Boat People

No you haven't you just post asking people if they are Liberals and then go off on some stupid tangent about how we are all racist, how you became a moderator is beyond me.

 

Show how that article supports any of your claims. Dont just post links, that means nothing. If theres pertinent information in the article then quote it.

 

Humanitarian people smugglers perhaps?

LOL

 

My apologies I don't know how to do it but ill paste in the info.



SOPHISTICATED people-smuggling syndicates charging clients about $12,000 for a one-way trip from Afghanistan to Australia are preying with apparent impunity on Hazara communities in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide.

The syndicates, which use GPS tracking and mobile-phone messaging systems, boast they can reunite family and friends with relatives living in Australia within months, if not weeks.

A well-placed source within the Afghan community told the Herald this week: ''The syndicates are an open secret within the Hazara community; everybody knows who runs them, who to approach and who makes the money. It is astonishing they can operate so openly.''

It is claimed the top smugglers move around with ease, have Australian citizenship and travel unimpeded between Australia and Afghanistan. This week Indonesian police detained an Australian citizen, Haydar Khani, allegedly responsible for smuggling almost 100 asylum seekers on board the ill-fated SIEV 221 which broke up on rocks off Christmas Island in December.

The biggest smuggling operation in Australia is believed to be run from a series of nondescript shopfronts in Dandenong, in Melbourne's south, home to thousands of Afghan refugees, many of them Hazaras. It is believed to have generated tens of millions of dollars in profits in the past two years.

Inquiries by the Herald have revealed:

❏ Fees paid to people smugglers include a $1500 deposit, with more payments made as the asylum seeker progresses through the system. In the past two years, the cost of a passage from Kabul to Christmas Island has jumped from $7500 to $12,000.

❏ Financial transactions are conducted through the so-called hawala banking system that is difficult for law enforcement authorities to monitor as it involves no individual payments or records - just monthly cash settlements paid via Western Union between respective agents in Australia and Afghanistan.

❏ People smugglers insist that all asylum seeker identity documents, including passports, be destroyed before embarking on boats to Australia to ensure people cannot be connected to relatives and family members living in Australia. Use of false names also means that Afghan authorities cannot trace them.

❏ It is apparently common for boats to arrive with asylum seekers claiming to be from a particular Taliban-controlled district where it is impossible for authorities to check their identities.

This month Western Union conceded that its money transfer service had been used by people smugglers in Australia to fund illegal operations. The financial services giant made the admission in a submission to the national finance intelligence unit, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre.

Yesterday a spokesman for the Australian Federal Police declined to comment on the claims, saying it was official policy not to discuss operational matters. More than 93 people have been convicted of people smuggling since 2008. Most are believed to be Indonesian fisherman taken off intercepted boats.

It is believed the networks comprise several operational tiers: spruikers who target vulnerable clients such as parents who want to be reunited with children; bag men who collect payments; ''commanders'' who track progress through the network. The operation is entirely commission based.

The AFP is a key part of the federal government's people-smuggling strike team that conducts long-term investigations into the trade. The team has powers to intercept phone conversations, monitor banking transactions and has officers in Indonesia and Kabul.

Hazaras have a long history of persecution in Afghanistan and make up a significant number of the 6000 asylum seekers who arrived last year in Australian waters by boat from Indonesia. Many have fled the Taliban controlled city of Quetta, in Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border.

''Smugglers and their operatives see nothing morally wrong in what they are doing. They believe they are providing a service to the Afghan community by reuniting people … ,'' a prominent member of the Afghan community, who declined to be identified, said.

The Herald has been told that the once sanguine attitude among Afghans to smugglers is shifting. Sources who approached this reporter to talk about networks said they did so because of the disaster in December when more than 30 people on SIEV 221 perished in wild seas off Christmas Island.

It is believed there are 17,000 asylum seekers in Indonesia waiting to come to Australia and another 25,000 in Malaysia.

Australia has recently signed an agreement with Afghanistan to return asylum seekers who fail to meet the refugee criteria.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/national/people-smugglers-operate-as-open-secret-20110128-1a8ds.html



The bold point highlight my points. I wait for a rebuttal.

 

Why should they be allowed to jump ahead of those, possibly thousands, who have been patiently waiting (possibly years) for approval of their applications?

No matter how often you scream and shout, the the term 'Queue jumpers' is very apt.

We are just suckers in this country to accept this nonsense, with the help of the Eagle Beagles, of course!

 

The people who run the syndicates never set foot on the boats, the ones who are arrested for people smugling and whom are languishing in our prisons are low level pawns whom are not involved in any of this. I also dont see that payin 7000 to 12000 for a one way trip makes the asylum seekers wealthy and somehow not genuine asylum seekers.
From your article

 

Any person with only one eye can see there is a queue. A queue consists of a line of people 'waiting their turn to be attended', or in this specific case, waiting their turn to be allowed to settle in this country. Very simple really!

How would you like to be waiting patiently in a queue and see people hurtle ahead of you, just because they have access to money?

 

As I have asked before show me the proof that 'vast majority of asylum seekers to Australia who are not "boat people" but arrive by plane ARE "real" asylum seekers?

I have asked this question before but no one has ever provided any proof that the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive by plane. It's just a furphy to divert the attention to justify the real queue jumpers. In any case if you were to follow this problem with real interest and accuracy, you will discover that the Immigration Dept. does,from time to time, send 'illegals' who come by plane, back to their country of origin.

 

That is a lot of money when you consider how poor the refugees are.

Just because the people driving the boats are fisherman doesn't mean that they aren't in on the whole deal they are still adults who have made a choice to exploit Asylum seekers. The person driving the boat is just a guilty as the person organizing it. Just like the person shooting the gun is just as guilty as the person ordering the hit.

And for what seems like the billionth time in this thread. I am not arguing that some of these people are refugees. I am against them being exploited by evil smugglers and brought here on some crappy excuse for a boat.

If they are genuine refugees they should go to a camp and be processed like everyone else.

 

Agreed, your point?

No, youre wrong. The crew of these boats as I have pointed out earlier are often illiterate, mired in poverty and many are also underage and are not adults. They are simply pawns and are not "evil mastermind criminals" as you try to make out.

I dont see any definition of refugees that inlcludes them necessarily having to be in a camp to be considered a refugee. There are refugees in camps and there are refugees not in camps, it shouldnt be too difficult to understand.

 

Where is the queue?

 

Perhaps because the people waiting 'patiently' are NOT ASYLUM SEEKERS??? Perhaps they were NOT fleeing their countries for fear of being killed?

Maybe, just maybe, that's the answer.

 

Most asylum seekers in Australia arrive by plane, and yes, many of them have asylum refused and are repatriated.

Of the minority of asylum seekers that arrive by boat however, far more of these are found to be genuine refugees

(*)Historically,(*)boat(*)arrivals(*)only(*)made(*)up(*)a(*)small(*)proportion(*)of(*)asylum(*)applicants estimates(*)vary,(*)but(*)it(*)is(*)likely(*)that(*)between(*)96(*)and(*)99(*)percent(*)of(*)asylum(*)applicants(*)arrived(*)by(*)air.

More(*)recently(*)the(*)proportions(*)of(*)Irregular(*)Maritime(*)Arrival(*)(IMA)(*)and(*)non‐IMA(*)(that(*)is(*)air(*)arrival)(*)asylum(*)seekers(*)have(*)shifted(*)due(*)to(*)the(*)increase(*)in(*)boat(*)arrivals.(*)However,(*)boat(*)arrivals(*)still(*)comprise(*)less(*)than(*)half(*)of(*)Australia’s(*)onshore(*)asylum(*)seekers



Dr(*)Khalid(*) Koser(*)(Lowy(*)Institute(*)for(*)International(*)Policy)(*)notes(*)that*)
The(*)...point(*)is(*)important(*)is(*)that(*)it(*)means(*)that(*)arguably(*)Australia(*)is(*)worrying(*)about(*)the(*)wrong(*)asylum(*)seekers.(*)Whereas(*)the(*)majority(*)of(*)those(*)arriving(*)by(*)boat(*)are(*)refugees,(*)the(*) majority(*)of(*)those(*)arriving(*)by(*)air(*)are(*)not


http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf


-------------------------------------------------------
...oops - sorry bout that weird cut-and-paste. The bits quoted are on page 6 of the link

 

Ok, for starters, there are many safe ports of call for asylum seekers coming out of the middle east long before they get anywhere near Australia. So the argument that if they don't come to Australia they will get raped and killed is redundant. The fact that they choose to come to Australia instead of some other country where they might be safe, but obviously not have anywhere near the economic benefits of our country, is not necessarily a life or death decision. It's one of perceived prosperity, better life, etc. Fair enough really but needs to be put into perspective.

However the industry which sustains itself by taking extortionate amounts of money (yes, you need quite a lot of money to get onto those boats)from these people, putting them in leaky boats on an extremely dangerous journey to Australia, is despicable and should not in any way be encouraged. Case in point the recent Christmas Island tragedy. We need to discourage this practice, the obvious way to do it is to stop the demand for the service, how this is achieved I don't know.

Asylum seekers are seeking refugee status. I don't think we get many asylum seekers by plane, they would already be refugees by this time having applied for refugee status beforehand. We get like 10-15k refugees per year, and 1-2k asylum seekers who come by boat who may later on be accepted as refugees.

In a more general sense, I don't really agree with the philosophy that Australia, or the west in general, should 'take as many refugees and immigrants as it can'. It is a ridiculous notion, you don't solve problems by displacing people. All that is really going to do is prolong the problems. Refugees are not going to be the most deserving people from these countries either, they're the rich ones who can afford to get out.

I mean OK it is fair enough in some situations for people to leave their countries for genuine fear of persecution. But personally I think most refugees are moving more likely for economic reasons. I can understand and sympathise with their reasons for doing it, but I don't look at it as a solution and in the bigger picture is probably very unhelpful for their native countries.

So, basically, I sympathise with the individuals, but don't agree with the concept of it on a large scale. Look at the middle east now, that is how things change, that's what they need to do, not simply just bugger off to other countries. I have much more respect for the ones that stay and fight for their freedoms than the ones that bugger off. I can perfectly understand why they would want to just bugger off and I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same thing in their position. But life is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and some people get dealt a dud-hand and the only way these countries are going to change is if someone stands up and fights for it.

 

If you can't see the queue then you must, either be blind, or one of those people who just refuses to accept what is in blatantly in front of them.

 

Are you declaring that all of these people, patiently waiting their turn, are not genuine asylum seekers/?

 

As i've already said (twice now?): they were considered heroes (by us) when they were white refugees during the reign and attempted expansion of the iron curtain. Many people died trying to escape even with help of the acclaimed 'smugglers'.

 

I'm interested to know in what capacity you saw the consequences (first hand?).

The smugglers aren't the crew at all but you give that impression in your example through the use of "i.e."

 

I believe that genuine asylum seekers are more likely to risk their lives by coming here by boat, rather than paying for a business class ticket on a comfy aeroplane and then lying about why they are here. My guess is that the majority of illegals who arrive here by plane are Asians - here to work illegally.

 

The reason people take the risk of coming here by boat is because they have access to money with which they can bribe the smugglers (and maybe, very few of them have passports). People who enter OZ by plane, for illegal reasons, are often sent back from whence they came, sometimes immediately, sometimes thereafter when it is determined they have arrived illegally.

You are suggesting that, because some people enter OZ illegally by plane, we should allow anyone who enters OZ illegally by boat to stay here. I would categorically state this is poor logic. We have the sovereign right to send back all 'illegals' ,whether they come here by plane or boat. How they come to OZ is irrelevant.

 

I do not give a fig if you are illegal or not. I don't care if you come here by plane or by boat. If you are fleeing from a country and you have legitimate reason to seek asylum in my country, you are most welcome to stay.
Those who would seek to send these people back to uncertain futures do not seem to have much compassion.

 

Yes. And so one is suggesting that illegal immigrants should not be dealt with in accordance with the law.

However, there is nothing illegal about seeking asylum and Australia is obliged under international law to offer asylum to bona fide refugees

 

First and foremost, please accept my apologies, for not responding earlier. I could provide many excuses, however, it would only stand to trivialise your comments, which I do not consider trivial at all.

My issue is with the government perpetuating dangerous activity, to promote their own agenda (retaining power). There are many ways to resolve this issue, of the Illegal boats(yes I said it, but it is illegal to endanger lives) One way, is to build an off shore processing places, where a majority of boats leave from. This, may not be an option from that country. However, it is one IDEA. We have to make it more attractive, to not climb on these boats, as many know, people die trying to make this dangerous journey.

This is very true, and yes I stand corrected on that count. This is about Australian acceptance.

I apologise, if you have been mislead, by my comment. My comment was to, the inference of these people climbing on a boat, from where they live. The law in Australia states, that if one is considered to enter the country upon illegal grounds(that is those refused asylum) they are returned to the country of last departure. Unless this has changed, it is not the country, they have been persecuted within. That, however, is irrelevant to the Issue and I will remain corrected by you.

My only real point is, Australia needs to stop the deaths, from the boats. It destroys many lives, while others sit about, debating if it is legal or not.

 

Thank you for presenting a coherent thoughtful argument, I think I understand where you are coming from in regards to this issue. In my opinion it has been handled badly by both Liberal and Labor governments with the hard decisions being dodged. I am not happy with offshore processing, what has been created on Christmas Island now is akin to an overcrowded ghetto, riots now appear to becoming a common occurrence at these detention centres and I just dont think its what our country should be about. I dont think it says as much about the conditions these people are housed under as it does about their sheer frustration at waiting so long, most of these people arrive without valid identification papers so validating their identity can take an enormously long period of time. Really, in relation to the total number of immigrants we take in then the amount who seek asylum in this manner is miniscule, I dont think theres an argument to be made that we cant afford it. I understand that there is a fear that if we are too lenient then it will turn into a flood but I dont agree, it really is a tremendous risk these people are taking. And we cant return any of these people to Indonesia, the Indonesian government simply wont accept them so if we do return them it will be back to their native countries. The main problem I have with this issue is that many people seem to think there is a simplistic solution, there isnt, its extremely complicated and it needs to be recognised that we are playing around with peoples lives. Unfortunately we have governments which play to the simpletons and avoid the hard decisions.

 

I sent you a message, of which, you are no doubt aware of by now. However, I could not let it stand, that I privately agree with this statement.

I must state, that I believe, we are of the same mind upon this issue. It would be a gross injustice, of your post, not to have it publicly acknowledged.

Thank you for your input, as it goes directly to my position. I feel, all governments should be condemned, if they perpetuate such issues. Rather than address them, regardless of popular opinion. It is an extremely dangerous way of entering a country, and should be deterred. I agree with the current example of Christmas Island, but their must be an alternative to the boats. I am aware, of the amount of boats entering the country, is small in comparison, but any death, from this activity, should not be given away cheaply.

As you and I see eye to eye on this, I am interested in what could be used to prevent such activity. I have very little answer to this, and would seem to me, the only real way is to make it less attractive to travel by boat, would be the only way.

If you have other alternatives, it would be nice to hear.