Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[joea]

Agree. Australia must be a laughing stock around the world.
Imo much will depend on what happens to those asylum seekers who have been rescued and taken to
Christmas Island since the legislation to re-open Nauru and PNG was passed.

Well would Australia be the laughing stock, or would the Labor party, Gillard and her ministers
and finally the faceless men be the laughing stock????

It is interesting that the media can state what is wrong with the current policy, can state Abbott's policy
and every square inch of the Houston report and also tell what should happen and why!!
But the only thing they do not tell us is what is happening with the people arriving and where they are
being housed etc. etc.

So basically they report on everything but what is actually happening with the immigrants.

But that would have them getting off their ****, out of the office etc.
That's right, no air conditioning in the real world at Christmas Island and Darwin.

joea

 

[joea]

On another thread illegal versus asylum, has been mentioned.

Asylum seekers', 'illegal immigrants' and entry without a visa Back to Search
Document Type:
Standards of Practice
Standard Type:
Advisory Guidelines
Date:
12 Mar 2012

The legal status of people who have entered Australia by boat without a visa is complex and potentially confusing. Their entry is not legally authorised but is not a criminal offence. The Australian Government usually refers to such entrants as "unauthorised boat arrivals" or "irregular maritime arrivals" but they are also "unlawful non-citizens" under the Migration Act.

Entrants by boat without a visa are entitled to seek asylum and, in practice, almost all of them do so. If the Government’s initial processing suggests they may have a valid case, they are classified as "asylum seekers" and allowed to stay in Australia while the claim is being finally determined. They remain "unlawful non-citizens" until their claim is approved (whereupon they get a permanent protection visa) or they receive a "bridging visa" pending finalisation of their claim. If their claim is rejected, they have not committed an offence but are liable to deportation.

Most entrants by boat without a visa do not seek to evade the authorities upon arrival. Instead, they seek to establish a legal right to stay as a refugee. Their position is very different from those people, including many who arrive with a short-term visa, who seek to remain permanently in the country on a clandestine basis (that is, "over-stayers").

In these circumstances, great care must be taken to avoid describing people who arrived by boat without a visa in terms that are likely to be inaccurate or unfair in relation to at least some of them. This can arise, for example, if the terms can reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour on the part of all or many people who arrive in this manner.

Depending on the specific context, therefore, terms such as "illegal immigrants" or "illegals" may constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice on these grounds. The risk of breach can usually be avoided by using a term such as "asylum seekers" although in some cases, of course, the context may require reference to their unlawful or unauthorised entry or their status as unlawful non-citizens pending determination of their claims (if they do not have bridging visas).



Note: This Guideline replaces the Council’s earlier Guideline No. 288, dated October 2009.

joea

 

[drsmith]

Asylum seekers', 'illegal immigrants' and entry without a visa Back to Search
Document Type: Standards of Practice
Standard Type: Advisory Guidelines
Date: 12 Mar 2012

Note: This Guideline replaces the Council’s earlier Guideline No. 288, dated October 2009.

I'm curious to know what it said before or even before Kevin Rudd came to office.

 

[drsmith]

JULIA Gillard says she doesn't expect asylum-seeker boats to slow in coming weeks as people-smugglers try to drum up clients to beat Labor's tough new offshore processing regime

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...shore-processing/story-fn9hm1gu-1226453456619

Philip Ruddock on Andrew Bolt's show this morning made the point that the government faces a much bigger backlog of asylum seekers in SE Asia than he did at the time of his Pacific Solution. One example he gave was 100,000 in Malaysia as opposed to 20,000 in his time.

 

[joea]

Wonder if there is a muso out there that can do an Australian version of the following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=wq_lhlIn1e0

joea

 

[Glen48]

This one will make you think and it should be passed around all our friends!!



Last week sadly two Tasmanians were lost at sea. These boys were Tasmanian taxpayers but more importantly they were Tasmanian sons, brothers, partners of Tasmanians. The authorities searched the best they could with the resources they had at hand and then stopped searching. Their families and friends held a fund raiser at the Snug Tavern to raise money to get a helicopter to continue searching for the boys.

My question to anyone who might be interested is why the families and friends had to raise money to get a helicopter when half the Australian Navy are still out looking for the two hundred boat people who have never paid taxes and who aren’t Australian citizens. I am not against helping anyone who needs a hand but you have to ask where the government's priorities lie - shouldn't we be helping our own with at least the same enthusiasm, if nothing else ???

 

[sails]

Why this government won't accept that the Pacific Solution needs to be used in it's entirely rather than just pluck the offshore component is bizarre, imo. Abbott mentioned that these people are coming here for permanent residency rather than asylum. Surely TPVs are an important part of removing the pull factor?

Another 77 asylum seekers intercepted by Australian Navy

And with 80 more yesterday: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...at-for-navy-taxi/story-fndo317g-1226458005735

And 80 on the 25th: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...boat-intercepted/story-fndo48ca-1226457879707

 

[sails]

And another boat today with 165 on board. Another two policy failures for Julia Gillard today.

Navy intercepts second asylum seeker boat

 

[drsmith]

A boat a day and the Greens have their way.

 

[sails]

A boat a day and the Greens have their way.

2 boats with 245 passengers today.

 

[sptrawler]

Apparently feeding them isn't a problem.

 

[DB008]

Nauru Capacity Reached.....

Another 77 asylum seekers intercepted by Australian Navy[/URL]

And with 80 more yesterday: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...at-for-navy-taxi/story-fndo317g-1226458005735

And 80 on the 25th: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...boat-intercepted/story-fndo48ca-1226457879707

And another boat today with 165 on board. Navy intercepts second asylum seeker boat

2 boats with 245 passengers today.

And.....that's it folk.

Nauru processing centre to be ready to take boatpeople by September

“The capacity will be 500 by the end of September,” Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said of the former detention facility on Nauru set up by the Howard government, but which has been closed since 2007.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/labor-boosts-humanitarian-refugee-intake/story-fn9hm1gu-1226456602428

I take it, that offshore processing (Nauru) was PLAN B. So, what is PLAN C or D?

 

[pixel]

Re: Nauru Capacity Reached.....

I take it, that offshore processing (Nauru) was PLAN B. So, what is PLAN C or D?

Even more worrying: The costs of building and maintaining the centres have ballooned close to $2 Billion!
How long can we afford to fork out hundreds of thousands for each and every queue jumper that wants a better life here (not to mention the wasted tax dollars that support the professional protesters.)

 

[sptrawler]

Isn't it funny how reporters can phrase things to bend reality.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...o-back-asylum-seeker-deal-20120828-24xv9.html

How can they say "Labors revived Pacific Solution".
What part of the solution was Labors? Actually what part of reviving it was labors, they were forced into it.
They dismantled it and stuffed up, then in the end HAD TO ADMIT FAILURE AND ADOPT THE COALITION PACIFIC SOLUTION.
What is going on with these reporters they look stupid.

 

[drsmith]

How can they say "Labors revived Pacific Solution".

The irony is that in its present form, it won't work.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8523177/two-more-boat-arrivals

 

[sptrawler]

The irony is that in its present form, it won't work.

The funny thing is doc, they will blame the Abbott for it not working and the press will run with it.
Is there any wonder the press is in decline in Australia, what a bunch of fools.
It is only a matter of time before people don't buy papers for the adverts, they allready don't buy them for intelligent reporting.
The only ones who don't believe this are the reporters themselves, they really need to sit back and say, is this news or just my bent on it.
If we just want their bent on it, we can get that from the forum.
Best they get back to REPORTING and not blogging or they will go the way of the dinosaurs.
Take that to the bank.

 

[drsmith]

The funny thing is doc, they will blame the Abbott for it not working and the press will run with it.

the main reason it won't work is because Labor's heart is not in it and they are most likely sufficiently deluded into thinking the above is a winning political strategy. It would also upset their Green partners in government too much if it did work.

TA knows offshore detention alone won't work and has stated so in parliament. He expects Labor to eventually cave in on the other elements such as TPV's and turning back the boats.

 

[sptrawler]

the main reason it won't work is because Labor's heart is not in it and they are most likely sufficiently deluded into thinking the above is a winning political strategy. It would also upset their Green partners in government too much if it did work.

TA knows offshore detention alone won't work and has stated so in parliament. He expects Labor to eventually cave in on the other elements such as TPV's and turning back the boats.

So the back flip on carbon tax, same reason? They don't have their heart in it? Or is it for political expediency, risky game, that one.
But pension stakes are high.LOL

 

[Julia]

It is only a matter of time before people don't buy papers for the adverts, they allready don't buy them for intelligent reporting.

Perhaps I'm the lone reader of newspapers who does find intelligent commentary and reporting in "The Australian".
Wouldn't there be simply no sales of papers if no one found value in what they read?

 

[sptrawler]

Perhaps I'm the lone reader of newspapers who does find intelligent commentary and reporting in "The Australian".
Wouldn't there be simply no sales of papers if no one found value in what they read?

Well the circulation statistics on newspapers over the last decade, would indicate that not everyone has your passion.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/12/latest-newspaper-circulation-figures-not-a-nice-set-of-numbers/

Also call up a graph on Fairfax share price over the last ten years. Not pretty