Junping the immigration Queue

[Can Opener]

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.

You didnt read the article in the OP

Or the mess that Australian refugee policy has now got itself into, with the niggardly distribution of visas in Indonesia - 550 between 2001 and last year - overwhelmed by this year's surge of more than 6230 boatpeople.
For the first time this year, boat-borne asylum-seekers in Australia will outnumber those coming by aircraft.
But whereas only about 20 per cent of aircraft arrivals are accepted as refugees, the success rate for boatpeople is 70 per cent or greater.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

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?

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

[The Exorcist]

You didnt read the article in the OP

Yeah, you're forgetting about those who overstay their visa who arrive by plane (ie. English backpackers). As at June 2009:

"The immigration department told a Senate hearing in Canberra today that as of June 30, a total of 48,456 people had overstayed their visa."

Click here . For the record, the Telegraph is an The Australian affiliate

Illegal immigration isn't just those who arrive illegally which is what the Australian article is referring to

In any event, those who arrive "illegally or unlawfully" by plane have different and superior legal rights to the boaties

Why?

 

[The Exorcist]

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.

GJ, you've quoted my post so to clarify, are you saying it's fine to arrive as an English backpacker who probably came from a good home and is definitely not fleeing political asylum who then overstays their visa, compared to someone who arrives by boat from war-torn Afghanistan, Iraq & Sri Lanka, after spending time in rotting camps as the OP posted?

They're both illegal (or unlawful if you want to get technical, although John Howard referred to them as illegals), so why the difference in the way we handle boats compared to air arrivals?

ps GJ, that article you referred to earlier says, "Australia, which accepted 35 people for resettlement last year ..."

These are the asylum "boat" seekers who are actually granted asylum, surely that's not a strain on the economy?

 

[Can Opener]

Yeah, you're forgetting about those who overstay their visa who arrive by plane (ie. English backpackers). As at June 2009:

"The immigration department told a Senate hearing in Canberra today that as of June 30, a total of 48,456 people had overstayed their visa."

Click here . For the record, the Telegraph is an The Australian affiliate

Illegal immigration isn't just those who arrive illegally which is what the Australian article is referring to

In any event, those who arrive "illegally or unlawfully" by plane have different and superior legal rights to the boaties

Why?

These are people who have entered the country legally with valid visa's. They aren't seeking political asylum, they aren't trying and dont want to stay permantly. Australia has allowed them to enter the country.They are tourists who have overstayed their visa's, not an illegal immigrant. It also says that most of them go home within a week of their visa expiry date. The article in no way helps your argument

 

[GuruJane]

GJ, you've quoted my post so to clarify, are you saying it's fine to arrive as an English backpacker who probably came from a good home and is definitely not fleeing political asylum who then overstays their visa, compared to someone who arrives by boat from war-torn Afghanistan, Iraq & Sri Lanka, after spending time in rotting camps as the OP posted?

But the law doesn't treat English backpackers overstaying their visas differently from asylum seekers arriving by air OR differently from boat arrivals.!
First two categories only become "unlawful" if they have exceeded their visas. Until they do, they are "lawful" and nobody has reason to check on them.

It is only if they overstay the visa and become "unlawful" that it becomes an issue.

Boat arrivals become "unlawful" immediately because they arrive with no visas not even passports, most of them, so they fall into the "unlawful category" straight away.

If caught, the overstaying now "unlawful" English backpacker et aL gets deported immediately; on the other hand any "unlawfuls " who have arrived with visa etc, but are caught overstaying and then claim asylum (English backpackers included, Exo!), are allowed to stay until their claims processed. Those who are successful then get a visa and become "lawful" while those who don't are then sent back to their country of origin. If this can't be done (eg because originating country who issued them their passports refuses to have them back) then the unlawfuls are parked in detention centres.

They're both illegal (or unlawful if you want to get technical, although John Howard referred to them as illegals), so why the difference in the way we handle boats compared to air arrivals?

To be fair to Howard, practically speaking for this issue, it is splitting hairs. Although if you are interested: to be "illegal" means there would have to be a specific law prohibiting anybody or a specific group or individual from attempting to enter Australia. To be "unlawful" means that you are arriving at or already in Australia without visa/complying with Oz rules of entry. Note: This is my laypersons understanding of the terms; Contra the immigration lawyer may like to comment and elucidate.

ps GJ, that article you referred to earlier says, "Australia, which accepted 35 people for resettlement last year ..."

Wasn't me who linked to that article, someone else. Personally found that part undetailed/confusing . Again, Contra is the poster best able to access immigration dept data.

These are the asylum "boat" seekers who are actually granted asylum, surely that's not a strain on the economy?

Look, its not the strain on the economy once they are granted that is the problem! Far from it. Immigrants are good for the economy.

The problem is, Exo, when unlawful arrivals arriving by boat reach a critical mass then they overtax the Immigration Depts/security services capacity to process them in a timely and orderly manner!

For illustration: back in July 08, Labor govt announced that henceforth all processing of apps would be done at Christmas Island and be completed in 90 days.

But when this instantly cranked up the nos of boat arrivals and passengers from 3 boats and 25 in the previous 12 months to 23 boats/1033 passengers in the following 12 months , and then exploded to 118/5609 in the next 12 months (09/10) the govt suffered the breakdown of system we see today

And since that 5609 number to June 30 last year, the (unlawful) arrivals have have continued to pour in relentlesly every month, with no sign that monthly average is not going to increase through 2011 by 30/50%.

That's wot the problem is for the govt: capacity to process under existing Oz laws.

You should remember that the Immigration/security services are already taxed with investigating claims from asyluym seekers who have arrived "lawfully" by air i - around 4500-5500 a year. When you load another 6500 onto that you can see why Rudd's 90-day deadline for deciding on boat people apps fell apart so quickly.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

GuruJane has to be the most self-important, pompous poster on this board. Absolutely revolting poster.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Australia is a signatory to a UN convention on Asylum Seekers/refugees. Basically that means Australia agrees to provide some form of asylum to refugees while their claims are accessed. If their claim is legitimate then they are granted legal status in this nation. If not they are sent home.

There is no queue, as these people are seeking asylum. The issue of asylum seeking is legally and politically different from immigration. Fraser, Hawke and Keating all understood this, even with similar numbers of 'arrivals' during their time in office. They didn't attempt to conjoin refugee status with immigration. Why would they, it would be a lie and an affront to an agreement Australia has entered into. It was only under Howard that these two separate issues were conjoined.

If the cynically minded on this board and in the Australian Tory Party want to make the issue of the comparatively small number of refugees who come here into an issue of immigration and 'queue's' then i propose they cut to the chase and be brave enough to reappraise Australia's status as a signatory to the above mentioned refugee act. If they want to 'stop the boats' then simply join totalitarian nations such as Nth Korea and Cuba who will not take refugees. That is the only strategy - sad and pathetic as it is - that is bound to work.

By the way, did any one else notice a wiki leak recently reported in the SMH that claimed a major Liberal Party strategist said to a US Diplomat that 'the more boats that come the better,' as the party 'owns' the issue? Talk about making political hay out of human tragedy! I mean seriously, was there happiness in the Coalition party room when that boat ran a ground on Christmas Island - "Imagine the political leverage, lads!" What a cynical bunch of twats.

 

[medusala]

Australia is a signatory to a UN convention on Asylum Seekers/refugees. Basically that means Australia agrees to provide some form of asylum to refugees while their claims are accessed.

NO it does not.

Australia is under no obligation to process claims. It is well within its rights to send such people to another country as long as there is no refoulement.

There is no queue, as these people are seeking asylum.

Nonsense. They take the place of others both under the refugee scheme and under the family reunion scheme.

You would think this is blog section of Crikey with the amount of hand wringing and complete nonsense that gets bandied about.

 

[GuruJane]

GuruJane has to be the most self-important, pompous poster on this board. Absolutely revolting poster.

My sympathies.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

My sympathies.

No, I'm serious. You're so self-congratulatory and condescending towards others, and refuse to see points of view other than your own. A lot of people do the latter, but you do so with such syrupy and dumb condescension it is genuinely revolting. You must be a deeply unhappy person to resort to those sort of tactics.

 

[GuruJane]

No, I'm serious. You're so self-congratulatory and condescending towards others, and refuse to see points of view other than your own. A lot of people do the latter, but you do so with such syrupy and dumb condescension it is genuinely revolting. You must be a deeply unhappy person to resort to those sort of tactics.

Deeper sympathies.

You are not Dippers Donuts by any chance are you?

 

[DeanoT]

Deeper sympathies.

You are not Dippers Donuts by any chance are you?

Nah, that's Tambaran. The irony is his post above yours describes himself perfectly.

Shame no-one bought him a mirror for Xmas.

 

[GuruJane]

Nah, that's Tambaran. The irony is his post above yours describes himself perfectly.
Shame no-one bought him a mirror for Xmas.

In psychology talk it's called transference

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

Nah, that's Tambaran. The irony is his post above yours describes himself perfectly.

Shame no-one bought him a mirror for Xmas.

Actually, it doesn't describe me at all. That's just silly.

Amazing you're defending GJ.

 

[Qsaint]

There is no queue, as these people are seeking asylum.Fraser, Hawke and Keating all understood this, even with similar numbers of 'arrivals' during their time in office twats.

Absolute rubbish from the lefty book of nonsense.The UNHCR prioritises who is the most needy to the countries that have quota systems the vast majority of places in the US Australia and Canada. Australia whilst it considers suitability more or less follows the UN advise. For every unlawful assylum seeker who we know very little about who can raise ten times th countries average income to get here, the ones ontop of the queue such as a poor Sudanese Christian ( or who is ever at risk the most) Wont fit into the 15k. It amazes me that the lefties won't support the assylum seekers in greatest need.

By the way for a history lesson over the ingrained propoganda you spout Keating introduced manditory detention

 

[Qsaint]

Yes. Boat people are generally millionaires.

the comparison was on average yearly income from the country the originated from compared to the cost of equating that to Australia ie average income in Sri lanka is sub 2k aud so the multiplier to get here is 10 to 15 times that. In an Australian sense that's 600000 to $1mil.

Boat people are very well off compared to most assylum seekers generally the truely persecuted have very little.

 

[stickman11]

the comparison was on average yearly income from the country the originated from compared to the cost of equating that to Australia ie average income in Sri lanka is sub 2k aud so the multiplier to get here is 10 to 15 times that. In an Australian sense that's 600000 to $1mil.

Boat people are very well off compared to most assylum seekers generally the truely persecuted have very little.

Who is this junping the immigration queue. Are they chinese?

 

[Ted38]

Who is this junping the immigration queue. Are they chinese?

Mainly Muslims regrettably.

 

[hoss]

Mainly whinging poms and kiwis unfortunately.

 

[Ted38]

I see in today's Australian that the 'boat people' so called and who are mostly Muslims are now referred to as IMA's Irregular Maritime Arrivals. FFS!

 

[PottSie2]

Seems like the greatful, appreciative people we are accepting into this country are showing their gratitude by escaping, rioting and burning down buildings.

But that's okay, these poor little souls are now being moved to the mainland. That will fix the problem!

Wonder if we can send these 6,000 back and take in 6,000 Japanese people!

 

[Ted38]

What I would like to know is how many of these queue jumping illegal economic migrants have we sent back to where they came from?
It's high time this piss weak Government showed some balls and took control of the situation and that includes not only getting rid of those who by their actions are clearly not the type of people we need in this country but also putting pressure on the Indonesian Government to stop the illegals from not only leaving Indonesia but using there as a base.

 

[tazzietiger]

What I would like to know is how many of these queue jumping illegal economic migrants have we sent back to where they came from?
It's high time this piss weak Government showed some balls and took control of the situation and that includes not only getting rid of those who by their actions are clearly not the type of people we need in this country but also putting pressure on the Indonesian Government to stop the illegals from not only leaving Indonesia but using there as a base.

HA good luck with Gillard standing up for her country. She won't even stand up for what apparently she believes in.

 

[Pessimistic]

Worth remembering that "Tough talking" John Howard eventually let the majority of the tampa people into the country, by one means or another"

If a Gillard goverment is so 'weak" in comparison, why are detainees resorting to more extreme measures than under the Howard regime ?

Could you people even consider the that labour (who started the detention camps in the first place, by the way) is tougher than your so called tough guys ?