRC because they're not party to the protocol on refugees. Obviously this causes what I would euphemistically describe as 'confusion' with some Western Media outlets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

 

[luutzu]

Yes I think it's a great idea if all countries take a share of refugees. We take our share, how about Japan takes some (28 in the last 12 months), so there is a freedom loving humane country to convince.

Just recently that Japan does take in refugees. They took in some 10,000 VNese refugees back in the 80s or so.

I was surprised by that because I always thought Japan was what Pauline Hanson said - no immigrants or refugees intake. So who knows, they might also be taking in some currently as well, just they don't advertise it. Much like Australia and others are taking in some, but wanting to appear tough.

Problem with these tough stance is that there are wars and there is a humanitarian crisis since at least Bush the Younger decided to liberate a couple of countries.

Anyway, it's above what paygrade would be to see why we're doing what we're doing. Maybe to raise and admit there is a refugee crisis would humanise the Muslims too much. And we know you can't keep producing refugees with all these wars and put the population in a position where they either force you to end the bloodbath or taking in refugees.

Better for the arms industries and imperial objectives if they're all terrorists we need to liberate somehow but aren't so sure of them being non-terrorist so while we take the terrorists out we should just ignore these would-be terrorist?

Best not to think about it. Else it'll come up as pretty stupid.

 

[noco]

No one's saying just let any boat people become citizens.

I know there are some who are economic refugees; I know there are people smugglers too.

Does that mean we either tow their boats away from our waters, or we let them all in?

Those are false choices.

Other options includes... work with a third country, vet any asylum application while they're under some sort of temporary protection visa.

Anyway, there's a reason why no body give a dam about poor people.

And plenty of radical Muslims snuke in with the illegals.