Junping the immigration Queue

[GuruJane]

You really need to update your claim about the boat missing.


One thing that needs to be refuted is the claim that these people are unskilled and also that they end up on welfare long-term. Smply not true.

Also the rioting etc came about because ofbthe appalling conditions that your party put them in.

Sydney Morning Herald:

Lost for 42 days, another tragedy on the horizon
Natalie O'Brien
December 26, 2010

EXCLUSIVE

THESE are the faces of some of the 97 other asylum seekers feared to have perished at sea while en route to Australia from Indonesia.Frantic relatives of 14 of the missing people say they last had contact with them on November 13.

Relatives from Iraq and Iran who have contacted welfare groups in Australia said they last received a call from relatives saying they were in Jakarta and were due to leave by boat the next day with a group of about 97 people bound for Australia.Although the journey from Indonesia by sea usually takes from two to four days, and a boat did arrive in Australia early this month, no further contact has been made.

The missing boat was due to arrive more than three weeks before the boat tragedy on Christmas Island on December 15 in which at least 48 asylum seekers died.

''We have been receiving many phone calls from family members that have lost contact with their beloved ones,'' said Jamal Daoud of the Social Justice Network.''


....Mr Daoud said if they had already arrived in Australia it was unusual not to have heard from any of them. He said when asylum seekers were taken into detention they were given access to telephones to call their families to say they had arrived.

Refugee advocates who have been making inquiries in Indonesia say they have been told the missing boat had been organised by an Algerian people smuggler and was ''lost''.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/lost-for-42-days-another-tragedy-on-the-horizon-20101225-197fh.html

Goodness. If we can't believe an SMH exclusive quoting refugee advocates and a spokesperson from the Social Justice Network, and which posts photographs of the possible "lost" that must have been provided to them by someone, who can we believe any more? Not as if it was the Australian.

World rapidly coming to an end.

 

[Max zero]

Yes you did. By pretending there was some orderly queue for these people, you clearly denigrated the hell these people go through.

You deserve the title I gave if you think it's some easy, every day decision to risk your family on a people smuggler's boat.

"Oh honey, let's get a better economic life in Australia. Time to hop on a wooden boat and sail there and then pretend we're being persecuted!"

Silver spoon tosser is all you are.



Perhaps you should reconsider your attitude towards asylum seekers.



Why don't you answer them first, since you have a big problem with these "unauthorised arrivals"? I'd love to know, because to be honest I don't have straight answers to any of them - I'm sure you do.

Of course you don't have any answers. I knew that, just wanted you to say it.

To be honest I would be happy with about 30,000 humanitarian places. It seems reasonable based on what other countries have committed. Some may want more, some may want less but this is probably the easiest question.

Criteria is a harsh one. Eventually you will have to make a choice on who applies first and who has greater needed. Both have their upsides and downsides. How do you judge who is needier?

What when we do when the limit is reached? We say no. We retain the sovereign right to control our borders. Repatriate where possible. If they refuse repatriation? Does anyone want to see crying children dragged on to planes? Then again no one wants to see children languishing in detention either. Do we just let them in anyway? Then us saying no or implying a limit is worthless.

"Just let them in!" is an easy answer. It's a cop out. By just letting everyone in you don't have to make any hard decisions or answer any tough questions. You don't have to say no.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

So you wanted to criticise me for having no answers, but you didn't have any either. But you're the hardliner - I admit I don't have the answers, but I'm not going to hate on asylum seekers and make up fantastical scenarios about friendly persecution queues to make myself feel better about demanding the Great Wall around Australia. You're just a prick - that's the cop out. You fantasise stupid situations asylum seekers don't actually live in to help justify your selfishness. Newsflash, suburbo - your family immigrated here too.

I mean, seriously...you act like there's a pleasant little office where persecuted people can just roll up, take a number and wait like its a bank queue. You are so self-deluded and spiteful towards others who might need humanitarian assistance, but you don't want to admit it so you rail against "queue jumpers" and "illegal immigrants".

 

[Max zero]

So you wanted to criticise me for having no answers, but you didn't have any either. But you're the hardliner - I admit I don't have the answers, but I'm not going to hate on asylum seekers and make up fantastical scenarios about friendly persecution queues to make myself feel better about demanding the Great Wall around Australia. You're just a prick - that's the cop out. You fantasise stupid situations asylum seekers don't actually live in to help justify your selfishness. Newsflash, suburbo - your family immigrated here too.

I mean, seriously...you act like there's a pleasant little office where persecuted people can just roll up, take a number and wait like its a bank queue. You are so self-deluded and spiteful towards others who might need humanitarian assistance, but you don't want to admit it so you rail against "queue jumpers" and "illegal immigrants".

You got all this from me asking a few questions? Quite a few strawmen to boot.

I am fully aware of my immigration status. Both sides of my family immigrated to Australia in the last 50 years (one from Europe one from Asia). So your personal attacks really have little effect on me.

I have already said what I would be comfortable with Asylum seeker number wise, my main issue would be how any new asylum seeker system would be run. Most people would consider that a pretty core issue. How we determine who comes, in what numbers and what to do with those refused all seem fairly legitimate questions that you seem uncomfortable in answering. Have you even thought about it?

It's pretty clear you have nothing to offer on this topic except name calling and abuse. Trust me you are not fooling anyone.

If you are willing to discuss the issues feel free to join in but if all you want to do is abuse you are just wasting everyone's time.

 

[kimp]

Sydney Morning Herald:



http://www.smh.com.au/national/lost-for-42-days-another-tragedy-on-the-horizon-20101225-197fh.html

Goodness. If we can't believe an SMH exclusive quoting refugee advocates and a spokesperson from the Social Justice Network, and which posts photographs of the possible "lost" that must have been provided to them by someone, who can we believe any more? Not as if it was the Australian.

World rapidly coming to an end.

Was refuted pretty much immediately by experts in your beloved AustraliAn and certainly well before you went searching for this quote.

Another example of your selective reporting.

 

[medusala]

I would suggest everyone visit the Amnesty International website I've placed elsewhere on here and look at the real facts...not those peddled by the racist ideologues on the Liberal frontbench.

Nice little rant. Policy towards asylum seekers has been very similar since the ALP introduced mandatory detention.

As for "facts" it is well known that

a) many such people fly to Indo
b) pay people smugglers
c) cause refugees on UNHCR programs to miss out on places.

 

[medusala]

No limits, no quotas.

At least you are honest enough to admit you believe in open borders.

I'd use immigration policy to make the country greater than it is.

Mass immigration does NOTHING for per capita per GDP. It is merely propaganda pushed by certain groups.

Australia has a huge number of adults who dont work and or are on welfare.

We dont need large scale immigration and even if we did refugees from third world countries are the least likely to have the skills needed for the economy (as evidenced by unemployment, median salary stats).

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

No limits, no quotas.
I'd use immigration policy to make the country greater than it is.

And what of our health systems?

People like you seem to forget it's a system already under massive pressure to meet the demands of the people already here.

And then you want to have an open slather on more people entering to place even further strain on a system that can't keep up.

Can I borrow your magic wand for a moment so I can fix that problem up first?

All you'd do is make sure our population was unhealthier than it already is.

Turn one year waiting lists into two years.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

You got all this from me asking a few questions? Quite a few strawmen to boot.

I am fully aware of my immigration status. Both sides of my family immigrated to Australia in the last 50 years (one from Europe one from Asia). So your personal attacks really have little effect on me.

I have already said what I would be comfortable with Asylum seeker number wise, my main issue would be how any new asylum seeker system would be run. Most people would consider that a pretty core issue. How we determine who comes, in what numbers and what to do with those refused all seem fairly legitimate questions that you seem uncomfortable in answering. Have you even thought about it?

It's pretty clear you have nothing to offer on this topic except name calling and abuse. Trust me you are not fooling anyone.

If you are willing to discuss the issues feel free to join in but if all you want to do is abuse you are just wasting everyone's time.

If this is how you really feel, why were you using redneck, dogwhistle characterisations of asylum seekers in the first place?

 

[Max zero]

If this is how you really feel, why were you using redneck, dogwhistle characterisations of asylum seekers in the first place?

I'm sorry have you got me confused with someone else? Could you please link the actual text where I have been abusive towards Asylum Seekers?

I think I have been quite clear in that Asylum Sleeking via leaky boat isn't the best method for organizing Australia's humanitarian intake. Said this in the very first post. Does you think it is actually a good idea?

Once again do you have actually have something to add to this topic apart name calling?

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

I'm sorry have you got me confused with someone else? Could you please link the actual text where I have been abusive towards Asylum Seekers?

I think I have been quite clear in that Asylum Sleeking via leaky boat isn't the best method for organizing Australia's humanitarian intake. Said this in the very first post. Does you think it is actually a good idea?

Once again do you have actually have something to add to this topic apart name calling?

I didn't say abusive. I said dogwhistle. The allusions to "queue jumpers" and the like.

 

[Max zero]

I didn't say abusive. I said dogwhistle. The allusions to "queue jumpers" and the like.

So apparently I'm alluding to a queue jumping through 'dog whistling' because I say asylum seekers arriving in boats is not the best way for us to manage our humanitarian intake?

Do you disagree?

Why are you even in this thread?

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

So apparently I'm alluding to a queue jumping through 'dog whistling' because I say asylum seekers arriving in boats is not the best way for us to manage our humanitarian intake?

Do you disagree?

Why are you even in this thread?

Well you responded negatively to my post about that. It's the natural conclusion.

 

[blackcat]

I'd like to know what proportion of those who get get here via the "queue" do so by bribing the right official.

like Amanda Vandstone when one is a member of the Sicilian mafia no?

 

[Billy Hunt]

No limits, no quotas.
.

Is this what you want Australia to be like????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfqU_0Ph2X8

 

[Qsaint]

Remember its all about the push factors.....

Its a laugh to think the lefties all support the very rich refugees, by per captia income compared to Australia those who can raise millions of Dollars.
Whilst being happy for all those with nothing, and with better cases left to rot in camps. What a strange world we live in.

 

[GuruJane]

Remember its all about the push factors.....

Its a laugh to think the lefties all support the very rich refugees, by per captia income compared to Australia

Indeed it is, considering that the highminded posters here would have to find $600,000 per person to fork out to a people smuggler at the present rates of equivalence.

Whilst being happy for all those with nothing, and with better cases left to rot in camps. What a strange world we live in.

One of life's great mysteries, Q. You would think that the Left would be out demonstrating for the UNHCR reffos ..... ah well...

 

[Max zero]

Well you responded negatively to my post about that. It's the natural conclusion.

No I asked you a question:

And a mad rush "first in, best dressed" in leaky boats is a better way?

Which you still haven't answered. An 'orderly' que has it's own problems but people risking their lives on borderline seaworthy boats is a hell of a lot worse.

It's pretty clear that the current asylum seeker system isn't working. It's too slow, it's inconsistant and people are dying. We need a new system. So how will this new system look is my main question. How many people do we plan on allowing in? How and where will be process applications? What do we do with those rejected/unable to be repatriated?

Only a few people have even dared to try to answer these questions. Most of the times the questions are dodged and someone gets call a name instead. It's ridiculous.

"We need a new system."

"You are a racist, redneck arseh*le!"

"Okay, what should we do then?"

"I don't know."

Awesome.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

OK, if we play then discuss a regional processing centre. Why are you for, or against, this proposal?

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

Remember its all about the push factors.....

Its a laugh to think the lefties all support the very rich refugees, by per captia income compared to Australia those who can raise millions of Dollars.
Whilst being happy for all those with nothing, and with better cases left to rot in camps. What a strange world we live in.

Yes. Boat people are generally millionaires.

 

[JeffDunne]

Remember its all about the push factors.....

Persecution and foreign powers funding to support persecutors?

Its a laugh to think the lefties all support the very rich refugees, by per captia income compared to Australia those who can raise millions of Dollars.
Whilst being happy for all those with nothing, and with better cases left to rot in camps. What a strange world we live in.

The only laugh is your complete and utter ignorance.

John Howard privatised our immigration policies.

Got cash? You're in.

It is why so many see these people as freeloaders rather than what they are. It helps justify our false reality and pacify our greed.

 

[Max zero]

OK, if we play then discuss a regional processing centre. Why are you for, or against, this proposal?

For:

1) Closer to the UN refugee facilities.

2) No need for dangerous boat rides.

3) Weakens the influence of people smugglers (due to point 2).

Now how about you?

 

[The Exorcist]

And what of our health systems?

People like you seem to forget it's a system already under massive pressure to meet the demands of the people already here.

And then you want to have an open slather on more people entering to place even further strain on a system that can't keep up.

Can I borrow your magic wand for a moment so I can fix that problem up first?

All you'd do is make sure our population was unhealthier than it already is.

Turn one year waiting lists into two years.

Perhaps if we didn't spend so much Government money on trying to develop world champions in sport, or on Government spin machines & advertising (Labor & Liberal are guilty of this), then we can spend more money on hospitals?

 

[The Exorcist]

Remember its all about the push factors.....

Its a laugh to think the lefties all support the very rich refugees, by per captia income compared to Australia those who can raise millions of Dollars.
Whilst being happy for all those with nothing, and with better cases left to rot in camps. What a strange world we live in.

Seeking asylum has nothing to do with economics.

It's about seeking political asylum from persecution in the country you live.

As for the state of the camps, where people are "left to rot," then what is the solution to stop this "rotting?"

On the one hand, it's acknowledged that there's a serious problem in the camps, yet on the other we think it's wrong for asylum seekers to try and do something different in coming by boats even though the UN & countries signed to the treaty won't do anything about the problematic camps?

I haven't read one comment where there's support for a rich asylum seeker over a poorer one. Certainly the richer ones can afford the boats but a concern for "asylum sympathises", as pointed out in your post, is the state of leaving people, any people, in the rotting camps. This just isn't in the camps throughout the middle east / central Asia / Africa, but as pointed out in the Australian article, even in Indonesia, although to a lesser degree.

Australia's a signatory to the UN treaty, Indonesia isn't. We've put our international hand up to adopt a more compassionate approach to asylum seekers than Indonesia. If not, we can always revoke this treaty.

As to numbers, there's more illegal immigrants in this country that don't come by boat, yet this stat is largely ignored. In fact, if you're an asylum seeker and really rich, you could come by plane and have access to different & more favourable processes than those who come by boat.

 

[GuruJane]

As to numbers, there's more illegal immigrants in this country that don't come by boat, yet this stat is largely ignored. In fact, if you're an asylum seeker and really rich, you could come by plane and have access to different & more favourable processes than those who come by boat.

The term is not "illegal". It is "unlawful non citizens."

Those who arrive by air with a passport/visa etc are termed "lawful non citizens. They only become "unlawful" if they stay after their visa has expired.

In 2010, for the first time, the no of unlawful boat arrivals claiming asylum will exceed the number "lawful" or "non-lawful" asylum seekers who came by air.

This is because the boat arrivals have ballooned out to around 6500, more than double who came came in 2009.