Australia & asylum seekers: The myths and the facts

Who are asylum seekers?  

The  terms  "asylum  seeker" and  "refugee"  are  often  confused:  an  asylum  seeker  is someone  who  has  fled  their  home  and  is  seeking  protection  from  another  country stating that he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been evaluated.

In Australia, asylum seekers must prove  they are  refugees before  they are granted a visa.  They  must  prove  to  government  agencies  that  if  they  return  home  they  face persecution, imprisonment or harm for reasons of race, religion, nationality, their social group or political opinion.

Myth 1 – Australia takes in more than its fair share of asylum seekers  

Contrary  to what  the media  and many  politicians  are  saying,  Australia  is  not  being "swamped"  by  asylum  seekers.  From  January  to  August  this  year,  Australia  took  in below  average  numbers  of  asylum  seekers  compared  to  previous  years  and  global intakes.

The  UN  High  Commission  for  Refugees  (UNHCR)  has  calculated  that  the  average number  of  asylum  seekers  accepted  by  a  country  in  the  global  context  is  197  per million of population. On that basis Australia"s fair share for the first 6 months of 2009 should be 4,197 rather than the 3,666 we have taken so far. In comparison Canada,  which  has  a  population  of  just  over  33  million  compared  to  Australia"s  22  million, received 6 times the number of lodged applications (18,722).

In a global context,  the average rate of asylum seeker  intake according  to population ranks Australia 20th out of 44 countries worldwide, behind countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and Malta (which tops the list).

According  to  another  key  factor  –  gross  domestic  product  (GDP)  – Australia  falls  to 24th place when ranked by asylum seeker intake per size of GDP.

Myth 2 – "Boat people" are swamping our shores

The vast majority of asylum seekers arrive in Australia by air. Last year, of the 13,500 people granted asylum  in Australia only 206 of  those arriving without visas came by boat; 2,291 came by plane – well over 90%.

There  is  also  data  to  suggest  that  people who  arrive  by  boat  are more  likely  to  be legitimate refugees. Of asylum claims made by people who arrive by aircraft, 55% are rejected. Only 2-15% of claims made by people arriving by boat are denied.

This number is also small when compared to the number of people who over-stay their visa in Australia each year, particularly those on travelling visas, the majority of whom are  English-speaking  tourists.  Conservative  estimates  suggest  that,  on  average, 50,000 people stay in Australia without the proper documentation each year

Some media  have been misquoting data that last year 13,500 asylum seekers were granted refugee status. The Department for Immigration & Citizenship has responded that  the  vast  majority  of  these  in  fact  "came  to  Australia  on valid  visas  as  part  of Australia"s  dedicated  offshore  refugee  resettlement  program  or  were  proposed  as  special humanitarian program entrants  -  largely,  they were not asylum seekers", with over 11,000 visas granted before entry to Australia through proper processes.


Myth 3 – the Government"s changes in policy have made Australia a "soft target"

2,504 people  lodged asylum applications  in Australia  from January  to June  this year, an increase on the same time last year. This increase is in line with global trends.

However  these numbers are  far below  those  in 2000 and 2001.  In 2000,  there were over  13,000  claims  in  the  first  half  of  the  year,  with  over  12,000  in  2001.

This highlights the continuing fluctuations globally in the number of people seeking asylum caused by changing world events that force people from their homes.

From  January 2008  to  June 2009, only 750 people arrived by boat  compared  to 43 boats carrying over 5,516 asylum seekers in 2001,after  the outbreak of war  in  Iraq and Afghanistan. Global events dictate how many people are displaced every year.

While  some  are  claiming  that  the  abolition  of  detention  debt  (in  August  2009)  and temporary protection visas (August 2008) have made Australia look like a "soft target," this  isn"t  the case. Since  temporary protection visas  (TPVs) were  introduced  in 1999, they have had very little impact on the number of people seeking asylum in Australia. In  the  two  years  following  its  introduction  over  8,455  asylum  seekers  arrived  in Australia by boat compared to the 2,504 people this year.

They have also had very  little  impact on  the number of people being granted refugee status. According to the Department for Immigration and Citizenship, nearly 90% of the people  allocated  temporary  protection  visas  were  granted  a  visa  that  gave  them Australian  residency.  Only  3%  (or  379  people)  granted  temporary  protection  visas departed Australia.

 
Myth 4 – Refugees are a burden on our economy  

Refugees  offer  potential  for  our  economy  –  they  are  not  a  burden.  Claims  that refugees cost the taxpayer $628 million were made by some media sources in the last week, but they are baseless, with Centrelink, the government department in charge of providing welfare, stating that there is simply no data to support this figure.

continued......

Centrelink also highlights that  "only  about  3%  of Centrelink  customers who were  in receipt  of  a  Newstart  Allowance  income  support  payment  at  30  June  2009  held  a refugee and humanitarian or permanent protection visa".

 
The  Department  for  Immigration  and  Citizenship  states  that  immigration  currently provides 60% of our population growth, but within the next few years it will be the only source of net labour force growth in Australia.


Myth 5 – Boats are bringing terrorists to our shores

Some opposition backbenchers have recently stated that arrivals of boats are likely to be a perfect cover  for  terrorists entering Australia. In  reality,  the  threat of  terrorists entering  the country  in  this way has been described by counter-terrorism experts as "infinitesimally  small".

Asylum  seekers  arriving  by  boat  may  face  years  of  delay before gaining entry into Australia – as opposed to those arriving by air.

All asylum seekers arriving  in Australia undergo  thorough security checks  from ASIO in conjunction with  Indonesia. Comparisons with  the US  found  that  those  involved  in the terrorist activities of September 11 arrived on valid US visas.


Myth 6 – Asylum seekers are "illegal immigrants"

Under  the Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, all people have  the  right to seek asylum  in Australia.  They may be  found  to be genuine  refugees, and  they may not – but seeking asylum  is not  illegal under Australian  law or  international  law. The  term  "illegal  immigrant",  just  like  the  term  "queue  jumper",  is  designed  to make asylum seekers seem alien and unworthy of sympathy.



                                               
The above is the asylum myths fact sheet compiled by GetUp.org The pdf file with full references can be found here:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/EndMandatoryDetention&id=818

strange allegiance wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 8:11pm:

Myth 5 – Boats are bringing terrorists to our shores Asylum  seekers  arriving  by  boat  may  face  years  of  delay before gaining entry into Australia – as opposed to those arriving by air.

So why don't they fly in? It is cheaper then the 5 grand to the smugglers plus years of living expenses.

strange allegiance wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 8:11pm:

Myth 6 – Asylum seekers are "illegal immigrants" Under  the Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, all people have  the  right to seek asylum  in Australia.  They may be  found  to be genuine  refugees, and  they may not – but seeking asylum  is not  illegal under Australian  law or  international  law. The  term  "illegal  immigrant",  just  like  the  term  "queue  jumper",  is  designed  to make asylum seekers seem alien and unworthy of sympathy.

Sri Lankan Tamils, whose homeland is just across the water in India's south are not refugees if they first go to malaysia or indonesia and then hire smugglers to sail to Australia. They are migrants who do not want to be refugees.

If they were really only fleeing war and persecution, they'd go to Tamil Nadoo in India. But 'mere' refuge i precisely what the do not want.

The same goes for the Afghani and Iraqi boat people smuggled into Australia or Europe.

"So why don't they fly in? It is cheaper then the 5 grand to the smugglers plus years of living expenses."

They don't fly in because 99% of the media beatup about terrorists is total BS

The only terrorists we need to be concerned about are the ones in our own parliaments, that want to violate our human rights with their "anti-terror" , and "tough on crime" laws

strange allegiance wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 10:24pm:

"So why don't they fly in? It is cheaper then the 5 grand to the smugglers plus years of living expenses." They don't fly in because 99% of the media beatup about terrorists is total BS The only terrorists we need to be concerned about are the ones in our own parliaments, that want to violate our human rights with their "anti-terror" , and "tough on crime" laws

I mean why don't these boatpeople fly into Australia? It would be cheaper for everyone and far less dangerous.

sorry I misunderstood soren

Maybe they arrive by marine vessel because they can't get on a commercial flight as the have no papers, and the reason they have no papers is because they have had to flee their homes in the middle of the night or be executed by some guys in jack boots, or their village is being bombed by some guy on the other side of the planet who thinks he's playing Nintendo

But even if their papers hadn't been destroyed by some gun wielding secret police thugs, and they did have time before fleeing, to grab those vital documents, One could not expect them to get a taxi to the airport, with the same armed jackbooted secret police there to greet them

strange allegiance wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 11:00pm:

sorry I misunderstood soren Maybe they arrive by marine vessel because they can't get on a commercial flight as the have no papers, and the reason they have no papers is because they have had to flee their homes in the middle of the night or be executed by some guys in jack boots, or their village is being bombed by some guy on the other side of the planet who thinks he's playing Nintendo But even if their papers hadn't been destroyed by some gun wielding secret police thugs, and they did have time before fleeing, to grab those vital documents, One could not expect them to get a taxi to the airport, with the same armed jackbooted secret police there to greet them

How do they fly into Indonesia without papers?
And why don't they just sail over to tamil nadoo in India. Very close and full of tamils. Peaceful. Why don't they like that quicker, far safer option?

I don't know the answer to that one soren, maybe that bit of the story is media beat up The whole media coverage of this issue is so deceitful it's very hard to tell whats happening. But one thing is clear the policies of both the government and opposition are identical on this aspect - If a person is not determined to be a genuine refugee, then they are deported.

strange allegiance wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 11:35pm:

I don't know the answer to that one soren, maybe that bit of the story is media beat up The whole media coverage of this issue is so deceitful it's very hard to tell whats happening. But one thing is clear the policies of both the government and opposition are identical on this aspect - If a person is not determined to be a genuine refugee, then they are deported.

That's quite the correct policy. If you are not a refugee or a migrant or have some other visa, you do not have the right to be in this (or any other) country. Simply wanting to be here is not enough.

And they don't go to tamil nadoo in india, just across he water from Northern Sri Lanka because they are not refugees fleeing the jackboot.

And they fly into Indonesia or malaysia on their Sri lankan papers. They coul not enter or stay in those countris without papers. They only destroy their passports when they are on the smugglers' boats.

Quote:

Why don't they like that quicker, far safer option?

Because they'd prefer to come and take your job and make your country over-crowded and use up all your social security, so when you retire you gotta self-fund it!!

That what you're hinting at??

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

Quote: Why don't they like that quicker, far safer option? Because they'd prefer to come and take your job and make your country over-crowded and use up all your social security, so when you retire you gotta self-fund it!! That what you're hinting at??

Go on, choke a darkie - you are full of it.

SA - better - more relevant.  ;)

Maybe I misjudged you, or have you just started taking your medication?

Soren wrote on Nov 5^th, 2009 at 11:10pm:

How do they fly into Indonesia without papers? And why don't they just sail over to tamil nadoo in India. Very close and full of tamils. Peaceful. Why don't they like that quicker, far safer option?

Good question - I have no idea, I must admit.

But then again, why SHOULDN'T they come to Australia? Most of our parents, grandparents or ancestors did. My dad jumped ship here from England in the 60s - completely illegal. Did they send him home?

They gave him a free university education, Medicare, a good job, a fantastic pension, you name it.

NONE of us would be here if it wasn't for some form of migration, and most of it of the unorderly, queue-jumping kind.

People don't mind plane queue-jumpers because they're backpackers from Ireland and the UK. The population fear boat people because they're - I have to say it - Asian and poor.

The whole terrorist line highlights this. Why would an organisation like Al Qaida saddle up trained suicide bombers with explosive jackets and put them onto leaky boats to eventually - if they're lucky - end up in a detention centre in Australia?

This issue highlights a fantasy in the minds of Australians, many of them immigrants themselves, like my dad. People get here and want to stake their claim. The media fan the flames.

Why would 2000 people a year getting in rate a mention? It didn't back in the 70s, but we were in a cold war back then and people saw the South Vietnamese as defectors and freedom-seekers.

Why is it any different now? Why do we defend the right to invest freely, but clamp down on the right to migrate and sell your labour somewhere else?

Australia is a much more thriving and interesting place than it was back in the 1970s, and this is all thanks to liberalised trade policies and immigration.

Immigration - and movement between borders - is a necessary part of democracy.

karnal - the 60s and 70s was one of the better times in aussie.
safest, people felt most connected, also few black immigrants and no muslims

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 9:55am:

karnal - the 60s and 70s was one of the better times in aussie. safest, people felt most connected, also few black immigrants and no muslims

No Muslims, SC, but yellow hoards of potentially communist Asians - and only 10 years after the White Australia Policy had been abandoned.

From what I remember, the backlash came in the 1980s, when people "played" spot-the-Aussie in Asian suburbs. The 1980s saw a heightened level of nationalistic fervour with the Bicentennial.

It was in the 1980s when Howard said that Asian immigration might be happening a bit too fast, and almost ruined his reputation for a number of years afterwards as a bigot.

How times change. Personally, I don't think people are scared by black immigrants - are they? Muslims, sure. Anyone on a boat, it seems. Anyone poor and desperate.

It doesn't make any sense to me, because from what I've seen, Australians are very generous and willing to help people in need - the Tsunami appeals, etc. We've got a huge country, we need new skills and labour - but we take in less refugees than anyone else.

Is it just the talkback cranks, or does it represent an ever-present "yellow-peril" fear still lurking in the Australian psyche?

Back in the 70s, both sides of politics saw the humanitarian resettlement of Vietnamese boat people as such an important issue it was bi-partisan. Multiculturalism was a Liberal Party policy with a bit of whinging from some of the redneck unions, but fully backed by Labour.

Why can't we do this now? We're more global in trade, travel, the internet. We are more of a multicultural country.

I don't understand it.

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 12:54pm:

How times change. Personally, I don't think people are scared by black immigrants - are they? Muslims, sure. Anyone on a boat, it seems. Anyone poor and desperate. ... I don't understand it.

Anyone who lands at any of the airports without a passport or a visa is put on the first plane back to where he came from. It should not be different if you come on a boat. No passport or visa - off you go.

And a plane ticket is a damn sight cheaper than a place on one of these boats - unless of course you are flying first class, in which case it's much of a muchness, price-wise.

Do you fly first class?

Quote:

Immigration - and movement between borders - is a necessary part of democracy.

What a load of smacking sh*t. Do you actually think before you make retarded statements like this?

Couldn't think of a more appropriate video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGDlDThM_0

"When a people becomes cheerfully willing to become a minority, when it becomes willing to turn its cities over to the families of aliens, it's a people that has reconciled itself to oblivion. It's a people that is preparing its own death as a nation."

The crisp, lucid voice of reality wafting out of a sea of mendacity and deception.

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 9:49am:

They gave him a free university education, Medicare, a good job, a fantastic pension, you name it.

Damned Whitlam government. lol

But on topic, I'll only support free movement to Australia when social security becomes limited to Australian-borns and citizens who have payed taxes for 10 years or more. Changing culture isn't much of an issue for me.


wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 9:57pm:

"When a people becomes cheerfully willing to become a minority, when it becomes willing to turn its cities over to the families of aliens, it's a people that has reconciled itself to oblivion. It's a people that is preparing its own death as a nation."

Would you like to elaborate on "death as a nation"? Really, what happens when we become a minority? Will we be "oppressed" or "discriminated against" like the minorities of today?

wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 9:57pm:

[quote]Immigration - and movement between borders - is a necessary part of democracy.

What a load of smacking sh*t. Do you actually think before you make retarded statements like this? [quote]

A nice, forceful rebuttal, Mercedes, and thanks for helping to answer my question.

I don't, however, understand your reasoning. I'm guessing your ancestors immigrated to this country, as they did to America and most other modern, western countries.

Australia requires immigration to meet its demand for skills. Our health system and aged-care sector wouldn't function, for instance, without immigrant nurses.

When you have a free movement of capital, you require a free movement of labour. By democracy, I guess I mean liberal-democracy within capitalism.

I know they once had Athenian city-states without (perhaps) much immigration. But they had slaves back then, so it didn't count.

By classing fellow human beings as "aliens," Mercedes, I think you do yourself a disservice. I'm sure some of your best friends are aliens, and I'm sure you've been to an alien country at least once in your life. We have been in oblivion since we got rid of the White Australia policy - so what?

You Tube links are fine, Mercedes, but it would help if your clarity and lucidity could assist you to craft a reply with words.

Quote:

Would you like to elaborate on "death as a nation"?

Certainly. The death of a nation entails one very important change; that of the replacement of the culture of the majority people. I have long maintained, on this forum, and elsewhere, that a culture can truly only be carried forward in a meaningful way by either the biological descendants of the people who created that culture or by their extended biological family (the race), not necessarily their direct antecedents in that instance. My justification for holding this belief should be obvious; as clustered behavioral tendencies of human beings tend to greatly differ (though are in no way uniform) across human groups, therefore, it should be expected that the culture, which is evidently in large part a manifestation of those biological tendencies, can not be fully transferred across racial boundaries. The replacement of the majority people in Australia; the Anglo-Saxon people, and to a lesser extent the whites of Continental Europe, by [insert some non-white people here] will probably see the end of the culture that I love in this nation, and as a result, the continunity of the nation of Australia as it hasbeen known since 1788, biological and traditional, will see its end too. Hence, 'the death of a nation'..

It should come as no surprise to anybody reading this either that the races poised to replace the Anglo-Saxon people have a much stronger sense of their own peoplehood than the aforementioned. If they are allowed to obtain majority status, it is unknown how they will deal with the former 'masters' of this land. Personally, I would rather not sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting to find out for sure. There is next to no benefit to minority immigration in the first place, but there is a plethora of risks both potential (with strong scientific and sociological justification to believe; this isn't crank nonsense) and concrete, as we are all able to observe at this current moment, to such a practice. If you find it silly for a nation to want to mitigate potential dangers at the expense of looking generous spirited and culturally sensitive, then you are placing your own personal image before the good of your own people.  And that, is watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

But then again..


Quote:

Changing culture isn't much of an issue for me.

Perhaps you have not ensconced a single root in this nation to begin with, and it is of no concern of you that tearing down thousands upon thousands of years of accumulated white culture would be a great loss. Though I don't even believe you when you say this; would you like a Saudi Arabian culture in your neighbourhood? How about your own little slice of Nigeria? It's very easy to sit about and talk about how it won't make any difference before the fact that it does. Don't cry to us when things have truly changed for the worst.


Quote:

Really, what happens when we become a minority?

Who knows? Do you really want to find out? I don't. All I know is that the other races of the world do not share the pathetic moral-universalism embraced by whites; they think in terms, generally, of what is good for them. They put their extended family first. The cries of a few million persecuted whites will not have them running with suitcases loaded with government money to our aid. And anyway, if we did become a minority in this country, we would not be the only people at risk. Do you think the Cantonense are going to behave with the same munificence to the Aboriginals as we do? Do you think they're going to put up with their disproportionate representaton in violent crimes, many of which will be directed at their own people? Whites have a tendency to sweep this sort of information under the rug; the Chinese will just unleash upon them a fury not seen since the whites of the 19th century.

I will get round to replying to post number two in a second.

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 10:45am:

Australia requires ...

Hold it right there. Australia requires...  

Not "Non-Australians require..."


You see, you got it even if you don't realise it. Immigration is a political decision by Australia. The Australian people. The body politic. As the name says, the Commonwealth of Australia.

It is not in common with anyone else but Australians. Their call, their decison, their body politic, their common wealth.


Not that of 'aliens' or whatever you want to call the out-group. (And a lot of them are aliens, you'd swear, or at least very, very strange indeed. )

wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 5:26pm:

Quote: Would you like to elaborate on "death as a nation"? Certainly. The death of a nation...

Well, I don't think there are any dangers to Anglo-saxons as a minority since we are generally wealthier and well-educated relative to other ethnic groups. The thing with the past natives (aborigines) is that they were never "wealthy" or "well-educated" in the global sense
of the word and so Terra Nullius was declared. This sort of thing would never happen now.


Quote:

[quote]Changing culture isn't much of an issue for me.

Perhaps you have not ensconced a single root in this nation to begin with, and it is of no concern of you that tearing down thousands upon thousands of years of accumulated white culture would be a great loss.... [/quote]
Perhaps, but I believe I don't belong anywhere else in the world (or to the extent that I belong in Sydney). A significant proportion of my relatives in the older generation were overseas workers in Saudi Arabia. I haven't really heard of any complaints... except from my aunt who got arrested for going to the markets by herself (I think). I think that Islam is becoming more progressive and is assimilating with the other cultures present here, so I don't think any significant change will occur, even if they have small communities. By the way, what is typical "white" culture generally associated with?


Quote:

[quote]Really, what happens when we become a minority?

Who knows? Do you really want to find out? I don't. All I know is that the other races of the world do not share the pathetic moral-universalism embraced by whites....[/quote]

Most of my friends are Chinese. I do not really feel that they are much different from myself. However, I do think that some only care for their extended family, but it really only does extend that far. My opinion is that they don't care for other families whether Chinese or not. I also can't really imagine white people being persecuted.

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 7:14pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 10th, 2009 at 10:45am: Australia requires ... Hold it right there. Australia requires...   Not "Non-Australians require..." You see, you got it even if you don't realise it. Immigration is a political decision by Australia. The Australian people. The body politic. As the name says, the Commonwealth of Australia. It is not in common with anyone else but Australians. Their call, their decison, their body politic, their common wealth. Not that of 'aliens' or whatever you want to call the out-group. (And a lot of them are aliens, you'd swear, or at least very, very strange indeed. )

I think part of the problem is that immigration is a political decision. As Tim Flannery argues, immigration levels should be decided by an independant board - like interest rates. This would take immigration outside the dog-whistle, wedge politics it has been for the last 10 years or so, and make it a more independant process.

Our creaking infrastructure and growing environmental problems mean that we will need a more planned approach to immigration - not to mention urban planning (and not to mention the environment). Sydney should not be left to bear the brunt on its own.

But, as signatories to the UN charter on refugees, we can't just throw them all back into the sea.

I'm still not sure what the fear is. Less than 2000 boat people arrive in Australia most years - as opposed, for example, to over one million refugees in Pakistan in the year 2000 - why is this the issue it has become?

I'm starting to believe that it's racism. Yes, some of "them" are "very strange indeed," but you'd be a bit strange if you'd seen what war can do. Our wars too: you can't say our "body politic" has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan.

So we're able to send the bombers in, we're able to pipe the oil out, and when the refugees start coming, we're able to say:

It's our country and we'll decide who comes here.

It's funny how most of us hate the political process, but we'll defend it to the hilt when the above comments ring a Pavlovian bell. The common wealth, eh?

Australians seem haunted by the myths that this thread seeks to expose. I still don't get it (and I'm open to change my mind if anyone can enlighten me). My father used to argue the anti-immigration line, and it was a complete fallacy - he was an illegal immigrant himself - and he came here on a boat. It made no sense at all.

Anyway, he finally did some reading and he came around. As we all can - as I can.

If anyone can tell me why less than 2000 boat people should become a national crisis, but 10 - 20,000 people who overstay their holiday visas every year should be ignored, I'm all ears.

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 9:35am:

If anyone can tell me why less than 2000 boat people should become a national crisis, but 10 - 20,000 people who overstay their holiday visas every year should be ignored, I'm all ears.

I don't see anyone saying that the people who overstay their holiday visas should be ignored. In my opinion, an illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant, and they should not be allowed to stay in the country regardless of whether they came by boat or plane.

Dreaded "Big Brother" machinery could help here.

Hlysnan wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 2:53pm:

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 11th, 2009 at 9:35am: If anyone can tell me why less than 2000 boat people should become a national crisis, but 10 - 20,000 people who overstay their holiday visas every year should be ignored, I'm all ears. I don't see anyone saying that the people who overstay their holiday visas should be ignored. In my opinion, an illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant, and they should not be allowed to stay in the country regardless of whether they came by boat or plane.

A refugee is not an illegal immigrant. Under international treaty (and Australian law), you have the right to go somewhere else (or come here) if you fear persecution, torture, or false imprisonment in your own state.

As for the boat/plane thing, Australia spent billions on the so-called "Pacific solution." We excised our borders, set up contracts with governments in Nauru and Christmas Island, upped our border patrols (or said we did, anyway). We set up detention centres and left people there for up to 10 years while we processed their claims. 90% were found to be genuine refugees, many of them children.

These policies are designed to ward off the hoards of boat people we're supposed to get if we're not seen to be "tough." Most years we get less than 2000 boat people. Compare this to the flood of refugees they get in Indonesia or Thailand. Compare this, even, to the refugees they get in France and England.

We get a trickle. Consistently. We get so few boat people that all of them can be easily absorbed into our population. Our refugee quota is miniscule in comparison to the rest of the world.

People complain about refugees getting financial assistance - it costs well over $1000 a week to keep one person in detention. Newstart Allowance is about $250.

People fear the criminal element getting in, but long for a return to the glory days of our ancestral past. Until the early 19th Century in NSW criminals made up the bulk of the population - convicts and the legal criminal element of corrupt soldiers and administrators.

And until the 1960s, if you were deemed racially "okay", there were few checks on anybody immigrating to Australia. We wanted you.

The whole "people-smuggling" crisis is an excercise in media management. It's designed to appease people like Alan Jones and reach out to voters in swinging electorates. Under John Howard, much of it was a response to Pauline Hanson. It's a game the media and politicians play to stir up fear and get ratings, and manage that fear and get votes.

Unfortunately, this is how the "body politic" is managed: short news cycles, political solutions designed to be sold in short sound bites, and a constant atmosphere of crisis to keep people watching through the ad breaks.

Our national response to this issue is crisis-driven, and extremely expensive. At its heart lies an irrational fear: that we are being swamped by hoards of "very strange" people. In actual fact, we're not. It is a complete myth designed to keep you watching.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance indeed.

you have the right to try to escape somewhere else.
Somewhere has the right to refuse you.

Australians will decide who comes to australia and how they get here.

We USED to get few illegal immigrants/refugees under howards effective governance.
Now under rudds "beasuckertoeveryone" idealism we are getting swamped.

What does england and france think of their excessive illegal immigrants/refugees?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 12:56pm:

We USED to get few illegal immigrants/refugees under howards effective governance.

The highest number of boat arrivals occurred in 1999, 2000 & 2001 (4175, 4137 & 3039 people respectively).

The number of boat arrivals last financial year (until June 2009) was 1033.

karnal - I'm happy to accept your figues without checking or any reference given.

what about in the latter years of Howard ?
How many so far this year under rudd?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 1:29pm:

karnal - I'm happy to accept your figues without checking or any reference given. what about in the latter years of Howard ? How many so far this year under rudd?

I pulled this off a government website:

Boat arrivals by financial year since 1989
Year
Number of boats
Number of people
1989–90
3
224

1990–91
5
158

1991–92
3
78

1992–93
4
194

1993–94
6
194

1994–95
21
1071

1995–96
14
589

1996–97
13
365

1997–98
13
157

1998–99
42
921

1999–00
75
4175

2000–01
54
4137

2001–02
19
3039

2002–03
0
0

2003–04
3
82

2004–05
0
0

2005–06
8
61

2006–07
4
133

2007–08
3
25

2008–09 (1 July to 29 June)
23*
1033*

2009–10 (to 11 July)
1
73

*The asterisks include boat people who died at sea.

Sources:

2008–09: figures compiled by the authors from ministerial press releases and press reports. Note: not all boat arrivals are reported by the media and not all may be subject to ministerial press releases. As a result, there are discrepancies with DIAC data by calendar year in the table above. For example, according to DIAC, 16 boats had arrived in 2009 as at 21 June, but only 14 boats were reported in ministerial press releases.

Tx Karnal,
from 2002 onwards we had about 4 boats per year.
A highly successful policy. Imagine ALL the illegals who were NOT drowned.

rudd comes in, 23 boats in first year and an asterix for the drowned ones.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 2:57pm:

Tx Karnal, from 2002 onwards we had about 4 boats per year.

Not exactly, SC. We still got boats. We just excised the borders and sent them offshore for "processing".

Therefore, the ones that didn't make it to the mainland wouldn't show in the stats. Clever, eh? Ah, the effective governance of John Howard.

And the Howard years had a few asterisks themselves. You might remember SIEV X.

But if you're claiming that the intention of the Howard/Ruddock policy was to save the lives of refugees - why would you turn boats back?

The intention of the policy was to keep 2000-odd boat people a year out.

Sounds like a lot of fuss to me.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 1:29pm:

karnal - I'm happy to accept your figues without checking or any reference given. what about in the latter years of Howard ? How many so far this year under rudd?

Thats a very simplistic way to look at it sprint. What you really need to look at is -
1-The later years of the Howard gov saw ALL countries have a reduced amount of boats to their shores, and those other countries never came up with sneaky ways to fudge the figures like the rodent did.
2- This last year MOST western if not all western countries have had a large increase in boats arrivals, in fact Australia is way down the list on both arrivals AND those even wanting to come here. Most people from third world countries have got the message Australians are racist and most boat people would prefer Canada as their prefered choice.

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 3:31pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 12th, 2009 at 2:57pm: Tx Karnal, from 2002 onwards we had about 4 boats per year. Not exactly, SC. We still got boats. We just excised the borders and sent them offshore for "processing". Therefore, the ones that didn't make it to the mainland wouldn't show in the stats. Clever, eh? Ah, the effective governance of John Howard. And the Howard years had a few asterisks themselves. You might remember SIEV X. But if you're claiming that the intention of the Howard/Ruddock policy was to save the lives of refugees - why would you turn boats back? The intention of the policy was to keep 2000-odd boat people a year out. Sounds like a lot of fuss to me.

The point of it is that Australia takes a certain number of refugees. How many is entirely Australia's decision. Most refugees around the world are in camps. That is where their claims are heard and assessed. From there they are taken to the countries that accept them.

Coming by boat is not a separat migration category.Whoever comes by boat and is accepted takes one of the places of the annual refugee intake quota. When that number is reached (more or less), the shop is closed, so to speak, for the year.

What is the right number of refugees we should take?

If everyone on boats was a refugee, we could say that we are not dealing with the UNHCR and we are not taking people from camps but rather we are filling our quota by relying exclusively on people smugglers (now promoted to refugee travel agents) who convey to us our required quota of refugees in exchgange for a fee of a few thousan dollars, payable by those refugees.

The question is - what do you do if you reach your refuge quota by August? May? Mid February? What do you do with the people who keep coming on the boats after you have reached your annual intake limit?

So the point is: if you disagree about where the line is drawn - where would you draw it? Or are you suggesting that there should not be a line? Should we just have no limit to the number of refugees?  

And if you are going to suggest a line, how would you police it?

karnel - good posting tx.
the intent of not letting illegal boat people into aussie was 'cause we did not want them here.
A side benefit was less of them came and less drowned at sea.

Quote:

What is the right number of refugees we should take

There is no RIGHT number, the're f@cking people.
Menzies and Holt signed the UN treaty back in the 50s to process  refos should they turn up on our doorstep, Menzies would be turning in his grave to see what a bunch of racist retards now support his party.

so under plan skippy, the whole world can come here?
I can see why you are not PM.



Quote:

The United Kingdom would like the option to process asylum claims offshore just like Australia, a former British home secretary says. "We always wished that we had a Christmas Island because it would have made it (processing) simpler and easier to deal with," David Blunkett told ABC Television on Friday. Processing claims offshore makes sense because asylum seekers do not have the same access to appeal mechanisms as those who make it to the mainland, he said. "If you can do it (process claims) elsewhere, you can then return people more easily to their country of origin. "It would have avoided a situation ... where they could prolong their claims and counterclaims for months, in some cases years."

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/uk-needs-a-christmas-island-exminister-20091113-icy6.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 8:27am:

so under plan skippy, the whole world can come here? I can see why you are not PM. Quote: The United Kingdom would like the option to process asylum claims offshore just like Australia, a former British home secretary says. "We always wished that we had a Christmas Island because it would have made it (processing) simpler and easier to deal with," David Blunkett told ABC Television on Friday. Processing claims offshore makes sense because asylum seekers do not have the same access to appeal mechanisms as those who make it to the mainland, he said. "If you can do it (process claims) elsewhere, you can then return people more easily to their country of origin. "It would have avoided a situation ... where they could prolong their claims and counterclaims for months, in some cases years." http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/uk-needs-a-christmas-island-exminister-20091113-icy6.html

NO, under plan skippy we would do what f@ckin Menzies and Holt signed up for.

Soren wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 7:31pm:

Coming by boat is not a separat migration category.Whoever comes by boat and is accepted takes one of the places of the annual refugee intake quota. When that number is reached (more or less), the shop is closed, so to speak, for the year.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? It's what most western countries with shared borders do. It's what America does with its refugees (and they get a ton).

But there's the issue of the "queue". It isn't that the government doesn't want refugees (they are signatories to the UN treaty, after all). It's that they only want appropriately "processed" refugees from UN refugee camps: the queue.

The refugees who arrived on boats during the Howard years were labelled "queue jumpers" and put in detention. So it's not that they have the right to come here and we have the right to reject them: they come here and, if they claim asylum, we put them in jail.

And once we let them go, DIMIA gave them a bill for a few hundred thousand. A nice goodbye. I don't know if anyone actually paid this off - that wasn't the point.

The point was to subjugate and humiliate asylum seekers to deter future arrivals. The "tough" part of the policy that, thankfully, Labor did away with (but that the Libs voted to keep).

The REAL illegal immigrants are the people who overstay their visas. These figures are quite easy to work out, but I've never seen them published. Why? Because it makes a mockery of the whole debate. There must be ten to twenty times the number of real "illegals" that came in on planes to people who come in on boats.

I remember when the Hawke Government gave an amnesty to Chinese students, many living on expired visas in Australia at the time of Tienanmien Square. Tens, if not, hundreds of thousands of people were given asylum overnight. This could never happen today - it was tough back then, too. Hawke almost backflipped, but he rode out the flack.

What seems to be true from reading the above posts is that Australians deeply fear being swamped by boat people - Asian and middle eastern boat people. But if you look at the actual figures (and yes, I know they're prone to manipulation) you'll see that the number is miniscule.

There is really nothing to worry about.

Every new boat that the media find out about gets reported as if it's a major national crisis, but it's just a few desperate families on a leaky boat - why not just assess them on the mainland and accept them into our refugee intake?

This, of course, was the solution the Rudd government came up with in pulling back the whole "Pacific solution". Now look what's happened. The one thing the Labor government didn't count on, I'm guessing, was the reaction of the media and the irrational fear of the Australian people - many of whom, like my father, were boat people themselves.

The politics of Howard, Ruddock, Reith, and the top-down lies of refugee parents throwing their children into the sea are now history. But the nerve they tapped is still - clearly - a part of our political culture.

Therefore, the point isn't about drawing a line - we already have one of these. It's about managing the politics of the debate. So I'll throw the question to you: how do you do this?

this is a post of mine from another thread, it shows those who over stay their visa and those who come by plane and boat.
It proves Karnals point about the real illegal immigrants being visa overstayers.


Year over        Total    
      stayers     unauthorised
                      arrivals   By boat  By air
97 - 98 50,950 1,715 157 (3 boats) 1,558
98 - 99 53,150 3,027 921 (42) 2,106
99 - 00 58,748 5,870 4,175 (75) 1,695
00 - 01 60,000 5,649 4,137 (54) 1,512
01 - 02 60,400 4,842 3,649 (23) 1,193
02 - 03 59,800 987 0 987
03 - 04 50,900 1,323 82 (3) 1,241
04 - 05 47,800 1,632 0 1,632
05 - 06 46,400 1,654 56 (4) 1,598
06 - 07 46,500 1,523 135 (5) 1,388
07 - 08 48,500 1,476 25 (3) 1,451

Everybody needs a cold shower, have a look at the numbers of people who are living illegally in Australia-
in 2007-08 48500 overstayed their visa
25 came here by boat.
But 1451 came by air.

What do we do about these plane people should be the question.

wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 10:25am:

What do we do about these plane people should be the question.

Yes, Skippy, it changes the debate somewhat. Boat people claim asylum as refugees - legally. Visa overstayers live and work illegally - and they must stay underground to go undetected.

The anti-boat people argument (and the whole aparatus of territorial excisions and detention centres) is an anti-refugee argument. My guess is its racially motivated because many of the visa overstayers are Europeans.

The whole "we decide who comes to our country" argument is misguided. We might decide who we give visas to, but we have no say over who will illegally stay.

With asylum seekers, you know.

pardon leftards, what was that you said ???????????????
"...........looks like howard WAS right ALL along ......"

idiotic leftard voters
go and drivel on about how "we should do more, then go there and do it youorself




Quote:

AN Australian naval vessel has intercepted a boat carrying 56 suspected asylum seekers and two crew off Australia's northwest coast. The vessel was intercepted by HMAS Bathurst at about 3.35pm (AEDT) today about 100 nautical miles northwest of Derby. It is the 46th asylum seeker boat intercepted in Australian waters this year and the second in as many days. The group will be transferred to Christmas Island where they will undergo security, identity and health checks and their reasons for travel will be established. Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone said the latest arrivals would put further pressure on already stretched detention facilities. "Now is the time for Prime Minister Rudd to acknowledge his role in opening the floodgates for this flotilla of smuggler boats making their way to the new life their clients anticipate in Australia," she said. Dr Stone said Australia's immigration reputation was "in tatters". "The Australian Government has lost control of who comes into this country and instead is captured by the actions of criminal syndicates," she said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/another-asylum-boat-intercepted/story-fn3dxiwe-1225802440333

Tell me sprint, you seem to think Howard "had it all under control" so why did the Howard gov build an 800 bed detention centre on xmas island?

prob 'cuase a detention was reguired somewhere.
More economic to build a biggish one, than one that will only take 100 people.

purely a guess of mine skippy.

wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 10:25am:

What do we do about these plane people should be the question.

Yes, good question.

'Plane people' are OK for those airheads with mindless illusions of affluence... where 'air traveller' = 'jet set' = 'affluent' = 'good'.

And the MSM has only enough resources to feed the hungriest hog - The mindless... those triggered by only the most superficial of archetypes... 'Boat people' being one of the most superficial for 'immigrants'. After all, how did immigrants traditionally arrive in Australia?

Maybe stupidity has a 40+ year delay in update of its mindset.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 8:11am:

prob 'cuase a detention was reguired somewhere. More economic to build a biggish one, than one that will only take 100 people. purely a guess of mine skippy.

But you said Howard had it all under control, how is that if he needed an 800 bed centre on xmas island?
If Howard had it all under control xmas island would not be needed, would it?

skippy - you are REALLY down to nitpicking now

the detention centre is overcrowded already, going to complain it was not big enough?
perhaps johnny the immaculate KNEW one day leftards would get back in contriol and invite all the losers here, so more accommodation would be required ?

maybe it is a place for the muslims of mainland aussie ?

Maybe its time to review the status of Kiwis who can immigrate into Australia as automatic permanent residents.

Maybe its time to review your brain cell.   ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:41am:

Maybe its time to review your brain cell.   ;)

Yep. As expected... Fulfilling your role here... The halfwit with the big mouth.

Australia has too lax a policy on its blanket acceptance of people from one particular nation over any other. Wonder how many crims cross the Tasman daily.

so, you stand for anything ? or just whatever rudd says is good enough for you ?
how do you reconcile ruddy is a christian ? Turn a blind ignorant eye ?

MANY crims from NZ have "escaped" over here.

That's one of the reasons many good kiwis come over here, to get away from the flotsam and jetsam.
At one stage kiwis did not even need a passport !!! Just jump on a plane, may as well be a bus trip.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

so, you stand for anything ? or just whatever rudd says is good enough for you ? how do you reconcile ruddy is a christian ? Turn a blind ignorant eye ? MANY crims from NZ have "escaped" over here. That's one of the reasons many good kiwis come over here, to get away from the flotsam and jetsam. At one stage kiwis did not even need a passport !!! Just jump on a plane, may as well be a bus trip.

More half-baked sloganeering...

Rudd's significance for me is that he's a politician. I don't expect a politician to bring religion to the job.

Given the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is a compassion for the human condition that transcends all self-interest, it's hard enough for me to reconcile your attitude with Christianity.

Many crims have escaped over here eh? How many Kiwi crims have infected Australia compared to "boat people" crims. What's the bet it's more than 1000 to 1?

go read the bible helian.
how does this reconcile with your limpwristed ideals of christianity ?


Quote:

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

Matthew 5:13

i'ld think the numbers of ILLEGAL kiwis who come over here are less than you think.

where would QLD be without Jo Bjelke-petersen ? An ex-kiwi.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 5:16pm:

go read the bible helian. how does this reconcile with your limpwristed ideals of christianity ? Quote: "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. Matthew 5:13 i'ld think the numbers of ILLEGAL kiwis who come over here are less than you think. where would QLD be without Jo Bjelke-petersen ? An ex-kiwi.

Yes, the usual response from half-baked Christians... They're usually ones who've stumbled on the religion (i.e. had only rudimentary education in Christianity or none at all), subscribing to the whacko drivel emanating from self-declared pastors and often have hangups about their sexuality... Often evidenced by their use of terms like softcock, limp-wristed and namby-pamby... A deep fear of being feminised by the religion... However the core of the Christian message is about compassion/love for all including enemies and not about proving you've still got balls (I believe Islam is more about that, ironically).

There are no bloody illegal Kiwis... That's the friggin point... Because Kiwis have a right to permanent residence, there's no way to control the steady flow of trash that crosses the Tasman... Particularly if Kiwi law enforcement is happy to see them go and doesn't alert Australian authorities to the travel plans of known trash....

Here's a little gem

Kiwi thug wins right to stay in Australia

Yes, that's the point helian. Some kiwis are rightly refused entry into Aussie .
I would not have them in my house, sure don't want them in Aussie !!!!
Your example is a gem, no way I'ld allow him in Aussie.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 8:19am:

Yes, that's the point helian. Some kiwis are rightly refused entry into Aussie . I would not have them in my house, sure don't want them in Aussie !!!! Your example is a gem, no way I'ld allow him in Aussie.

No, the point is that very few Kiwis are prohibited from entry into Australia and once they arrive, there is no limit to the amount of time they may reside here. So long as Australian authorities are unaware of the immigrant's character, nothing stops garbage from crossing the Tasman and living permanently in Australia.

Well may you say 'there's no way'... But there was a way... and despite his low character, he's still among us.

If there is "no way", we should make one. Aussie has the responsibility to protect our own shores.

perhaps we should be more vigilant of ne'er do wells from NZ.
perhaps also have a limited time  for kiwis coming over here unless they fulfill specific criteria ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

If there is "no way", we should make one. Aussie has the responsibility to protect our own shores. perhaps we should be more vigilant of ne'er do wells from NZ. perhaps also have a limited time  for kiwis coming over here unless they fulfill specific criteria ?

Which raises the question of which is more a threat to Australian security? The asylum seeker who has risked and lost everything to come to Australia, often waiting for years in stinking, disease-ridden refugee camps... Who, out of despair, pays a people-smuggler thousands of dollars (a lifetime's savings) in a desperate bid to secure a future for his wife and children... Or the Kiwi crim who hops a flight from Auckland for a couple of hundred dollars before he's detained by Kiwi cops for some charge he'll soon be up on?

the illegal asylum seeker or the legitimate (albeit not nice) kiwi ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 12:20pm:

the illegal asylum seeker or the legitimate (albeit not nice) kiwi ??

Let's use the term 'legitimate' loosely and advisedly... Slack Australian laws let in garbage from across the Tasman. There is no system applicable to Kiwis that scrutinises them to anywhere near the same degree as asylum seekers. So long as they can slink in past customs... then here they are... the buggered up and dangerous in with the good ones and Australia is none the wiser till they commit armed robberies, murders, violent assaults etc... If an asylum seeker so much as stole a biro from Immigration officials, it'd be splashed across the front pages of the Slush Post... grist for the mindless hogs to go apeshit over. My bet would be that the chances of receiving high risk immigrants is hundreds of times greater coming from NZ than asylum seekers from anywhere else in the world.

the word "legitimate" is a legal word.
legal words are not loose.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 1:44pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 25th, 2009 at 12:20pm: the illegal asylum seeker or the legitimate (albeit not nice) kiwi ?? Let's use the term 'legitimate' loosely and advisedly... Slack Australian laws let in garbage from across the Tasman. There is no system applicable to Kiwis that scrutinises them to anywhere near the same degree as asylum seekers. So long as they can slink in past customs... then here they are... the buggered up and dangerous in with the good ones and Australia is none the wiser till they commit armed robberies, murders, violent assaults etc... If an asylum seeker so much as stole a biro from Immigration officials, it'd be splashed across the front pages of the Slush Post... grist for the mindless hogs to go apeshit over. My bet would be that the chances of receiving high risk immigrants is hundreds of times greater coming from NZ than asylum seekers from anywhere else in the world.

To be fair to the NZers, who would we use as bouncers in night clubs without them? Aussies are far to smart to keep turning up night after night to get their heads smashed in.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 2:21pm:

the word "legitimate" is a legal word. legal words are not loose.

Just a nicety.

Would you call a Kiwi with a history of violence in NZ someone who should have a legitimate claim to immigrating into Australia without qualification?

helian - Not at all. Never.

And kiwis that have been here a while and drive around with a kiwi flag on their car are on the short list to being given the flick too.

I saw a kiwi walking around with a t-shirt on saying "Wairoa, forever".
if it is that bloody good, why are you here mate ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 3:19pm:

helian - Not at all. Never.

So "legitimate immigrants" would be somewhat of a loose term then... At least in the context of having an immigration "right" that deserves any respect.

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 9:49am:

The population fear boat people because they're - I have to say it - Asian and poor. The whole terrorist line highlights this. Why would an organisation like Al Qaida saddle up trained suicide bombers with explosive jackets and put them onto leaky boats to eventually - if they're lucky - end up in a detention centre in Australia?

Breathe easy - not only Australians have an aversion, as you imply, to poor Asians, especially Mohamedans. They are also Al Qaida's preferred target, apparently.


Al-Qaida Kills Eight Times More Muslims Than Non-Muslims
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,660619,00.html



As Comical Abu never tires to ask: What would you do if somebody invaded Australia? Wouldn't you start killing your fellow Australians, too? Mohammedans would, judging from their record, starting with other Mohamedans. i