Boat People

It is funny, I would have thought, you of all people, would understand the concept, that Gillard was discussing the back of the queue. I would have thought you understood, how the queue comes about.

OR is this a misguided attempt to defend a previous stance.

So, now Gillards attempts to discourage the people smugglers, by placing people to the back of the queue (Gillards words) is fabricated for what means?

After all there are no queues are there.

 

Please tell us all, when Gillard said

She was saying no queue exists?

Nice try there, but even your great government admits there is a queue. only you stand to defend a stupid stance that you can not comprehend. Or is everyone a moron but you?

 

It seems that you're still very confused.

There is no queue to join in order to become an asylum seeker. Never has been, never will be. That's what asylum seeking is all about.

The queue Gillard talks about is the queue to be processed as a refugee, not the queue to arrive on Australian soil as an asylum seeker. You honestly can't see the difference?

One does not join a queue to become an asylum seeker: one only gets in the queue to be processed as a refugee. Asylum seeker and refugee are two different things.

This is really basic stuff, and it seems strange that you're struggling to grasp the concept.

 

This is ridiculous. I argued earlier in this thread exactly what you are asserting now as an obvious "fact" Uncle Meat and all that came back at me was "there are no queues". Now apparently the fact that there is a queue is "obvious". WTF?

 

There is an administrative processing queue inside the detention centre.

I'd imagine there are probably queues for the toilet too.

There may even be queues at dinner time.

There are probably several other queues inside the detention centre.

These queues, however, are not important in the context of this thread (boat people seeking asylum).

To clarify:

There are no queues to join in order to become an asylum seeker.

There are no queues for the boats.

There are no queues for countries.

Anybody, at any time, from any country can jump in a boat and propel themselves towards Australia and call themselves an asylum seeker. No queues.

The OP is about 'boat people 'seeking asylum'.

The title of the thread is 'Boat People'.

My "there are no queues" statement was about 'boat people' and 'asylum seeking'.

There may be some queues to contend with once they reach Australia, but there are no queues before they get here. None.

 

You're making a redundant point, I agree with what you said just before.

To seek asylum, to gain refugee status, you are joining an asylum application processing queue, that is an obvious fact. An asylum seeker is someone who has applied to a government for refugee protection. They are, by definition, part of a processing queue.

"Boat people" don't have a "queue" to join in order to become asylum seekers. But they are given priority over off-shore applicants in this process once they do join it and priority in places in our refugee quota. And there's the resentment and the "queue jumping".

I don't see why that is so hard to understand. I don't necessarily agree with the "queue jumper" mentality, but it exists and to just dismiss it because "there are no queues" whilst at the same time admitting that there "are queues" is really stupid.

 

'Quota'. It's a quota, not a queue.

One can't participate in "quota jumping".


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2318586.html

Nonsense.

 

THey should all join the farque

 

Ah, it's good to see that your humanitarian spirit is alive and well on this Sunday afternoon, after a few beers.

 

So, there is a "queue" in processing asylum applications, but there is not a "queue" in which applications that have been confirmed as genuine refugees then get allocated a place in our quota? Are you serious? So if there are two people in, for instance, Malaysia, one who had his asylum application confirmed 5 years ago, and one who has had it confirmed 2 weeks ago. There is no difference in who gets priority in filling the quota? Really?

So this is what your article says we should ask: What evidence Ms Gillard is there that a queue exists?

A point that you concede, that the queue she is talking about exists.

There is no doubt that "queue jumper" is a political buzz term, redundant point, everyone knows this already.

More "boat people" = more on-shore applications being given refugee status in Australia and less off-shore applicants being accepted as refugees, within the quota. Completely obvious, completely factual, google it.

If there "is no queue", and a lot of Australian's want there to be a queue, (as your article suggests) wtf aren't we working out a way to create a queue? Unless of course you are in favour of unlimited immigration.

 

No confusion, you are now debating with me our entire argument of what queue exists. It would seem that it is you, whom could not qualify the difference earlier, is now attempting to qualify Gillard’s own words to suit your earlier comments.

Honestly, I think you should admit your comments about the queue where far too general and defensive to defend. and requalify your statements.

 

Yes, that's right.

And if more off-shore applications are made, it means less boat people being given refugee status.

Both ways of applying are perfectly legal, and form part of Australa's Refugee and Humanitarian Program.

On-shore applicants are not "given priority" over off-shore applicants, as you have stated.

The applications are taken as they come, until the quota is reached.

It works both ways. There's no priority given to either application process.

No queues are jumped in the process.

 

Since 1996, the onshore and offshore components of Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program have been numerically linked. This means that every time an onshore applicant is granted a protection visa, a place is deducted from the offshore program. Australia is the only country in the world which links its onshore and offshore programs in this way.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/link.php

 

Yes, that's correct.

Still no queue.

Still nobody "given priority".

Still nobody breaking any laws.

 

The hell are you talking about? On-shore program is given priority to the off-shore program. It's right there, plain as day. Off-shore applications are not given to us "as they come", we tell the UHNCR, etc, how many applications we're going to accept and then they give them to us.

 

Actually, how do you know who is given priority? It would seem, to all around that those who come by boat, get priority, because of support of naive people claiming, there is no queue. Over those people who seek it off shore. How does this come about?

You claim, that people are treated inhumanly in these detention centres, because of conditions and the length of time they are there. However, you ignore the length of time, offshore asylum seekers, spend waiting for processing. All you need is the averages, to see how wrong you are.

Of course the people in the political sights get priority to those whom are out of mind and out of sight. This is because people such as yourself focus all effort on those whom YOU see as poorly treated. Making this a political agenda that really only exists, as others ignore offshore people as your government wishes you to keep in mind for their benefit.

You showed this with your unqualified comments of 'there is no queue'

 

There is no queue to join in order to become an asylum seeker. No queue. It does not exist. Never has, never will.

I don't remember making that claim previously, however, I'll make it now (seeing as you brought it up).

No, I don't. Where are you getting that from?

About ... ?

Incorrect. Where are you getting this from? I'm concerned for all asylum seekers and refugees.

 

Now, I do not like rehashing stuff, just to show, how you have not qualified comments in the past.

So, I ask you, Is this a new qualification of your previous stance of your comments?

Which you singled out

Please clarify Before we go on.

On several times I have pointed. So you agree?

Funny, but as the previous post explains, When you think about it you will see.

I think you are little confused, if you do not understand that there is a queue. You previous proclaim "NO QUEUE".

After your own PM tells you that she will make some go to the back of this non-existent 'QUEUE' gambling away the risk of not getting to the country of choice.

You now proclaim that you are actually referring to other areas of the process (the reason for asylum) rather than your direct attack on the raised subject.

In fact you refute my questions, do those who proclaim there is no "QUEUE" when there own PM tells them there is, now believe there is? Is more telling than anything.

 

There is no queue to join in order to become an asylum seeker. None.
No queue.

You seem to have trouble grasping that fact. That's your problem.

On a side note:
Have you been drinking a bit today? Your last post certainly suggests it.
(that's a genuine question by the way, not an attack on your character)

 

I grasp this interpretation of the 'QUEUE' issue. As I did not mention you, in my question. I found it hard to believe you responded in the way you did. That is why I say it is funny. I also find it funny that you would now change your tact to a very direct post of your own. I ask you to clarify you position but in no time since (that I have read) do you say
I should have said...
I meant...
Or maybe
I should have pointed out...

so I have to assume now that you are now just trying to pretend that your stance has not changed in light of your PM's admission there is a 'QUEUE' to process these people.

Yes, just a little, so maybe my points are long and seeming restating of previous. However, they are the comments you are refuting.

 

Man, is that your standard come back now?

How much are you drinking arguing about a queue?

Perhaps if you had a drink you wouldn’t be so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing boring Think about it, huh, for all our sakes.

 

Hey, what's going on here? Your post is spot on Oxy. I agree, he seems obsessed by drinking. I lift my glass of water to him and ask him when he will pass away of dehydration given he doesn't drink.

By the way, for the edification of all. There is a queue. Both Abbott and Gillard have said so.

Abbott thinks there's a world wide queue and Gillard has just said there is a queue in Malaysia. So whether there's a queue or not seems not to matter. It's what is politically convenient to say.

My view is that there is ALWAYS a queue. In all things. And it's the squeaky wheel that gets attention first as it's so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed annoying.

 

The 'humanitarian spirit' referred to was yours.

The 'few beers' referred to were mine.

Are you always that paranoid? It would explain a lot though.

 

So, change of heart, nice to see. Isn't it about time this queue was put to bed? Of course there is a queue of some description, and for political reasons it is expedient to prioritize the ones in the limelight. We should condemn anybody that would perpetuate this problem for political gain. Both sides of politics is guilty of this and should be condemned as being so. neither party would seem prepared to resolve the issue.

 

It may seem a change Garry but it's not. The politicians call it a queue when it suits them and NOT a queue when that suits them.

There is certainly though a queue, always for all things.

Give you an example. The Taj Mahal. I went there in 73, young and ignorant and full of being Aussie.

Went to buy a ticket and the ticket office was mobbed. Just a mass of people trying to get their hands around someone else. That's life in India. It's just seeing the Taj so it's not life and death but that's how they live. If they don't get in first they will die, food wise etc. And their kids.

They still had that hatred/respect for whites back then when I shouted at them "Make a bloody queue or (*)(*)(*)(*) off, they did and let us go first. I was bigger and stronger than them, one on one. But it was the white imposing authority that did it.

When we came out it was back to the mob scene, that's how it is.

By the way the Taj was a profound disappointment. The water channels leading up to it were green. Inside there was Indian graffitti everwhere. Bits chipped off here and there for souvenirs.

I suspect they rebuil it every couple of years for us tourists.