Australia: Illegals not welcome

Hardline immigration policy may be toughest in Western world
Nick Adams

SYDNEY, Australia – Australia has announced a hardline illegal immigration policy – probably the toughest in the Western world – and by doing so has set up a showdown with international law and human rights groups, earned the ire of major world associations, and drawn out the naysayers from the United Nations.

Last week, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea for processing and resettlement and none will be allowed to stay in the country.

That’s none, as in not one.

That contrasts with the U.S. policy of lax border enforcement and casual deporting standards. In fact, President Obama is lobbying for a strategy that would “legalize” millions of illegal aliens who already are living in the U.S. and taking advantage of its social programs.
Rudd’s pre-election message is that Australia’s borders are closed to illegal arrivals. The announcement was made at a joint press conference with the prime minister from Papua New Guinea.

“From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as a refugee,” Rudd told reporters.
This would be the equivalent of America sending all just-caught arriving illegals from now on to Bolivia, and stating that because of the circumstances under which they originally came, they will never have a chance to be settled in America. “I understand that this is a very hard line decision,” Rudd continued. “But our responsibility as a government is to ensure that we have a robust system of border security and orderly migration…”

In response to this announcement, a riot broke out at the Nauru detention center which houses illegal detainees, causing millions of dollars damage, destroying buildings in chaotic scenes said to be a reaction to a “cruel and degrading policy”.

The Australian move met widespread condemnation from left-of-center political and human rights groups. Greens Leader Christine Milne said the resettlement plan was “ruthless and … repugnant.” Milne accused the prime minister of the Labor Party (the Australian equivalent of the Democrats) of political desperation, lurching so far to the political right he had leapfrogged the conservative party’s position.
“It is absolutely immoral for Australia, a rich country, to refuse to do the right thing and instead try and dump the problem, and to dump thousands of vulnerable people into an impoverished country,” Milne said.
There remain several questions about the PNG illegals deal’s compliance with international law. Rudd maintained he had spoken with UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon , and that the deal did not contravene UN conventions.
“The convention requires us not to send genuine refugees back to the countries they have fled from, and in this arrangement we honor that undertaking,” Rudd said.
But a statement from the United Nations high commissioner on refugees, the UN’s refugee agency, said they had not been involved in the deal and were currently seeking more information from the Australian government.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International Australia said the plan showed a complete disregard for asylum seekers and “absolute contempt” for Australia’s legal and moral obligations.
“This is beyond belief,” spokesman Graeme McGregor said in a statement.
“Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world’s most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key.”
This was closely followed by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) , an auditing body, which said the deal “risks breaching Australia’s legal obligations.” There appears to be consensus among human right lawyers that the agreement will face strong legal challenge in the courts.
The conservative Opposition party, with a great tradition of secure Australian borders, and a proven record of stopping the boats, declared “there is a national emergency on our borders,” while launching their policy. At the moment, there are approximately 3,500 illegal arrivals by boat per month .
“A Coalition (conservative) government will establish a military-led response to combat people smuggling and to protect our borders – Operation Sovereign Borders,” said Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.
Much of the reason for the current problem with Australian illegal arrivals rests with Rudd, after he dismantled the previous conservative government’s border protection policies in 2008, after coming to office. Since that time more than 1,000 people have perished at sea, and almost 50,000 people have arrived on almost 800 illegal boats, with a budget blowout of over $10.3 billion. His strong policy announcement concerning PNG is widely seen as an attempt to atone for his actions, which carried devastating consequences.
Australians are predicted to head to the polls in October.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/australia-illegals-not-welcome/

 

And a great source of shame to many Australian. Made all the odious in the knowledge it is a cheap political stunt

 

It's only 'shameful' when it's a white western country, for some reason. Most other countries in the world have stricter immigration policies than this.


I just wonder how Papua New Guinea feels.

 

Sure whatever - I protested against the Pacific Solution. If I was still home I would be hitting the streets over this

 

It wouldn't be as if Progressives had anything to be ashamed of...

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/6341-the-fetus-is-like-the-modern-day-slave
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=274307
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=261529

 

Pro tip - When discussing Australian politics, capitalizing the word liberal denotes the conservative elements of politics. Labor is the left wing side.

 

Just answer me this: If a country has an obligation to take care of it's poor, doesn't it have the right to stop outside peoples from starting families there?
Because if you believe in distribution of wealth, but you also believe in open borders, then what you are really saying is that we have an obligation to all those "vulnerable" people in the entire rest of the world.

 

Where does this "we" thing come into it. I thought we are discussing Australia's decision

 

Yes, I had read this somewhere. And in Britain also, if I am not mistaken. Very confusing in this sort of forum discussing international politics.
Does not "liberal" specifically refer to economic elements, elements which may not entirely be specifically conservative? For example, there are many popular conservatives who do not support a liberalized economy, at least not in it's entirety. And on the moderate left, there are plenty who support freer international trade, which is a sort of economic liberalization.

 

There is an upside and a downside. They are going to miss out on a lot of hardworkers and talented people because those people are the ones most likely to have the drive to get off their butts and make the journey across an ocean to another country.

On the upside they won't have to deal with the Muslim problem that the European countries have been ignoring for the most part.

 

Its complicated - but that sort of comes with the territory when talking about Australia. Basically the Liberals follow a concept of economic justice, people making money, makes a happy country. Labor believe in social justice. People have a certain right of existence no matter the economy. People with rights make a happy country.

 

The country of Singapore is a no-nonsense country also. They bring over foreign domestic labor, but if she gets pregnant she is immediately deported. Wouldn't want to have any foreign children grow up on Singaporean soil.

I hope other countries can follow Singapore's lead, particularly America. Because of the United State's Fourteenth Amendment in their Constitution, any child born on American soil becomes a citizen. So the United States should do whatever it can to prevent any babies from being born on their soil by foreign domestic workers.

 

Government should make the policy retrospective to Capatain Cook and send 80+% of population to PNG.

 

I wish enough politicians in the U.S. had balls, and would actually enforce our existing laws at the very least. Every country has the right to determine who they let in and who they don't. This is how security and quality of life is controlled within that country. Kudos to Australia other countries that actually take border security seriously. It would be nice if the U.S. was an island nation.

 

This amendment is controversial. I believe that whatever country has jurisdiction over the parents has jurisdiction over the baby.

 

Here's some more on this.

http://www.glennmurray.com.au/australia-boat-people-illegal-policy/

From the website. There is a huge difference between illegal immigration and asylum seeking.

1. Most illegal immigrants in Australia come from the UK and USA.

2. Middle eastern and African countries take on more refugees than western countries.

3. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

4. Most asylum seekers arrive by plane not by boat.

5. More illegal immigrants arrive in Australia by other means than by boat.

6. Asylum seekers arriving by boat are doing nothing illegal under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

A cut and paste from the website below.

"But aren’t they all Muslims who’ll want us to submit to Sharia law?

No. In 2012-13, only about half (57%) of asylum claims are were from Muslim boat people fleeing countries that follow strict Sharia law. That’s just 1.4% of all our immigrants. And remember, these people are fleeing those Sharia law countries!"


http://www.glennmurray.com.au/australia-boat-people-illegal-policy/

 

I have no desire to prevent voluntary transactions - if I want to sell my property to a Middle Eastern family that's our business. Nor do I want to separate them from this property.

If you don't like 'illegals', don't let them on your property.