Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Asylum immigrants - Green Light

We always knew that a massive bribe was the best way to get us out of this mess, but it would have made more sense to bribe the Indonesians than O'Neill. They could easily stop the illegals from getting transit visas. Without visas the illegals would have no alternative but to return home on the next flight.

Who says Labor want to stop it? Maybe they just want to be percieved as trying to stop it.

There has been no determined effort over the past six years to stop, or even reduce the flow, by Labor.
There has been token gestures, to appease the public.
However the flow has steady increased, to the point where it was hardly being reported, just look at drsmiths reports.
Prior to Rudd springing out of the box, the boat arrivals were hardly getting airplay in the mainstream press, unless there was a fatality.

It appears a bit convenient and somewhat coincidental that, this latest jesture is on the cusp of an election. Also if it does get challenged, it can be dropped as another,"oh well we tried".
The current plan IMO, is about winning an election, then back flip on the policy due to U.N or legal reasons.
Could be Kev playing 'rope the dope' with the Australian public?
Let's not forget, they have lifted the legal intake of refugees to 27,000/annum add another 40 - 50,000 asylum seekers and you are moving the population along nicely.

I don't believe for one minute Labor is trying to stop the influx, just my opinion. :D
 
Who says Labor want to stop it? Maybe they just want to be percieved as trying to stop it.

There has been no determined effort over the past six years to stop, or even reduce the flow, by Labor.
There has been token gestures, to appease the public.
However the flow has steady increased, to the point where it was hardly being reported, just look at drsmiths reports.
Prior to Rudd springing out of the box, the boat arrivals were hardly getting airplay in the mainstream press, unless there was a fatality.

It appears a bit convenient and somewhat coincidental that, this latest jesture is on the cusp of an election. Also if it does get challenged, it can be dropped as another,"oh well we tried".
The current plan IMO, is about winning an election, then back flip on the policy due to U.N or legal reasons.
Could be Kev playing 'rope the dope' with the Australian public?
Let's not forget, they have lifted the legal intake of refugees to 27,000/annum add another 40 - 50,000 asylum seekers and you are moving the population along nicely.

I don't believe for one minute Labor is trying to stop the influx, just my opinion. :D

Sptrawler, I agree with you. It looks like this was just to get votes - if labor win the election, they will probably say it didn't work and be back in favour with the greens again.

However, it looks like it's going to fall apart long before the election so hopefully voters will see it as the vote grab that it possibly is and with no real substance.
 
Sptrawler, I agree with you. It looks like this was just to get votes - if labor win the election, they will probably say it didn't work and be back in favour with the greens again.

However, it looks like it's going to fall apart long before the election so hopefully voters will see it as the vote grab that it possibly is and with no real substance.

Yes, it was thrown together policy, the only problem Labor seems to have with the old policy, was the deaths at sea. Nobody wants to see that happening.

But I'm suprised Rudd didn't do a deal with BamBang.
 
Fascinating Abbott proposes a change from a civilian operation to a military one outside of the established chain of command.......never been done before.......ever, you guys just keep ranting.


Anyone wish to comment on its merits.
 
Where I earlier had 775 since the new PNG arrangement, The Australian has the count at 816. Another 68 have since been intercepted taking the count close to 900.
 
Where I earlier had 775 since the new PNG arrangement, The Australian has the count at 816. Another 68 have since been intercepted taking the count close to 900.

Yes Doc, it is getting worse by the hour and not by the day.

Show pony Rudd is just after votes and the voters have seen through his cunning scheme thank goodness.

Can't wait to see the next poll.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/one_week_on_as_many_boat_arrivals_as_ever/

- - - Updated - - -

Fascinating Abbott proposes a change from a civilian operation to a military one outside of the established chain of command.......never been done before.......ever, you guys just keep ranting.


Anyone wish to comment on its merits.

Guess you will have egg on your face if it works.
 
Fascinating Abbott proposes a change from a civilian operation to a military one outside of the established chain of command.......never been done before.......ever, you guys just keep ranting.


Anyone wish to comment on its merits.

Firstly, we really have only being commenting on the governments policy, probably because theirs is the only one that can and is enacted. So to spend a lot of time on Abotts shots from the sideline, is somewhat pointless.

However if you wish to discuss it, or as you say, rant it. Here I go.lol

So don't you think the severity of the situation requires a dedicated response, rather than the half ar$ed hotch potch we have currently.
Currently they have the Navy, customs, private sector, water police and fishermen picking up asylum seekers.

The issue probably requires a focused response, that has direct control of all the resources. They will be taking direct action protecting our border, on behalf of the government, therefore it will have to be a sector of the armed forces.

However, I would think it would require the leasing of several vessels and prossibly a couple of AWAC planes.
The action being taken will be extremely sensitive and the less levels of command between the government and the personnel carrying out the directives, the better.

Too often the instruction becomes changed or modified as it is passed up or down the chain of command.
Therefore having the person in charge answering directly to the government, would seem prudent, as there could be a very sensitive diplomatic situation that requires an immediate answer.

Not I will get back to you when I get in touch with the No1, who will then get in touch with No2, who will get back to you when No3 returns to the office. By the way, what was the person asking?

It would be a recipe for a disaster, to have the position slotted into the Navy's chain of command IMO and we have enough historical info to know the buck passing covers the decission trail.

What's your take IFocus.
 
Don't forget this is a mess Rudd created with his crazy policy of abolishing the successful Pacific Solution. ... The coalition handed over secure borders to labor in 2007 and looks like they will be handed a right royal mess of ... thousands of arrivals...

I'll put my neck out and say that I for one was for abolishing offshore processing, and the aggressive policies in place during the Howard years as I felt it went against the Australian identity and felt it was a stain on our national character.

As a nation we believe in innocent until proven guilty, we believe in a social safety net to help a man back on his feet, we believe in sheltering the abused, we believe in free education, and healthcare for the sick. We're a nation largely built on migrants, a significant amount immigrating from a horrible situation - war, sickness, famine, oppression - to establish through hardwork a better life in Australia for themselves, their families, and their descendants.

In the same way that our justice system would rather let 100 guilty men go free than lock up a single innocent man, I always felt that it was better to accept 100 illegal immigrants, then to turn away a single genuine refugee in need.

When Rudd came in, along with strong calls from the Greens (and the Liberal Left IMO) I believe there was a genuine attempt to live up to these ideals and I for one am proud that we as a nation made an attempt to achieve these lofty goals.

It's pretty obvious it hasn't worked, and the numbers of those who have drowned along the way is a consequence of that attempt. I still don't think it was naive to think a better solution was/is possible.

The amount of vitriol thrown around on this topic is offensive and embarrassing to our nation and if people stopped acting like our 20 million + population was about to be drowned by several thousand immigrants over a few years perhaps we could have some clearer discussions on the issue.

The best thing Howard did to prevent economic migrants was to improve trade and industry in SE Asia. He once made a great statement in rebutting criticism of not raising foreign aid, and pointed out that the increase in living standards through GDP growth in SE Asia was far greater than anything we could have hoped to achieve with charity. It's this type of discussion we need to be having, not a race to the bottom, threatening to detain people indefinitely, in the worst possible conditions we're legally able to.
 
I'll put my neck out and say that I for one was for abolishing offshore processing, and the aggressive policies in place during the Howard years as I felt it went against the Australian identity and felt it was a stain on our national character.

As a nation we believe in innocent until proven guilty, we believe in a social safety net to help a man back on his feet, we believe in sheltering the abused, we believe in free education, and healthcare for the sick. We're a nation largely built on migrants, a significant amount immigrating from a horrible situation - war, sickness, famine, oppression - to establish through hardwork a better life in Australia for themselves, their families, and their descendants.

In the same way that our justice system would rather let 100 guilty men go free than lock up a single innocent man, I always felt that it was better to accept 100 illegal immigrants, then to turn away a single genuine refugee in need.

When Rudd came in, along with strong calls from the Greens (and the Liberal Left IMO) I believe there was a genuine attempt to live up to these ideals and I for one am proud that we as a nation made an attempt to achieve these lofty goals.

It's pretty obvious it hasn't worked, and the numbers of those who have drowned along the way is a consequence of that attempt. I still don't think it was naive to think a better solution was/is possible.

The amount of vitriol thrown around on this topic is offensive and embarrassing to our nation and if people stopped acting like our 20 million + population was about to be drowned by several thousand immigrants over a few years perhaps we could have some clearer discussions on the issue.

The best thing Howard did to prevent economic migrants was to improve trade and industry in SE Asia. He once made a great statement in rebutting criticism of not raising foreign aid, and pointed out that the increase in living standards through GDP growth in SE Asia was far greater than anything we could have hoped to achieve with charity. It's this type of discussion we need to be having, not a race to the bottom, threatening to detain people indefinitely, in the worst possible conditions we're legally able to.

I would much rather the economic refugee arrivals were stopped but instead we take in the GENUINE refugees. That's what I don't understand with people like yourself who want onshore processing when so many of those are, by labor's own admission, not genuine refugees.

Don't you think we would be doing far more good for humanity if our refugee aid was helping those who are genuine refugees, destitute and cannot afford smuggler's fees?

This guy hardly looks destitute:

6a0177444b0c2e970d01901e72e34a970b-pi.jpg


More photos here: http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...e-an-appreciation-of-a-certain-demeanour.html

and this:

6a0177444b0c2e970d0192ac3110e5970d-pi.jpg


More photos here: http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...y-when-she-saw-a-man-fleeing-from-persec.html
 
I would much rather the economic refugee arrivals were stopped but instead we take in the GENUINE refugees.

...

Don't you think we would be doing far more good for humanity if our refugee aid was helping those who are genuine refugees, destitute and cannot afford smuggler's fees?

I think you missed my point, as well as my admission that the current system is not working.
What part of my post disagreed with the above?

That's what I don't understand with people like yourself who want onshore processing when so many of those are, by labor's own admission, not genuine refugees.

Can you explain how you think onshore processing vs offshore processing achieves the goal?
It's a race to the bottom, trying to make the conditions as intolerable as possible to encourage people to ask to be taken back to where they came from. That's not a solution. That's a disgrace.

How about we take that same tack with public health and education, or our justice system - make the publicly funded system so useless, pointless and degrading so no one uses it. That'd save billions in public expenditure!

Advance Australia Fair!
 
I think you missed my point, as well as my admission that the current system is not working.
What part of my post disagreed with the above?



Can you explain how you think onshore processing vs offshore processing achieves the goal?
It's a race to the bottom, trying to make the conditions as intolerable as possible to encourage people to ask to be taken back to where they came from. That's not a solution. That's a disgrace.

How about we take that same tack with public health and education, or our justice system - make the publicly funded system so useless, pointless and degrading so no one uses it. That'd save billions in public expenditure!

Advance Australia Fair!

The problem we have is there are two avenues, to seek asylum, the correct official way and the fast track way.

That leads to problem number two, the fast track way gets bogged down with people who have money trying to get to the front. Also people recieving the money increasing the cost, as the scheme becomes more popular.

Then that leads to corruption, as the people who are facilitating the process, want a cut of the money.

Then there is us at the end of the tube recieving these poor hard done by individuals.
 
Then there is us at the end of the tube recieving these poor hard done by individuals.

And there lies the entire problem:
If we receive the queue jumpers ahead of the genuine, patient sufferers, we reward corruption at Billions of costs.
I'm sure the genuine refugees don't mind being resettled in PNG or anywhere away from the land they're forced to flee. They won't try to hold us to ransom by demanding "Australia or nothing" and threatening self-harm if they don't get their will. And that, my friends, is neither Australian nor Fair. It's disgusting!
 
When Rudd came in, along with strong calls from the Greens (and the Liberal Left IMO) I believe there was a genuine attempt to live up to these ideals and I for one am proud that we as a nation made an attempt to achieve these lofty goals.

It's pretty obvious it hasn't worked, and the numbers of those who have drowned along the way is a consequence of that attempt. I still don't think it was naive to think a better solution was/is possible.
With such a small population and only 2% of the world's economy, it is always folly to think we can solve the world's problems.

Immigration should be considered like everything else in a competitive world. It's a question of first how we use it to build our nation and any humanitarian objective second.

in trying to be humane as an ideology at the expense of our nation, Labor has only been humane to the sharks of the eastern Indian Ocean and our nation has been taken advantage of in a big way.
 
And there lies the entire problem:
If we receive the queue jumpers ahead of the genuine, patient sufferers, we reward corruption at Billions of costs.
I'm sure the genuine refugees don't mind being resettled in PNG or anywhere away from the land they're forced to flee. They won't try to hold us to ransom by demanding "Australia or nothing" and threatening self-harm if they don't get their will. And that, my friends, is neither Australian nor Fair. It's disgusting!

Yes, pixel, so why has Labor been so determined, to facilitate the process?
 
Fascinating Abbott proposes a change from a civilian operation to a military one outside of the established chain of command.......never been done before.......ever, you guys just keep ranting.


Anyone wish to comment on its merits.

To back up my earlier response, IFocus, this kind of illustrates the problem with too many layers of command.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/secret-asylum-boat-report-withheld-from-police-20130726-2qp6c.html

Who, said what, to whom and who is not saying. If you have the person in charge directly responsible for all actions and answerable directly to the government. It reduces the inter departmental or chain of command buck passing.
I'd like to hear your thoughts, as you are obviously scornfull of the idea.
 
sptrawler, I can quite understand your suggestion that Labor is not making a genuine attempt to stop the asylum seekers, but I'm not sure you're right.

The Howard government had stopped the boats. Prior to the election, Labor had ranted endlessly, along with the Greens, about the cruelty of the Pacific Solution and took the policy of dismantling this to the election.
"There will be no lurch to the Right", proclaimed Mr Rudd.

It didn't seem to occur to them that if the disincentives were no longer in place, the boats would quickly restart.
And so it happened.

I think it's just another example of their not thinking something through. I genuinely think they are in a panic about what to do, hence the ill thought out so called PNG solution which is already unravelling on multiple fronts.

If they perceived electorate support for allowing free entry to Australia of anyone and everyone who can afford to pay a people smuggler, then they wouldn't be trying to stem the flow at all. But I doubt absolutely that they cannot recognise the electoral liability the thousands of paid up people is causing them.

Certainly there is still a proportion of the population, exemplified by Zedd's comments, who are apparently advocating accepting all comers, ignoring the reality that the capacity of our immigration department is being absorbed by the boat arrivals, absolutely to the detriment of those too poor to pay people smugglers, and who will, if nothing is done to change the status quo, continue to languish for many years in squalid camps, despite being proven genuine refugees.

And this is not to take into account the tens of thousands of Australians who so desperately need help, who are homeless, often mentally ill, or in multiple other ways seemingly more disadvantaged than the healthy looking individuals arriving here in designer clothes, carrying their laptops, and who, if not completely satisfied with their situation on admission, proceed to burn down newly constructed air conditioned, ensuited accommodation.

I'm damned if these are the people who will make a genuine contribution to Australia.
 
sptrawler, I can quite understand your suggestion that Labor is not making a genuine attempt to stop the asylum seekers, but I'm not sure you're right.

The Howard government had stopped the boats. Prior to the election, Labor had ranted endlessly, along with the Greens, about the cruelty of the Pacific Solution and took the policy of dismantling this to the election.
"There will be no lurch to the Right", proclaimed Mr Rudd.

It didn't seem to occur to them that if the disincentives were no longer in place, the boats would quickly restart.
And so it happened.

.

So why the panic now, one month out from the election?
A sudden realisation they have a problem, any of us following drsmiths posts knows the problem has being escalating over a long period.
So why the change of heart now?
I personaly think Rudd would have been better served, funding an asylum processing facility in Indonesia, with Australian and UN staff.
Obviously a financial incentive to Indonesia would be required, but I think we would get a much better outcome.
Also we would have some say in who comes here, and they wouldn't throw away their papers.
They could be processed in tandem with the normal process.
 
Yes, pixel, so why has Labor been so determined, to facilitate the process?

Quite simple: Because the fluffheads of the Green fringe, in combination with a vociferous minority of "social" media and bloggers went all gooey and wanted to let all comers in.
I suspect it's because most of the tweeting twits feel they can live quite comfortably on middle-class welfare; therefore, they think the working population and "The Big Miners" can finance all "those poor refugees", not realising that it becomes a bottomless pit.

Look what happened when a couple of cows were mistreated in Indonesian abattoirs: All the softies went on the social media bandwagon and demanded instant gratification - regardless of how many cattle breeders, truckies, and ancillary workers in the cattle export industry were added to the dole queue as a consequence of the export ban. Not to mention the justified indignation of our neighbours, who are not only a proud people, but also in dire need of live meat imports.

OK, so Kevin Rudd had initially been listening to the fringe and tried a more "humane" policy. Soon he realised the folly of letting amateurs run the show - but then he was accused of dictatorship and being uncooperative. He was the Leader, FFS! And a diplomat with some connections. (Yes, a big head too. But which Queensland politician is lacking in that department!?)

Our problem is, we vote for politicians that are "popular" when we really need politicians that are professional, diplomatic, and think beyond their chances at the next election. Much as I appreciated a female PM, it shouldn't be as big a deal as the fem libbers made us believe it was. Gender should NOT come before ability,
 
With such a small population and only 2% of the world's economy, it is always folly to think we can solve the world's problems.
...
in trying to be humane as an ideology at the expense of our nation, Labor has only been humane to the sharks of the eastern Indian Ocean and our nation has been taken advantage of in a big way.

I don't think we're trying to save the world on our own, but point taken. And I think it's become apparent to all that the current system is encouraging the risk taking behaviour that is responsible for all the drownings, so yes, in trying to be more humane, the outcomes have become less so.

Certainly there is still a proportion of the population, exemplified by Zedd's comments, who are apparently advocating accepting all comers, ignoring the reality that the capacity of our immigration department is being absorbed by the boat arrivals, absolutely to the detriment of those too poor to pay people smugglers, and who will, if nothing is done to change the status quo, continue to languish for many years in squalid camps, despite being proven genuine refugees.

I didn't think I was advocating taking all comers, but do believe in taking more, rather than rejecting people in need. My understanding is that outside of Iran, all other nations are accepting illegal immigrants back if we deem them to be such. Obviously the lack of passports and co-operation is a hurdle that needs to be properly addressed.

All in all I'm not saying I've got the answers, and I freely admit that previous policies that tried to live up to the ideals I support have failed. But I think the tone of the discussion has become toxic and non-productive.
 
I didn't think I was advocating taking all comers, but do believe in taking more, rather than rejecting people in need. My understanding is that outside of Iran, all other nations are accepting illegal immigrants back if we deem them to be such. Obviously the lack of passports and co-operation is a hurdle that needs to be properly addressed.

My bold above. Then take more from those who are identified & come through the "proper" channels. Since ethnic/religious based violence has spread to the world stage why not have a "no ID = rejection" policy? This is part of the reason those going through camps etc take so long. It pays to be more careful/selective now.

Unless the incentives at home (unlikely) or disincentives at the destination or journey outweigh the opposite, they will still come. And with the ppl trafficking being hundreds of thousands per boat it's big business - millions of dollars per month in countries where hundreds of dollars has decent purchasing power.If any of those who arrive this way are allowed to stay, then the boats will come.
 
Top