The first conscious act of any reliable parent is to protect their child from harm and danger. No competent parent would deliberately put their children in danger by allowing that child on a leaky rickety boat on an open sea voyage without a even a life vest. Country shoppers can afford $10,000 for a ticket, but then cannot afford an extra $100 for a life vest to save their childrens lives. Seriously - whats wrong with that picture? If you want to know the correct answer that you are NOT getting from do-gooders, the country shoppers; the minions making money from them and the politicians; then go and ask a psychologist and psychiatrist and they will tell you something completely different to what you are currently being told.
Evidence claimed by a grossly biased body would be kicked out of court without any hesitation. And since you have made this claim it's upto to you to prove them correct not me. But we also know, of course, that: - the legal system makes it easier to make a claim for refugee status, once you enter our teritorial waters, that's why Howard introduced offshore processing, which this stupid Federal Goverment dismantled; - we are dependent on a grossly outdated Refugee Convention that was signed in the immediate aftermath of the WW11, when there were thousands of genuine refugees. Times change and our refugee policy must change with it;and - in the immediate aftermath of WW11 Australia needed immigrants even if they didn't speak our language.We no longer need that type of migrant, eg especially if they stubborny refuse to learn our language and want to impose their rigid, outdated, fanatical religous mores on the community.
What a load of garbage you do-gooder are trying to shove down the average Aussies necks. Out of the 13,000 refugee intake into Australia every year, only 6,000 come here without being sponsored by someone from inside Australia like a former asylum seekers. 7000 places are keep for these asylum seeker family reunions, and then you do-gooders have the audacity to tell everyone these country shoppers are not getting an advantage over other refugees. LOL LOL Each year the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs consults with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Refugee Council of Australia, state governments and refugee communities in Australia to help them decide how many of the 13,000 refugees will come to Australia from each region (Africa, the Middle East, Europe, South East Asia, South America etc). There are 6,000 places in Australia for people who do not have a proposer (see below). Almost all of these places are filled by someone who has been assessed to be a refugee by the UNHCR who is then referred to Australia. After the initial UNHCR assessment, workers from DIMA conduct their own inquiries which include character, safety and health assessments. Those checks are conducted in person by DIMA officials working in the area where refugees are living, such as Pakistan, Thailand or Egypt. These refugees are then cleared to live in Australia. The 7,000 places where the asylum seeker has a proposer (see below) are decided in Australia. The proposer, generally a family member or charitable organisation, lodges the application on behalf of the asylum seeker in Australia. The proposer must be an Australian citizen, resident or an organisation based in Australia. http://www.friendsofstartts.org/refugees.html
You said: "You made the claim without any evidence." I have shown, in several posts, that you lied: I backed up my claim with credible evidence. Stop telling lies. Right, now that we have established that you are indeed a liar, it's now your turn to provide evidence to support your claim of "That figure is certainly incorrect". Grow a pair of balls, do some research, and provide us with some evidence to support your claim. The ball's in your court ...
Stop talking bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and using despicable language.When you have to stoop to obscene, farccial language to try and make your point, it becomes very obvious that you have run out of logical reasons for allowing 'illegals' to rampage their way into Australia. Maybe you learnt that languauge from the 'illegals'. They must love you.
You said: "You made the claim without any evidence." I have shown, in several posts, that you lied: I backed up my claim with credible evidence. Stop telling lies. Right, now that we have established that you are indeed a liar, it's now your turn to provide evidence to support your claim of "That figure is certainly incorrect". Grow a pair of balls, do some research, and provide us with some evidence to support your claim. The ball's in your court ...
There's been so much trolling in here, I forgot what the OP said: "Lets discuss this. "First of all, the boat people are NOT illegal. Under International Law, it is legal to seek asylum by boat if you are fleeing persecution. That is what those people are fleeing from. "The vast majority of asylum seekers are accepted into the country - a handful are sent back. "Australia takes in less than one percent of asylum seekers - yet the Liberals complain about us being 'flooded' by them - this is complete and utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*). "The asylum seekers involved in the crash off Christmas Island will be processed and will most likely be given asylum. If any are sent back it will be only a few. "We should be compassionate and help these people where we can, instead of expecting them to remain in their countries and be killed."
And here's an interesting perspective on the grossly misnamed Refugees, from 'The National Forum': 'Less understandable is the arrival of boatloads of Tamils on Australian shores from Sri Lanka, claiming to be asylum seekers in fear for their lives from the majority Singhalese population. The question that needs to be asked is: If these people are in such fear, why did they not seek refuge by making their way 30km across the Palik Straits to India and, in particular to the state of Tamil-Nadu, where the population is culturally and linguistically much the same? Instead they give due consideration to where they wish to spend the rest of their lives, then decide to seek “refuge” in Australia, a distant 5,600km away, a country with totally different language, culture and climate. However, Australia is a nation offering free education, medical and other social support to its residents and the prospect of employment paying so much more than they could ever earn in Sri Lanka. Are these “refugees” the genuine asylum seekers they claim to be, fleeing their country in the face of persecution, even death, from a vengeful Singhalese majority? Or are they economic migrants, aspiring to gain access to socio-economic conditions they could never hope to enjoy in India or Sri Lanka? They claim a desperation borne of persecution, claiming that no Tamil is safe in Sri Lanka. Sympathetic academics and lawyers support this and their plea to be given entry to and permanent residence in Australia. Does Australia have an obligation to agree with their views and if so, should that agreement extend to all Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka and illegally crossing our borders? Listening to the anguished cries of a Tamil child on an overcrowded boat in an Indonesian port, asking to be accepted by Australia as an asylum seeker, one might be tempted to show compassion. Should we? By doing so, do we create a new definition of who is an asylum seeker rather than an economic migrant? We need to be very careful in making that decision - a decision of particular interest to the 3.7 million Tamils who make up 18 per cent of the Sri Lankan population. Many of them, particularly those displaced by the civil war waged between government forces and the Tamil Tigers, might decide that Australia offers attractions they will not find in their own country. The Rudd Government is less able than its predecessor to adequately control our borders which are illegally crossed on an almost daily basis by sea and air by those with dubious claims to asylum. Those arriving by sea usually use Indonesia as a staging post from which they make the last leg of their journey. Without Indonesian assistance, the numbers arriving in Australia would be far greater and, on present definitions used by the Australian Government, the vast majority would, apparently, qualify for our protection and permanent residence. Should temporary protection and temporary residence be provided, in the expectation that most of those seeking refuge in Australia may eventually be able to return safely to their own country? In previous years, a growing flow of people entering Australia illegally, claiming asylum and seeking our protection was effectively slowed by introduction of temporary protection and residence. Permanent status was only accorded to those able to convince the Department of Immigration and the Courts that their fears were genuine and likely to be long lasting. Should we revert to a mixture of temporary and permanent protection and residency? Would such a regime enable Australia to provide a reasonable level of protection to those seeking it?" Can this farcical Federal Labor Government be that stupid or is it just intent on listening to one voice, the ever vocal 'Let them all in' crowd?
Myth 1 - Boat People are Queue Jumpers Fact: In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries and supports the International coalition of nations who continue to oppose these regimes and support sanctions against them. Myth 2 Asylum Seekers are Illegal Fact: This is untrue. Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Myth 5 - Theyre Not Real Refugees Anyway Fact: 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/int_health_asylum_seekers.pdf
You have to use some common sense and understand the nuances of the English language (is English your first language?). When there are thousands ahead of you trying to get into a country and others get in ahead of them by jumping on a boat, then of course they are queue jumpers. Even a a primary school child would comprehend that.
What a farce? 'Fact: 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999. We must be the joke of the Illegal Refugee World with such a policy !
It has never been illegal in Australia to arrive on shore without a visa seeking asylum. In fact its one of the rights within the UNs declarations on refugees which Australia helped to write. "Australia has obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa." http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html
Here's another perspective on the Federal Government's failed Asylum Seeker policy,from National Affairs publication, August,2010: 'More than 9,000 people have now turned up in more than 190 boats since Labor first started to dismantle the strong and effective border protection regime they inherited from the Coalition. Effective, because in the six years following the introduction of the Coalition’s full suite of measures, just ten boats arrived with less than 250 people on them. Stopping the boats is not a slogan for the Coalition, it is the proven record and objective of our policies. It is what we believe is necessary to restore and preserve the integrity of our refugee and humanitarian programme. The choices made by the Coalition to achieve this result were difficult. They will be again. They carry a heavy moral burden. They have very real human consequences. The Coalition does not deny these realities. Nor do we deny the reality that when we left office just three years ago, you could count the number of people detained by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship who had illegally arrived by boat on less than one hand – there were just four. Today, you would need more than a thousand hands as there are more than 5,100 people in detention who have arrived illegally by boat - an all time record. Riots, destruction of property, breakouts, gruesome protests, self harm, suicide, brawls and overcrowding have all returned. When the boats are not coming, there are no children on boats, our detention centres are not crammed and our assessment processes are not backlogged. The Curtin Detention Centre is not reopened, it is closed. When the boats stop coming, thousands are not forced to wait offshore for their special humanitarian visas in even more desperate situations as priority is given to those who have made their way to Australia by boat with the support of people smugglers. Labor’s rolling detention crisis, lives at risk at sea, including children, and the denial of humanitarian visas to thousands waiting off shore is the moral burden Labor must now carry for its weak decisions and failed policy. But what of push factors? According to the UNHCR, between 1999 and 2001 when the Coalition faced the last surge in illegal boat arrivals, the average number of asylum claims lodged in industrialised countries was more than 600,000. In 1992 there were 850,000 applications. Last year there were just 365,000. In 2009 there was no change in the number of applications made around the world, yet in Australia the number of application increased by 29%. While the number of asylum applications globally are almost half what they were a decade a go when Australia faced it’s last surge in boat arrivals, even at these reduced levels, there is a saturated demand for asylum. Push factors, even at reduced levels are always there and are always significant. What makes the difference is your domestic policy settings, and the signal that changes in these settings send to people smugglers. Last week a new fact emerged when it was revealed that the Government was warned as early as February 25, 2008 that their decision to weaken the border protection and immigration regime they inherited carried real risks. Advice from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship stated at the time “a range of risk management strategies have prevented significant boat arrivals in recent years, current intelligence on issues including the closure of Nauru suggest the possibility of increased people smuggling efforts” Instead of seeking to sure up our border protection regime in the face of these threats , this government did the opposite. They followed through on the closure of Nauru, they abolished temporary protection visas and gave the people smugglers back a product to sell. The policy of turning boats back, promised by Labor before the election was reversed and universal offshore processing was abolished as Christmas Island could no longer cope with the in creasing rate of arrivals. The regime inherited from the Coalition was no longer recognisable. This Government knowingly and willingly dismantled a successful policy regime that had this issue under control." etc. etc.
"The use of the queue by politicians and the media in the context of asylum seekers is a case of what George Orwell described in his masterful expose of propaganda 1984. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, the ever perceptive Orwell wrote. "In the case of asylum seekers Ms Gillard, Mr Abbott and others know full-well there is no queue, there has never been one and there never will be one." http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2318586.html
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, Hmmm, who does that remind me of?
Anyone who is unable or, more likely, unwilling, to see a long and winding queue of asylum jumpers, should go and see an eye specialist immediately. Or better still,ask those who have been patiently waiting in a proper queue what they think of such a perfidious and callous attitude.
' Disappointingly, the term “queue jumper” is now so deeply entrenched in our nation’s vernacular that some Australian politicians use it interchangeably with the term “asylum seeker”. ' ' Let me be clear and point out that two are not synonymous. In fact, the queue is a myth. ' ' Around 90% of asylum seekers who manage to arrive in Australia by boat are ultimately found to be refugees. Despite the trauma they have endured and their overwhelmingly genuine nature of their claims, these people are vilified. The notion of the ‘queue jumping’ asylum seeker continues to be exploited by Australian politicians and still resonates with sections of the public. ' http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22616/ "About the Author Graham Thom is Amnesty International Australia's National Refugee Coordinator. Graham started volunteering with Amnesty’s refugee casework team in 1999, after he completed his PhD in Citizenship and Immigration at The University of Sydney." Hmmm, who to believe: * Someone with a PhD in Immigration (with over 10 years experience) or, * An ignorant, bigoted poster on an internet forum, who never backs up anything with evidence? Tough decision.
You`ve just described Julia Gillard & the ALP to a tee. It`s hard to imagine how the "boat people" issue could have been handled more ineptly than it has been by these clowns.
Stop denying the evidence that has been put in front of you and concede already. Would you deny the sky is blue if I showed you proof?
