Quote:

My blog last week about the politicisation of Asylum seekers and refugees prompted quite a bit of reaction and I promised a number of readers that I’d do some research on the actual financial assistance they receive. There are so many misleading rumours and “facts” around at the moment regarding asylum seekers and the benefits they get from the government. One hoax email in particular is doing the rounds telling people that “illegal immigrants/refugees” receive thousands more in welfare payments than Australian pensioners. Emails like this are completely fabricated and made up purely to conjure up negative sentiment towards asylum seekers. If you’ve received an email which looks like this you should delete it, tell whoever sent it to you that they’re an idiot, and learn the facts… •First of all, refugees are not illegal immigrants. It has never been illegal in Australia to arrive on shore without a visa seeking asylum. In fact it’s one of the rights within the UN’s declarations on refugees which Australia helped to write. •When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner. •Once an asylum seeker is recognised as a genuine refugee, after a long and highly scrutinized process, they are given permanent residency and are then entitled to the same Centrelink, schooling and health benefits as anyone else. No more, no less. •The normal Centrelink welfare payment is $456 per fortnight, for a refugee with permanent residency and an Australian-born person. A pensioner in Australia receives $671.90. Over $200 more each fortnight. Even with family/parenting benefits, a refugee’s benefits would still be less than a pensioner’s income. •For an asylum seeker to qualify for any payment under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, they must have lodged an application for a visa 6 months before, not be in detention, and not get any other payment or benefit. •To get a permanent residence as a refugee, the person has to prove they are a genuine refugee fleeing persecution, go through character, security and medical tests, and sign an Australian Values Statement. •‘Boat people’ are asylum seekers. Refugees are asylum seekers who have been approved and given a visa. None of them are ‘illegal immigrants’. The above facts come from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Refugee Council of Australia, and from the Red Cross. A lot more reliable than a random email from a friend of a friend. Before you make a judgment on asylum seeker policy, know the facts. For more info, have a read of these: - Myths about refugees and asylum seekers: the answers - Response to lies and hoax emails – Refugee Council of Australia - Media Blunders on asylum seeker claims - Assistance for Asylum seekers in Australia - DIAC - Related articles: Avoid the POlitical Spin - Some Facts About Asylum Seekers

http://www.kochie.com.au/20100713172/the-real-benefits-for-asylum-seekers-in-australia

Fantastic post.


Thank you for educating us all and hopefully stop some here from consciously / unconsciously spreading mis-information.

____ wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 5:24am:

Fantastic post. Thank you for educating us all and hopefully stop some here from consciously / unconsciously spreading mis-information.

It probably won't.

None so blind, amd all that.......

Sadly I don't think the facts count- or will matter- to those that are against boat people. Those against asylum seekers will find any excuse and will continue to ignore the facts. Maybe,  it makes them feel superior.

I am shocked that the few noble minded on here seem to think thats the half dozen that can be bothered with these sort of threads... actually make up the mindset of ALL AUSTRALIANS>

weird..


I think from my own point of view.. its the way they come in that is wrong..

and the so called bleeding hearts use that to twist it into a hate campaign. this also is WRONG.

I have personal experience through my daughter who owns an investment property that is now let to an Iraqi family.. the whole thing has been done through the immigration dept..they have paid for everything..they were told this family waited 3 years in Turkey and were processed there so on arrival here they were very well looked after..they went through the right channels..

there are right and wrong ways of going about things..and I think those of us that are against the back door approach have as much right to speak out without being called every damnation in the book.

cods wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

I am shocked that the few noble minded on here seem to think thats the half dozen that can be bothered with these sort of threads... actually make up the mindset of ALL AUSTRALIANS> weird.. I think from my own point of view.. its the way they come in that is wrong.. and the so called bleeding hearts use that to twist it into a hate campaign. this also is WRONG. I have personal experience through my daughter who owns an investment property that is now let to an Iraqi family.. the whole thing has been done through the immigration dept..they have paid for everything..they were told this family waited 3 years in Turkey and were processed there so on arrival here they were very well looked after..they went through the right channels.. there are right and wrong ways of going about things..and I think those of us that are against the back door approach have as much right to speak out without being called every damnation in the book.

Many agree there is a right & wrong way to go about things, and these boat people are doing it all wrong and forcing Australians to accept their bad inappropriate behaviour.  I would personally like to see all these boat people arrivals sent back to the departure destination regardless of their refugee claims in favor of the genuine people waiting in refugee camps around the world.   

What disturbs me is that these boat people have deliberately and knowingly illegally hired the services of people smugglers to smuggle them into Australia knowing this was an illegal and criminal offense.

Therefore it begs the question as to what character these boat people are going to be bring into my country verses the character of other innocent refugees waiting patiently in camps to be relocated.

All the Australian Government has to do is legislate that any person arriving by boat will not be processed or accepted into Australia regardless of their claim, and will be sent elsewhere.

This will stop the people smuggler trade instantly!! and open the door for more genuine refugees to be accepted into Australia from the camps.    

Quote:

•When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner.

..While being provided with food, board, ciggies, internet access.  In fact, it's hard to see what expenses they incur at all - can't see too many unemployed or pensioners being able to save $400 a fortnight, as they have to pay for all of these things out of their own pocket.

Very deceptive Kochie.  For shame.

culldav wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:20am:

All the Australian Government has to do is legislate that any person arriving by boat will not be processed or accepted into Australia regardless of their claim, and will be sent elsewhere. This will stop the people smuggler trade instantly!! and open the door for more genuine refugees to be accepted into Australia from the camps.

Isnt that what the Malaysia solution is all about. Sends the boat person right back where they started from. Although this is a very harsh penalty, it seems to be about the only one that could "stop the boats."

Sending them to an "australian processing centre" in Nauru is not much different from processing them in Australia. If they fail to get Australian refugee status, there arent exactly going to be allowed to stay in Nauru ?

Thanks.

While I am aware of most of that info I suspect it would be a surprise to a number here.

Funny thing is that although this info has been put up many times some of the people who comment on it will go back to posting the same foundless rubbish withing a week or two.

I think some like to say that refugees get more than pensioners even though they know it isn't true.

... wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

Quote: •When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner. ..While being provided with food, board, ciggies, internet access.  In fact, it's hard to see what expenses they incur at all - can't see too many unemployed or pensioners being able to save $400 a fortnight, as they have to pay for all of these things out of their own pocket. Very deceptive Kochie.  For shame.

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme is not given to people in detention.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

... wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:35am: Quote: •When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner. ..While being provided with food, board, ciggies, internet access.  In fact, it's hard to see what expenses they incur at all - can't see too many unemployed or pensioners being able to save $400 a fortnight, as they have to pay for all of these things out of their own pocket. Very deceptive Kochie.  For shame. The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme is not given to people in detention.

So where are they while they are being processed?

just checked a link, and you are correct about hat:


Quote:

ASAS eligibility criteria An asylum seeker may be eligible for ASAS if they have a valid application for a protection visa lodged with the department and where: •the date of lodgement of the protection visa application is more than six months old and the applicant is waiting for a decision •the date of lodgement of the protection visa application is less than six months old, the applicant is waiting for a decision and meets one of the ASAS exemption criteria •the protection visa application was refused by the department and the applicant has lodged an application for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal and continues to meet the ASAS exemption criteria •the applicant is not in immigration detention •the applicant holds a visa •the applicant is not be eligible for either Australian or overseas government income support.

So if it's not available to people in detention, then they're not even talking about boat people at all.

Still deceptive, though in a different way.

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme doesn't apply to people arriving by boat. It's only for people who have arrived with a visa who then seek a protection visa.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

Thanks. While I am aware of most of that info I suspect it would be a surprise to a number here. Funny thing is that although this info has been put up many times some of the people who comment on it will go back to posting the same foundless rubbish withing a week or two. I think some like to say that refugees get more than pensioners even though they know it isn't true.

an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner.




that $130  WEEK LESS DNA..JUST LESS CASH IN HAND.. WHAT ABOUT ALL THEIR MEDICAL BILLS?..oops sorry about caps..all the other Asylum Seekers Assistance Schemes...are also available to them....where does the ASAS get their money from????????

look all we are sayin gis 12000 have some to these shores via boats in 4 years...it doesnt matter what they are called.. they still came via people smugglers...

they are doing a damn sight better than they would be on their home soil.. and they are doing a lot better than those that wait their turn in the queues/camps  that are all over the world.. and just dont have the money to buy a seat on a rickety boat.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 11:05am:

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme doesn't apply to people arriving by boat. It's only for people who have arrived with a visa who then seek a protection visa.

Yep, though it is frustrating trying to find a straight answer on what people are eligible for while in detention.  Most sources I can find say they are eligible for 'an undisclosed amount'.  another common dodge is saying they are not eligible for centrelink benfits, while not saying that they ARE eligible for benefits from the DIAC.I did find this though:


Quote:

A FAMILY of four asylum-seekers living on Christmas Island in community detention receives up to $1000 a fortnight from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). DIAC spokesman Sandi Logan said 33 asylum-seekers who had undergone health and security checks were living in houses in the community while awaiting outcomes of their visa applications. A further 40 asylum-seekers, mostly family groups, women, children and those with special needs, are in alternative detention while 193 single men are detained at the Christmas Island Detention Centre. Women and children are not housed in the detention centre itself, and instead live in alternative detention called the construction camp near the Poon Saan neighbourhood on the island. Mr Logan said adults in community detention were given $100 cash and $360 in store credit, which can be used at one of two local stores, a fortnight to buy food and other items. A family of two adults and two children would receive $300 cash and $766 store credit each fortnight, which is administered by the Red Cross. There were no figures available for the number of families on the island. Those under the age of 18 who were deemed unaccompanied minors in community detention receive $50 a week and each household consisting of up to five minors, who are looked after by a carer, is given $900 a week for food and supplies. Mr Logan said those on community detention had to cook and buy their own food. "We can't put them out in community detention and let them starve," he said. Some chose to save their money and buy luxury items including sunglasses and MP3 players, and were entitled to do so, Mr Logan said. Inside the detention centre, detainees have 20 internet terminals. "There is also a telephone available in each of the (eight) compounds and they are issued with a phone card each week to make phone calls, it could be to their representatives, to friends or to others ...," Mr Logan said. The calls are unrestricted and include international calls. Mr Logan said the detainees are encouraged to participate in activities and are rewarded for attending English classes and helping out in the detention centre. The reward system has been in place for some time in Australian detention centres, Mr Logan said. Detainees are free to move around the inside of the detention centre, often playing cricket and soccer on the oval, but have a night-time curfew when they go back to their single rooms. The centre was built by the Howard government at a cost of $400 million and is located on the remote corner of Christmas Island, an Australian territory 2,600km northwest of Perth. More than 200 people including 38 DIAC staff are on the island to support the centre. More than 130 asylum-seekers picked up in the interception of four boats since Saturday, including two today, will also be taken to Christmas Island. It is not known when they will arrive on the island.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/asylum-seekers-receive-payments/story-e6frfku0-1225705217900#ixzz1iRnMMSqK

bomen_guy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 3:04am:

Quote: My blog last week about the politicisation of Asylum seekers and refugees prompted quite a bit of reaction and I promised a number of readers that I’d do some research on the actual financial assistance they receive. There are so many misleading rumours and “facts” around at the moment regarding asylum seekers and the benefits they get from the government. One hoax email in particular is doing the rounds telling people that “illegal immigrants/refugees” receive thousands more in welfare payments than Australian pensioners. Emails like this are completely fabricated and made up purely to conjure up negative sentiment towards asylum seekers. If you’ve received an email which looks like this you should delete it, tell whoever sent it to you that they’re an idiot, and learn the facts… •First of all, refugees are not illegal immigrants. It has never been illegal in Australia to arrive on shore without a visa seeking asylum. In fact it’s one of the rights within the UN’s declarations on refugees which Australia helped to write. •When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner. •Once an asylum seeker is recognised as a genuine refugee, after a long and highly scrutinized process, they are given permanent residency and are then entitled to the same Centrelink, schooling and health benefits as anyone else. No more, no less. •The normal Centrelink welfare payment is $456 per fortnight, for a refugee with permanent residency and an Australian-born person. A pensioner in Australia receives $671.90. Over $200 more each fortnight. Even with family/parenting benefits, a refugee’s benefits would still be less than a pensioner’s income. •For an asylum seeker to qualify for any payment under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, they must have lodged an application for a visa 6 months before, not be in detention, and not get any other payment or benefit. •To get a permanent residence as a refugee, the person has to prove they are a genuine refugee fleeing persecution, go through character, security and medical tests, and sign an Australian Values Statement. •‘Boat people’ are asylum seekers. Refugees are asylum seekers who have been approved and given a visa. None of them are ‘illegal immigrants’. The above facts come from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Refugee Council of Australia, and from the Red Cross. A lot more reliable than a random email from a friend of a friend. Before you make a judgment on asylum seeker policy, know the facts. For more info, have a read of these: - Myths about refugees and asylum seekers: the answers - Response to lies and hoax emails – Refugee Council of Australia - Media Blunders on asylum seeker claims - Assistance for Asylum seekers in Australia - DIAC - Related articles: Avoid the POlitical Spin - Some Facts About Asylum Seekers http://www.kochie.com.au/20100713172/the-real-benefits-for-asylum-seekers-in-australia

Actually they are suspected illegal entrants until they set foot in a migration zone and then they are 'unlawful non-citizens' until proven otherwise.

The issue at hand which the activist propaganda cited fails to mention is that apart from the 'unlawful' means of entry the act of smuggling people past immigration controls is very dangerous and as seen recently deadly.

To apply for asylum and all the benefit therein a non-citizen needs to set foot in a migration zone.  The people traffickers know this, which is exactly why they demand high payments to transport people to the mainland, Xmas Island & Ashmore Reef territories would be easier, but because they are NOT AUST MIGRATION ZONES the mainland is targetted.

Territories such as Xmas Island & Ashmore Reef etc have therefore been excised from the Australian migration zone not to demonise asylum seekers as lying activists claim but to deter the unlawfull trafficking of non-citizens into Australia.

Hence the policy of off-shore processing where Asylum Seeker's bonifides can be verified without all the ambulance chasers like Burnside abusing the Australian legal system and choking the courts with never ending litigation and appeals.

Migration Law was enacted for many reasons.  Regulating who enters the country is common sense.  Flouting the law is unacceptable.

... wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 11:11am:

...

OMG! Wesley has turned into an Elvis impersonator!  :D :D

Dammit, I was getting used to typing "hoseboy"...  ;D ;D

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

Actually they are suspected illegal entrants until they set foot in a migration zone and then they are 'unlawful non-citizens' until proven otherwise. The issue at hand which the activist propaganda cited fails to mention is that apart from the 'unlawful' means of entry the act of smuggling people past immigration controls is very dangerous and as seen recently deadly. To apply for asylum and all the benefit therein a non-citizen needs to set foot in a migration zone.  The people traffickers know this, which is exactly why they demand high payments to transport people to the mainland, Xmas Island & Ashmore Reef territories would be easier, but because they are NOT AUST MIGRATION ZONES the mainland is targetted. Territories such as Xmas Island & Ashmore Reef etc have therefore been excised from the Australian migration zone not to demonise asylum seekers as lying activists claim but to deter the unlawfull trafficking of non-citizens into Australia. Hence the policy of off-shore processing where Asylum Seeker's bonifides can be verified without all the ambulance chasers like Burnside abusing the Australian legal system and choking the courts with never ending litigation and appeals. Migration Law was enacted for many reasons.  Regulating who enters the country is common sense.  Flouting the law is unacceptable.

So if People smugglers had more luxury (sea-worthy) boats, it wouldnt be such a problem ?

ironically, its our policy of towing back seaworth vessels to international waters that make the people smugglers use the most dodgy boats they can find (so they wont be towed back out).

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 12:06pm: Actually they are suspected illegal entrants until they set foot in a migration zone and then they are 'unlawful non-citizens' until proven otherwise. The issue at hand which the activist propaganda cited fails to mention is that apart from the 'unlawful' means of entry the act of smuggling people past immigration controls is very dangerous and as seen recently deadly. To apply for asylum and all the benefit therein a non-citizen needs to set foot in a migration zone.  The people traffickers know this, which is exactly why they demand high payments to transport people to the mainland, Xmas Island & Ashmore Reef territories would be easier, but because they are NOT AUST MIGRATION ZONES the mainland is targetted. Territories such as Xmas Island & Ashmore Reef etc have therefore been excised from the Australian migration zone not to demonise asylum seekers as lying activists claim but to deter the unlawfull trafficking of non-citizens into Australia. Hence the policy of off-shore processing where Asylum Seeker's bonifides can be verified without all the ambulance chasers like Burnside abusing the Australian legal system and choking the courts with never ending litigation and appeals. Migration Law was enacted for many reasons.  Regulating who enters the country is common sense.  Flouting the law is unacceptable. So if People smugglers had more luxury (sea-worthy) boats, it wouldnt be such a problem ?

http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/kopfpatsch.gif     http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/icon_banghead.gif

... wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 11:11am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 11:05am: The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme doesn't apply to people arriving by boat. It's only for people who have arrived with a visa who then seek a protection visa. Yep, though it is frustrating trying to find a straight answer on what people are eligible for while in detention.  Most sources I can find say they are eligible for 'an undisclosed amount'.  another common dodge is saying they are not eligible for centrelink benfits, while not saying that they ARE eligible for benefits from the DIAC.I did find this though: Quote: A FAMILY of four asylum-seekers living on Christmas Island in community detention receives up to $1000 a fortnight from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). DIAC spokesman Sandi Logan said 33 asylum-seekers who had undergone health and security checks were living in houses in the community while awaiting outcomes of their visa applications. A further 40 asylum-seekers, mostly family groups, women, children and those with special needs, are in alternative detention while 193 single men are detained at the Christmas Island Detention Centre. Women and children are not housed in the detention centre itself, and instead live in alternative detention called the construction camp near the Poon Saan neighbourhood on the island. Mr Logan said adults in community detention were given $100 cash and $360 in store credit, which can be used at one of two local stores, a fortnight to buy food and other items. A family of two adults and two children would receive $300 cash and $766 store credit each fortnight, which is administered by the Red Cross. There were no figures available for the number of families on the island. Those under the age of 18 who were deemed unaccompanied minors in community detention receive $50 a week and each household consisting of up to five minors, who are looked after by a carer, is given $900 a week for food and supplies. Mr Logan said those on community detention had to cook and buy their own food. "We can't put them out in community detention and let them starve," he said. Some chose to save their money and buy luxury items including sunglasses and MP3 players, and were entitled to do so, Mr Logan said. Inside the detention centre, detainees have 20 internet terminals. "There is also a telephone available in each of the (eight) compounds and they are issued with a phone card each week to make phone calls, it could be to their representatives, to friends or to others ...," Mr Logan said. The calls are unrestricted and include international calls. Mr Logan said the detainees are encouraged to participate in activities and are rewarded for attending English classes and helping out in the detention centre. The reward system has been in place for some time in Australian detention centres, Mr Logan said. Detainees are free to move around the inside of the detention centre, often playing cricket and soccer on the oval, but have a night-time curfew when they go back to their single rooms. The centre was built by the Howard government at a cost of $400 million and is located on the remote corner of Christmas Island, an Australian territory 2,600km northwest of Perth. More than 200 people including 38 DIAC staff are on the island to support the centre. More than 130 asylum-seekers picked up in the interception of four boats since Saturday, including two today, will also be taken to Christmas Island. It is not known when they will arrive on the island. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/asylum-seekers-receive-payments/story-e6frfku0-1225705217900#ixzz1iRnMMSqK

I think its time the Government came "clean" and disclosed to the Australian tax payer exactly how much per week these boat people are getting or entitled to get.  Everything regarding costs and what these people are getting per week varies from agency to agency, and its time the whole "DIRTY" matter was revealed.

I don't believe politicians when they "flap-their-lip" anymore, I want them to provide evidence as a tax payer.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

Thanks. While I am aware of most of that info I suspect it would be a surprise to a number here. Funny thing is that although this info has been put up many times some of the people who comment on it will go back to posting the same foundless rubbish within a week or two.I think some like to say that refugees get more than pensioners even though they know it isn't true.

Sad, but true.

And too late, Can'o'Spam has already descended to those depths.

"..While being provided with food, board, ciggies, internet access.  In fact, it's hard to see what expenses they incur at all - can't see too many unemployed or pensioners being able to save $400 a fortnight, as they have to pay for all of these things out of their own pocket." (Spamboy)

Gist wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

... wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 11:11am: ... OMG! Wesley has turned into an Elvis impersonator!  :D :D Dammit, I was getting used to typing "hoseboy"...  ;D ;D

Maybe you upset his sense of "Faux Patriotism"

:D :D

Nothing to add to the topic froggie? 

... wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Nothing to add to the topic froggie?

If it amounts to the bile and bigotry you swamp the board with???

NO!!!

;)

Lobo wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

... wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:02pm: Nothing to add to the topic froggie?  If it amounts to the bile and bigotry you swamp the board with??? NO!!! ;)

And here was me trying to discuss the topic.

Perhaps if you can't do the same, you should piss off?

... wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Lobo wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:24pm: ... wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:02pm: Nothing to add to the topic froggie?  If it amounts to the bile and bigotry you swamp the board with??? NO!!! ;) And here was me trying to discuss the topic. Perhaps if you can't do the same, you should piss off?

Since when were you commissioned into the Board Police??
Kitchens/heat...You know how it goes.

Maybe.....
:)

Lobo wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:52am: Thanks. While I am aware of most of that info I suspect it would be a surprise to a number here. Funny thing is that although this info has been put up many times some of the people who comment on it will go back to posting the same foundless rubbish within a week or two.I think some like to say that refugees get more than pensioners even though they know it isn't true. Sad, but true. And too late, Can'o'Spam has already descended to those depths. "..While being provided with food, board, ciggies, internet access.  In fact, it's hard to see what expenses they incur at all - can't see too many unemployed or pensioners being able to save $400 a fortnight, as they have to pay for all of these things out of their own pocket." (Spamboy)

Reprise!!

Lobo wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 1:43pm:

... wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Lobo wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:24pm: ... wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:02pm: Nothing to add to the topic froggie?  If it amounts to the bile and bigotry you swamp the board with??? NO!!! ;) And here was me trying to discuss the topic. Perhaps if you can't do the same, you should piss off? Since when were you commissioned into the Board Police?? Kitchens/heat...You know how it goes. Maybe..... :)

Or we could just continue this childish tit-for-tat.  Not very interesting for anyone else though is it?

Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!!

::)

So in summary:

Malaysia solution:  Send Asylum seeker who arrive by boat back to the country they came from, granting them no rights in Australia, and making the risky boat journey fruitless.

Off-shore processing:  Gives the Asylum seeker the right to apply for refugee status through the government department, but no right to appeal though the courts.  (Although recent high court ruling means this may no longer be true)

On-shore processing: Same as off-shore processing, however low-risk asylum seekers can be assimulated into the community (kids, women) and not in a jail like environment, but they can clog up the courts with apealls.

Dodgy Boats: People smugglers use decrepit old boats that are sabotaged so that they cannot be towed out of Australian waters, but have to be taken in by navy/coast guard/passing ship/nearest island for processing.

____ wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 5:24am:

Fantastic post. Thank you for educating us all and hopefully stop some here from consciously / unconsciously spreading mis-information.

There are quite a few war-mongers on this board: their only job description is to spread the hate and this is mostly achieved by muddying the waters of communication!

If good people are there to counter it it can never work of course but the attacks will be everpresent as conflict-that-results-in-war is in some peoples long-term vested interests....

It's all a game of chess: the good can't sit back and do nothing whilst the war-mongers try to convince the majority that hate-that-leads-to-war is worth shrugging your shoulders at--->>

because it isn't!

  8-)

DOCUMENT SHOCK plays an important role in spreading the hate!

MUDDYING THE WATERS OF COMMUNICATION is the only weapon the hate mongers have!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

____ wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 5:24am: Fantastic post. Thank you for educating us all and hopefully stop some here from consciously / unconsciously spreading mis-information. There are quite a few war-mongers on this board: their only job description is to spread the hate and this is mostly achieved by muddying the waters of communication! If good people are there to counter it it can never work of course but the attacks will be everpresent as conflict-that-results-in-war is in some peoples long-term vested interests.... It's all a game of chess: the good can't sit back and do nothing whilst the war-mongers try to convince the majority that hate-that-leads-to-war is worth shrugging your shoulders at--->> because it isn't!   8-)

bump, to help destroy the war-mongering propagandists momentum!

REMEMBER GOOD PEOPLE: MATCHING RHYTHMS IS BAD!

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::)

That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:59pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :(

WTF are you on about.....I am only stating facts about the constitution and people's individual rights....I am just stating facts not supporting anyone's agenda.....Would you rather not know the truth???

::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:59pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :(

BTW.....I did not write the constitution!!!

::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:59pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :(

Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest.

Gist wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:59pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :( Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest.

My point refers to  this case.

The same attitude applies.  This psycho murdered a guy, didn't go to jail and the idiots let him out on day release from which he didn't return and has since assaulted someone else. :(

The constitution isn't designed to condone citizens or unlawful or lawful non-citizens breaking the law.

Maybe you could enlighten me why we bother regulating entry into Australia?  Why bother having a Migration Act if any body can enter the country unrestricted?  Why bother having any laws for that matter if you can commit offences and then hide behind the constitution? :(

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:13pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:50pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:59pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :( Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest. My point refers to  this case. The same attitude applies.  This psycho murdered a guy, didn't go to jail and the idiots let him out on day release from which he didn't return and has since assaulted someone else. :( The constitution isn't designed to condone citizens or unlawful or lawful non-citizens breaking the law. Maybe you could enlighten me why we bother regulating entry into Australia?  Why bother having a Migration Act if any body can enter the country unrestricted?  Why bother having any laws for that matter if you can commit offences and then hide behind the constitution? :(

Just because you can appeal to the high court does not mean your appeal will be succesful or even be heard.....I am only pointing out the legal rights offered by the Australian constitution to anyone who has an advese decision made against them by an officer of the Australian Commonwealth......Most appeals would not even be considered unless their was a legal basis that would see the appeal being considered by the high court....Your concerns are based on your own ignorance of the law and what constitutes a valid appeal!!!

::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:13pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:50pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:59pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :( Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest. My point refers to  this case. The same attitude applies.  This psycho murdered a guy, didn't go to jail and the idiots let him out on day release from which he didn't return and has since assaulted someone else. :( The constitution isn't designed to condone citizens or unlawful or lawful non-citizens breaking the law. Maybe you could enlighten me why we bother regulating entry into Australia?  Why bother having a Migration Act if any body can enter the country unrestricted?  Why bother having any laws for that matter if you can commit offences and then hide behind the constitution? :(

The case you refer to has nothing to do with any appeal to the high court of Australia and is a local legal ruling based on an individual case....Common law is based on case history and legal precidents already set out by the court!!!

::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:13pm:

Gist wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:50pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:59pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :( Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest. My point refers to  this case. The same attitude applies.  This psycho murdered a guy, didn't go to jail and the idiots let him out on day release from which he didn't return and has since assaulted someone else. :( The constitution isn't designed to condone citizens or unlawful or lawful non-citizens breaking the law. Maybe you could enlighten me why we bother regulating entry into Australia?  Why bother having a Migration Act if any body can enter the country unrestricted?  Why bother having any laws for that matter if you can commit offences and then hide behind the constitution? :(

Trent Jennings, an escapee from a psychiatric hospital. Maybe it's just late for this bloke and I'm slowing down. But I have to ask - WTF does that have to do with asylum seekers?? That's what the thread was about wasn't it?

That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... Sad

Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest.

Nope. Can't see where he mentions asylum seeker psycho killers in the above.

As in the other thread you ran away from no gonads Gist will probably run from this one.

I started this thread yesterday to stop the false allegation of aslyum seekers getting more welfare then pensioners.

It is not a thread to say where is the best place to process aslyum seeker or how they got here.

It is not a thread about a mental health prisoner being out on day leave.

All it shows is that anyone posting anything about nothing to do with the OP is that you can't debate the OP and you try to turn the thread into something you can.

That happens too much on here and I wish the mods would delete everything that doesn't apply to the any OP. There is nothing stopping anyone starting a new thread. So how about getting back to the OP and debate that.

here is a copy of the OP


Quote:

My blog last week about the politicisation of Asylum seekers and refugees prompted quite a bit of reaction and I promised a number of readers that I’d do some research on the actual financial assistance they receive. There are so many misleading rumours and “facts” around at the moment regarding asylum seekers and the benefits they get from the government. One hoax email in particular is doing the rounds telling people that “illegal immigrants/refugees” receive thousands more in welfare payments than Australian pensioners. Emails like this are completely fabricated and made up purely to conjure up negative sentiment towards asylum seekers. If you’ve received an email which looks like this you should delete it, tell whoever sent it to you that they’re an idiot, and learn the facts… •First of all, refugees are not illegal immigrants. It has never been illegal in Australia to arrive on shore without a visa seeking asylum. In fact it’s one of the rights within the UN’s declarations on refugees which Australia helped to write. •When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner. •Once an asylum seeker is recognised as a genuine refugee, after a long and highly scrutinized process, they are given permanent residency and are then entitled to the same Centrelink, schooling and health benefits as anyone else. No more, no less. •The normal Centrelink welfare payment is $456 per fortnight, for a refugee with permanent residency and an Australian-born person. A pensioner in Australia receives $671.90. Over $200 more each fortnight. Even with family/parenting benefits, a refugee’s benefits would still be less than a pensioner’s income. •For an asylum seeker to qualify for any payment under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, they must have lodged an application for a visa 6 months before, not be in detention, and not get any other payment or benefit. •To get a permanent residence as a refugee, the person has to prove they are a genuine refugee fleeing persecution, go through character, security and medical tests, and sign an Australian Values Statement. •‘Boat people’ are asylum seekers. Refugees are asylum seekers who have been approved and given a visa. None of them are ‘illegal immigrants’. The above facts come from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Refugee Council of Australia, and from the Red Cross. A lot more reliable than a random email from a friend of a friend. Before you make a judgment on asylum seeker policy, know the facts. For more info, have a read of these: - Myths about refugees and asylum seekers: the answers - Response to lies and hoax emails – Refugee Council of Australia - Media Blunders on asylum seeker claims - Assistance for Asylum seekers in Australia - DIAC - Related articles: Avoid the POlitical Spin - Some Facts About Asylum Seekers http://www.kochie.com.au/20100713172/the-real-benefits-for-asylum-seekers-in-australia

Oh FFS you whinging old tart. You and boobybatpoo related as he is a bloody whiny whingy bitch too.

EVERY thread here goes off on a tangent FFS.

blackadder wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 7:46am:

Oh FFS you whinging old tart. You and boobybatpoo related as he is a bloody whiny whingy bitch too. EVERY thread here goes off on a tangent FFS.

So you can't debate the OP then

Come shyte for brains what do you thing do aslyum seeker get more welfare then pensioners

???????????????????????

Gist wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:13pm: Gist wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:50pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:59pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :( Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest. My point refers to  this case. The same attitude applies.  This psycho murdered a guy, didn't go to jail and the idiots let him out on day release from which he didn't return and has since assaulted someone else. :( The constitution isn't designed to condone citizens or unlawful or lawful non-citizens breaking the law. Maybe you could enlighten me why we bother regulating entry into Australia?  Why bother having a Migration Act if any body can enter the country unrestricted?  Why bother having any laws for that matter if you can commit offences and then hide behind the constitution? :( Trent Jennings, an escapee from a psychiatric hospital. Maybe it's just late for this bloke and I'm slowing down. But I have to ask - WTF does that have to do with asylum seekers?? That's what the thread was about wasn't it?

I'll elaborate for the mentally challenged. ;D

Warning ---> lateral thought required though - if not up to this task take two Lattes, hug a tree for a few hours, put your form in at Centrelink and work on your gay mardi gras float..... http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/hippy2.gif



Quote:

The same attitude applies.

Those that condone the blatant breaking of migration law by looking sideways so that any old joker can slip into the country unchallenged just so they can get that warm fuzzy after glowing feeling from being a damned fine global citizen Mr Jolly Good Guy IS THE SAME ATTITUDE that saw Mr Psycho Killer Jennings released into the unsuspecting public on day release to assault someone else.... :(

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:46pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:13pm: Gist wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:50pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:59pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :( Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest. My point refers to  this case. The same attitude applies.  This psycho murdered a guy, didn't go to jail and the idiots let him out on day release from which he didn't return and has since assaulted someone else. :( The constitution isn't designed to condone citizens or unlawful or lawful non-citizens breaking the law. Maybe you could enlighten me why we bother regulating entry into Australia?  Why bother having a Migration Act if any body can enter the country unrestricted?  Why bother having any laws for that matter if you can commit offences and then hide behind the constitution? :( Just because you can appeal to the high court does not mean your appeal will be succesful or even be heard.....I am only pointing out the legal rights offered by the Australian constitution to anyone who has an advese decision made against them by an officer of the Australian Commonwealth......Most appeals would not even be considered unless their was a legal basis that would see the appeal being considered by the high court....Your concerns are based on your own ignorance of the law and what constitutes a valid appeal!!! ::)

When the applications have been denied. How much Australian tax payer money does it take to make these application to the the high court of Australia?

I have the suspicion that it wouldn't be cheap to the tax payer considering all the time and correct forms to file for the Legal Aid Solicitors and Pro Bono Barristers.  I heard that each application is worth a minimum of $100K in time alone.

Quote:

MASSIVE numbers of initially rejected refugees are winning appeals to stay in Australia. Appeals by about three quarters of boat arrivals whose initial asylum claims were deemed to be non-genuine succeeded in the past year.The rate of overturned appeals was 46 per cent in 2009-10, says a new Immigration Department report. Asylum seekers whose initial claims are rejected are able to appeal to tribunals and independent experts appointed by the Federal Government. While only 38 per cent of Afghan boat arrivals were initially judged to be refugees in 2010-11, almost 80 per cent of those rejected won visas on appeal. Similarly, only a quarter of Iranian arrivals were at first accepted by immigration officers, but 78 per cent of those who missed out were given visas on review, said the Asylum Trends Australia 2010-11 report. Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said yesterday bodies such as the Refugee Review Tribunal seemed to had an in-built bias towards overturning decisions.

culldav wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:46pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:13pm: Gist wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:50pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 8:59pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 1:47pm: Anyone who has an adverse decision made against them from an Australian officer of the Commonwealth has the right to appeal to the high court of Australia which is writen into our constitution.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia to be granted this right.....John Howard could not change the constitution so what he did was denied asylum seekers access to lawyers by sending them off shore and denying anyone access to their constitutional rights.....If you want to argue about this sh!t then at least know the law and the legal standing of asylum seekers.....Some of the claims made on these forums are total bullshit!!! ::) That's the attitude that sees psycho killers let out on day release... :( Could you point us to instances of asylum seeker psycho killers that were let out on day release? Just out of interest. My point refers to  this case. The same attitude applies.  This psycho murdered a guy, didn't go to jail and the idiots let him out on day release from which he didn't return and has since assaulted someone else. :( The constitution isn't designed to condone citizens or unlawful or lawful non-citizens breaking the law. Maybe you could enlighten me why we bother regulating entry into Australia?  Why bother having a Migration Act if any body can enter the country unrestricted?  Why bother having any laws for that matter if you can commit offences and then hide behind the constitution? :( Just because you can appeal to the high court does not mean your appeal will be succesful or even be heard.....I am only pointing out the legal rights offered by the Australian constitution to anyone who has an advese decision made against them by an officer of the Australian Commonwealth......Most appeals would not even be considered unless their was a legal basis that would see the appeal being considered by the high court....Your concerns are based on your own ignorance of the law and what constitutes a valid appeal!!! ::) When the applications have been denied. How much Australian tax payer money does it take to make these application to the the high court of Australia? I have the suspicion that it wouldn't be cheap to the tax payer considering all the time and correct forms to file for the Legal Aid Solicitors and Pro Bono Barristers.  I heard that each application is worth a minimum of $100K in time alone.

You could be correct.....however you must have a legal basis to appeal before it will proceed.....That is why the lawyers that trampled over off shore processing used a clause in the migration act that places the responsibility of refugees with the immigration minister who must oversee their welfare.....Nauru might just pass this test and should be considered by the Gillard Government IMO.....The Malaysian deal was not something I would ever support and this whole phobia about boat people is doing Australia no favours with our international reputation!!!

A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis yet both major parties are making it a major issue for domestic political support.....No cases have made it to the high court apart from the one that succeeded mate so if you are worried about the cost worry about how much Australia is wasting on preventing a few thousand people seeking asylum not appeals to the high court that never eventuate.....The reason the Howard Government did not want refugees to have access to lawyers was their detention was illegal as they where keeping confirmed refugees in detention and returning them against their will which is against the convention for refugees.....Under the Pathetic solution refugees actually had a case!!!

::)

A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis


See you are still in denial perth. What are we up to now? Pushing 11,000. Hardly a FEW thousand.

blackadder wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis See you are still in denial perth. What are we up to now? Pushing 11,000. Hardly a FEW thousand.

Hardly a National crisis either!!!

::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 1:44pm:

blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 12:35pm: A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis See you are still in denial perth. What are we up to now? Pushing 11,000. Hardly a FEW thousand. Hardly a National crisis either!!! ::)

Er yes it is when over 85% of them are still on Centrelink benefits five years after arriving.

blackadder wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:44pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 12:35pm: A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis See you are still in denial perth. What are we up to now? Pushing 11,000. Hardly a FEW thousand. Hardly a National crisis either!!! ::) Er yes it is when over 85% of them are still on Centrelink benefits five years after arriving.

Not that I am disputing your facts mate but have you got any proof to support this claim???

:-?

blackadder wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:44pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 12:35pm: A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis See you are still in denial perth. What are we up to now? Pushing 11,000. Hardly a FEW thousand. Hardly a National crisis either!!! ::) Er yes it is when over 85% of them are still on Centrelink benefits five years after arriving.

Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here.

I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site.

Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here.

I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site.


You will get what I bloody give you.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:47pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:44pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 12:35pm: A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis See you are still in denial perth. What are we up to now? Pushing 11,000. Hardly a FEW thousand. Hardly a National crisis either!!! ::) Er yes it is when over 85% of them are still on Centrelink benefits five years after arriving. Not that I am disputing your facts mate but have you got any proof to support this claim??? :-?

Everybody remain calm!  It's only 83.5%.  ;D

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

blackadder wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here. I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site. You will get what I bloody give you.

Do not bother mate....You are a proven liar anyway....If you cannot support your crap just say so???

::)

And you are quoting  David Koch.

That's hilarious.

au.tv.yahoo.com/.../kochie-the-real-benefits-for-asylum-seekers-in-a...

.You are a proven liar anyway


I am???

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:57pm: Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here. I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site. You will get what I bloody give you. Do not bother mate....You are a proven liar anyway....If you cannot support your crap just say so??? ::)

Everybody remain calm!  It's only 83.5%.  Grin

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-...


Thanks Honky Tonk saves me looking for it.  You were saying. Bomen?????

You must feel like shyte bomen being belted around the head so often.

blackadder wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:59pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:57pm: Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here. I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site. You will get what I bloody give you. Do not bother mate....You are a proven liar anyway....If you cannot support your crap just say so??? ::) Everybody remain calm!  It's only 83.5%.  Grin http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-... Thanks Honky Tonk saves me looking for it.  You were saying. Bomen????? You must feel like shyte bomen being belted around the head so often.

LOL.  I've posted it here a few times before.  Never fails to render lefties silent...for a while.  Bookmark that link - it is like kryptonite to them.

THERE can be no solution to the problem of illegal immigrants/boatpeople -- neither to the humanitarian tragedy of people drowning trying to get here or the policy crisis of the government losing control of its borders and its immigration system -- until all prospect of permanent resettlement in Australia is removed for people who arrive illegally by boat.

To do this would not contradict the Refugee Convention, which people write about but never read. The only requirement in the convention is that people fleeing persecution not be sent back to the countries they are fleeing from.
...
Under Fraser, only about 2000 refugees arrived directly by boat in Australia. In opposition, Fraser had called only for a "small number" of Vietnamese to be accepted here. The Vietnamese, it goes without saying, have made wonderful citizens and it is a joy for Australia that they came here. Fraser was far less proactive in the resettlement policy than he claims. It was essentially an American operation designed to pay a war debt to our South Vietnamese allies. But apart from the 2000 direct boat arrivals, all the refugees Australia settled were screened and chosen in refugee camps, a long way from Australia, by Australian officials.

Australia has continued this practice ever since. We are one of very few countries to offer permanent resettlement places voluntarily. We accept 13,750 each year under this program. Under John Howard's prime ministership, we accepted far more refugees than we did under Fraser or indeed under Gough Whitlam. Hawker, Burnside or Steketee might have commented that under Howard we accepted more than 10,000 refugees a year without any community disquiet.

This is because Australians, now as under Fraser or under Howard, will generously support the orderly intake of people processed and selected by Australian officials under Australian laws. What they rightly don't like is people self selecting to immigrate to Australia by showing up in boats, having thrown away their documents, and refusing to go home under any circumstances.
...
Many people in miserable countries are indeed desperate to live in rich countries. They will take great risks to achieve this. That does not mean they face persecution of a kind that would make them genuine refugees. As the American author Christopher Caldwell has argued, the vast majority of those who went to Europe from North Africa and the Middle East as asylum-seekers were not refugees in the normal meaning of the word. Nor were they traditional migrants who wanted to become Europeans. Rather, they wanted to maintain their Islamic lifestyle, with its distinctive norms and communal customs, but to do so at a European standard of living, courtesy of the European welfare state and financed by the European taxpayer.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/to-deter-the-boats-australia-must-rule-out-permanent-resettlement/story-e6frg76f-1226236832264

It says you are on line bomen but I guess you are hiding.

Members: 12
FRED., blackadder, muso, bomen_guy, thelastnail, skippy., BigOl64, The honky tonk man, corporate_whitey, life_goes_on, Greens_Win, Verge
Guests: 77

... wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 2:11pm:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-...[/highlight]   Never fails to render lefties silent...for a while.  Bookmark that link - it is like kryptonite to them.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://www.thevervoid.com/media/superman/08/8_28.jpg

Statistics can be missleading.....

It must be understood that Centrelink payments are not only unemployment benefits but also include Youth Allowance, Austudy and child care rebates.

Which most Australian families who are not refugees also access???

::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 2:59pm:

Statistics can be missleading..... It must be understood that Centrelink payments are not only unemployment benefits but also include Youth Allowance, Austudy and child care rebates. Which most Australian families who are not refugees also access??? ::)

FFS perth get a grip. No not of that but of reality.

... wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 2:11pm:

blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 2:08pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:59pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:57pm: Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here. I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site. You will get what I bloody give you. Do not bother mate....You are a proven liar anyway....If you cannot support your crap just say so??? ::) Everybody remain calm!  It's only 83.5%.  Grin http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-... Thanks Honky Tonk saves me looking for it.  You were saying. Bomen????? You must feel like shyte bomen being belted around the head so often. LOL.  I've posted it here a few times before.  Never fails to render lefties silent...for a while.  Bookmark that link - it is like kryptonite to them.

LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven accept you cannot understand the statistics.....Most of the people that took part in the survey where not even boat people and have undertaken part time education which is why they receive centerlink payments.....There are no unemployment figures about boat people in the link you provided.....people are not as stupid as you lot look!!!

::)

blackadder wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 2:59pm: Statistics can be missleading..... It must be understood that Centrelink payments are not only unemployment benefits but also include Youth Allowance, Austudy and child care rebates. Which most Australian families who are not refugees also access??? ::) FFS perth get a grip. No not of that but of reality.

FFS learn how to read statistics.....you have no idea!!!

Quote:

LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::)

You wrong.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

8-)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:02pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 2:59pm: Statistics can be missleading..... It must be understood that Centrelink payments are not only unemployment benefits but also include Youth Allowance, Austudy and child care rebates. Which most Australian families who are not refugees also access??? ::) FFS perth get a grip. No not of that but of reality. FFS learn how to read statistics.....you have no idea!!!

You mean the looney left way??

Table # 9 Employment category by migration stream....

Employed full time or part time = 31%

Unemplyed and looking or not looking for work = 11.7%

Others including retired, caring duties, studying full time, volantary work or setting up a business with no income yet = 57.2

These stats are for humanitarian entrants.....Skilled migrants employed full time or part time = 84.4%

... wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 3:08pm:

Quote: LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::) You wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-)

You stupid!!!

;)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Quote: LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::) You wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-) You stupid!!! ;)

Resorting to ad-hominem already? 

tsk tsk.

;D

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Quote: LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::) You wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-) You stupid!!! ;)

Phil honky is not the only stupid one look at shyte for brains signature


Quote:

The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln

i didn't know that the internet was going when Abraham Lincoln was alive

bomen_guy wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:18pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Quote: LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::) You wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-) You stupid!!! ;) Phil honky is not the only stupid one look at shyte for brains signature [quote]The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln

i didn't know that the internet was going when Abraham Lincoln was alive[/quote]

Well that will do me.

bomen_guy wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:18pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Quote: LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::) You wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-) You stupid!!! ;) Phil honky is not the only stupid one look at shyte for brains signature [quote]The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln

i didn't know that the internet was going when Abraham Lincoln was alive[/quote]


gee you're sharp. That pretend quote didn't seem ironic at all.... ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 3:05pm:

... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 2:11pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 2:08pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:59pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:57pm: Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here. I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site. You will get what I bloody give you. Do not bother mate....You are a proven liar anyway....If you cannot support your crap just say so??? ::) Everybody remain calm!  It's only 83.5%.  Grin http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-... Thanks Honky Tonk saves me looking for it.  You were saying. Bomen????? You must feel like shyte bomen being belted around the head so often. LOL.  I've posted it here a few times before.  Never fails to render lefties silent...for a while.  Bookmark that link - it is like kryptonite to them. LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven accept you cannot understand the statistics.....Most of the people that took part in the survey where not even boat people and have undertaken part time education which is why they receive centerlink payments.....There are no unemployment figures about boat people in the link you provided.....people are not as stupid as you lot look!!! ::)

But interpreting the statistics wasn't part of the deal was it?  You asked for the link that said 85% of asylum seekers were on centrelik benefits after 5 years, and I, in my graciousness, provided it. 

I'd prefer a simple 'thank you' next time.

bomen_guy wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:18pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Quote: LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::) You wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-) You stupid!!! ;) Phil honky is not the only stupid one look at shyte for brains signature [quote]The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln

i didn't know that the internet was going when Abraham Lincoln was alive[/quote]


Abe knew Honky personally judging by this quote....

You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln

... wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:05pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 2:11pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 2:08pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:59pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:57pm: Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here. I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site. You will get what I bloody give you. Do not bother mate....You are a proven liar anyway....If you cannot support your crap just say so??? ::) Everybody remain calm!  It's only 83.5%.  Grin http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-... Thanks Honky Tonk saves me looking for it.  You were saying. Bomen????? You must feel like shyte bomen being belted around the head so often. LOL.  I've posted it here a few times before.  Never fails to render lefties silent...for a while.  Bookmark that link - it is like kryptonite to them. LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven accept you cannot understand the statistics.....Most of the people that took part in the survey where not even boat people and have undertaken part time education which is why they receive centerlink payments.....There are no unemployment figures about boat people in the link you provided.....people are not as stupid as you lot look!!! ::) But interpreting the statistics wasn't part of the deal was it?  You asked for the link that said 85% of asylum seekers were on centrelik benefits after 5 years, and I, in my graciousness, provided it.  I'd prefer a simple 'thank you' next time.

But the link says nothing of the sort does it.....and if you want to be such a prat asylum seekers get no benefits at all.....It is refugees who receive centerlink payments....Even then you have not proven anything as the link says nothing of the sort???

;)

Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939

Quote:

But the link says nothing of the sort does it.....and if you want to be such a prat asylum seekers get no benefits at all.....It is refugees who receive centerlink payments....Even then you have not proven anything as the link says nothing of the sort??? ;) Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939

What level of self-delusion is this???????

Says nothing of the sort? That's exactly what it says!


Quote:

Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

... wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

Quote: But the link says nothing of the sort does it.....and if you want to be such a prat asylum seekers get no benefits at all.....It is refugees who receive centerlink payments....Even then you have not proven anything as the link says nothing of the sort??? ;) Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939 What level of self-delusion is this??????? Says nothing of the sort? That's exactly what it says! [quote] Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

[/quote]

But they are not unemployed and it does not state how many arived on boats.....The assumptions being made are pure deception.....Most Australian's receive Centrelink payments in some form or another so what is your point???


Table # 9 Employment category by migration stream....

Employed full time or part time = 31%

Unemplyed and looking or not looking for work = 11.7%

Others including retired, caring duties, studying full time, volantary work or setting up a business with no income yet = 57.2

These stats are for humanitarian entrants.....Skilled migrants employed full time or part time = 84.4%


>:(

It must be understood that Centrelink payments are not only unemployment benefits but also include Youth Allowance, Austudy and child care rebates.

Most Australian's recieve Centerlink payments!!!

does anyone really think these politicians

will get it right?

im interested

with forgiveness

namaste

-:)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:34pm: Quote: But the link says nothing of the sort does it.....and if you want to be such a prat asylum seekers get no benefits at all.....It is refugees who receive centerlink payments....Even then you have not proven anything as the link says nothing of the sort??? ;) Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939 What level of self-delusion is this??????? Says nothing of the sort? That's exactly what it says! [quote] Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

But they are not unemployed and it does not state how many arived on boats.....The assumptions being made are pure deception.....Most Australian's receive Centrelink payments in some form or another so what is your point???


Table # 9 Employment category by migration stream....

Employed full time or part time = 31%

Unemplyed and looking or not looking for work = 11.7%

Others including retired, caring duties, studying full time, volantary work or setting up a business with no income yet = 57.2

These stats are for humanitarian entrants.....Skilled migrants employed full time or part time = 84.4%


>:([/quote]


Enough babbling - just compare the statements for crying out loud!


Quote:

But interpreting the statistics wasn't part of the deal was it?  You asked for the link that said 85% of asylum seekers were on centrelik benefits after 5 years, and I, in my graciousness, provided it.

Quote:

Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments

... wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:51pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:34pm: Quote: But the link says nothing of the sort does it.....and if you want to be such a prat asylum seekers get no benefits at all.....It is refugees who receive centerlink payments....Even then you have not proven anything as the link says nothing of the sort??? ;) Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939 What level of self-delusion is this??????? Says nothing of the sort? That's exactly what it says! [quote] Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf But they are not unemployed and it does not state how many arived on boats.....The assumptions being made are pure deception.....Most Australian's receive Centrelink payments in some form or another so what is your point??? Table # 9 Employment category by migration stream.... Employed full time or part time = 31% Unemplyed and looking or not looking for work = 11.7% Others including retired, caring duties, studying full time, volantary work or setting up a business with no income yet = 57.2 These stats are for humanitarian entrants.....Skilled migrants employed full time or part time = 84.4% >:(

Enough babbling - just compare the statements for crying out loud!


Quote:

But interpreting the statistics wasn't part of the deal was it?  You asked for the link that said 85% of asylum seekers were on centrelik benefits after 5 years, and I, in my graciousness, provided it.

Quote:

Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments

[/quote]


As I said....what is your point???

Most Australian's receive Centerlink payments!!!

:-?

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:34pm:

... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 9:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:51pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:34pm: Quote: But the link says nothing of the sort does it.....and if you want to be such a prat asylum seekers get no benefits at all.....It is refugees who receive centerlink payments....Even then you have not proven anything as the link says nothing of the sort??? ;) Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939 What level of self-delusion is this??????? Says nothing of the sort? That's exactly what it says! [quote] Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf But they are not unemployed and it does not state how many arived on boats.....The assumptions being made are pure deception.....Most Australian's receive Centrelink payments in some form or another so what is your point??? Table # 9 Employment category by migration stream.... Employed full time or part time = 31% Unemplyed and looking or not looking for work = 11.7% Others including retired, caring duties, studying full time, volantary work or setting up a business with no income yet = 57.2 These stats are for humanitarian entrants.....Skilled migrants employed full time or part time = 84.4% >:( Enough babbling - just compare the statements for crying out loud! [quote] But interpreting the statistics wasn't part of the deal was it?  You asked for the link that said 85% of asylum seekers were on centrelik benefits after 5 years, and I, in my graciousness, provided it.

Quote:

Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments

[/quote]


As I said....what is your point???

Most Australian's receive Centerlink payments!!!

:-?[/quote]


My point is that you, and bomen asked where it said that 85% of refugees were still on centrelink benefits after 5 years.  Why ask if you're just going to cry about it?

... wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 10:34pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 9:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:51pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 8:34pm: Quote: But the link says nothing of the sort does it.....and if you want to be such a prat asylum seekers get no benefits at all.....It is refugees who receive centerlink payments....Even then you have not proven anything as the link says nothing of the sort??? ;) Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939 What level of self-delusion is this??????? Says nothing of the sort? That's exactly what it says! [quote] Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf But they are not unemployed and it does not state how many arived on boats.....The assumptions being made are pure deception.....Most Australian's receive Centrelink payments in some form or another so what is your point??? Table # 9 Employment category by migration stream.... Employed full time or part time = 31% Unemplyed and looking or not looking for work = 11.7% Others including retired, caring duties, studying full time, volantary work or setting up a business with no income yet = 57.2 These stats are for humanitarian entrants.....Skilled migrants employed full time or part time = 84.4% >:( Enough babbling - just compare the statements for crying out loud! [quote] But interpreting the statistics wasn't part of the deal was it?  You asked for the link that said 85% of asylum seekers were on centrelik benefits after 5 years, and I, in my graciousness, provided it.  [quote] Around 85% of Humanitarian entrants’ households are in receipt of Centrelink payments

[/quote]


As I said....what is your point???

Most Australian's receive Centerlink payments!!!

:-?[/quote]


My point is that you, and bomen asked where it said that 85% of refugees were still on centrelink benefits after 5 years.  Why ask if you're just going to cry about it?

[/quote]

I did not ask how many refugees were on centrelink benefits I ask about how many aslyum seekers were on centrelink benefits.

Do you know the difference between refugees and aslyum seekers

Now tell me how many aslyum seekers are on centrelink payments after 5 years

bomen_guy wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:47pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 1:44pm: blackadder wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 12:35pm: A few thousand people seeking refuge is hardly a national crisis See you are still in denial perth. What are we up to now? Pushing 11,000. Hardly a FEW thousand. Hardly a National crisis either!!! ::) Er yes it is when over 85% of them are still on Centrelink benefits five years after arriving. Give us a link where it says that 85% are still on centrelink benefit five years after they arrived here. I don't want anything from ACA, TT or Liberal party web site.

What were we to make of this request?

FFS - all you idiots have is semnatics.  I tried to word it in doublespeak, instead of what I'd like to refer to them as, so as to avoid this bullsh.t pedantry.

Now ehers how it is - you thought we were full of sh.t, and you were proven wrong.  Be a man and deal with it.

Food for thought in this article that I was just reading;

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/global-view-can-help-tackle-asylum-woes-20120105-1pmty.html

Australia should look at putting resources into refugee trouble spots.

So, in simple terms, the plan was for Australia to make every effort to solve the problems that cause people to flee their homelands in the first place. This kind of thinking - helped, importantly, by the end of the Cold War a few years later - led to initiatives such as the Cambodia peace agreement and the key role Australia played in a United Nations peacekeeping mission.

wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 2:23pm:

Food for thought in this article that I was just reading; http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/global-view-can-help-tackle-asylum-woes-20120105-1pmty.html Australia should look at putting resources into refugee trouble spots. So, in simple terms, the plan was for Australia to make every effort to solve the problems that cause people to flee their homelands in the first place. This kind of thinking - helped, importantly, by the end of the Cold War a few years later - led to initiatives such as the Cambodia peace agreement and the key role Australia played in a United Nations peacekeeping mission.

In other words - make all of the worlds probelms, our problems. 

No thanks.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 7:49pm:

bomen_guy wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 7:12pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:18pm: ... wrote on Jan 5th, 2012 at 3:08pm: Quote: LOL indeed.....what do you think your link has proven  ::) You wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-) You stupid!!! ;) Phil honky is not the only stupid one look at shyte for brains signature [quote]The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln i didn't know that the internet was going when Abraham Lincoln was alive

Abe knew Honky personally judging by this quote....

You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln
[/quote]

I liked this version but am certain it is not genuine.

You may deceive all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you only need to decieve 50.1% of the people on election day.

John Howard

It is the same story in all developed countries:


370,000 migrants on the dole

More than 370,000 migrants who were admitted to Britain to work, study or go on holiday are now claiming out-of-work benefits, according to official figures compiled for the first time.

The analysis found there were 371,000 foreign-born claimants for out-of-work benefits, out of a total 5.5 million recipients. Of these, 258,000 were from outside the European Economic Area.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9026401/370000-migrants-on-the-dole.html

ALSO:

An illegal immigrant who made 15 attempts to stay in the UK in a ten-year period can finally be deported, an appeal court judge ruled yesterday.

The Pakistani, 38, spent a decade on the asylum “merry-go-round” after being ordered to leave, Lord Justice Ward said.

He arrived in Britain in 1998 in circumstances which “lacked credibility”—yet the “carousel” had gone “round and round”, with endless fresh claims blocking his removal.

But yesterday the Court of Appeal in London dismissed the man’s latest attempt. It concluded that a judge in the High Court had been right to refuse an application for a judicial review of a Home Office decision to deport.

Lord Justice Ward said in a written judgment it was “time the music stopped” and the “merry-go-round” stopped turning.

He added: “His claim for judicial review is dismissed. Enough of the whirligig.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4070664/Illegal-kicked-out-after-15-appeals.html