'Frauds' granted refugee status as determination process breaks down
BY:GREG SHERIDAN, FOREIGN EDITOR

AUSTRALIA'S refugee determination process has broken down completely, admitting large numbers of people whose claims to refugee status are fraudulent.
The claims come from a former senior Immigration Department official who says the system favours those who tell lies over those who tell the truth, is easily scammed and has become utterly dysfunctional.
"Having considerable experience interviewing and assessing boat arrival claims, I can confidently say ... that we are approving large numbers of people who are fabricating claims," he wrote in an unpublished account of the process, obtained by The Weekend Australian.
"Indeed, the current refugee determination system works in favour of those who are most adept at spinning a yarn."
The former official talks of asylum-seekers "enhancing and inventing" claims that satisfy one level or another of the multi-layered refugee status determination and appeals procedures.
A spokesman for Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor said there was no processing of any asylum-seeker who arrived after August 13 last year. This halt was to give effect to the Houston committee's recommendation that those who arrive by boat should secure "no advantage" over those awaiting resettlement in refugee camps overseas.
The government also announced, in the budget, a broader review of the refugee determination process.
The Weekend Australian also interviewed a former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, who worked on the independent merits review processes for asylum-seekers.
He said that asylum-seekers on Christmas Island told him they had simply copied their claims from other applicants who had beensuccessful.
The former tribunal member said that transcripts of court cases in which asylum-seeker appeals had been upheld circulated widely on Christmas Island so that claimants, and their advocates, could see what testimony had been successful.
"I would sometimes receive a completely compelling story that was impossible to refuse," the former tribunal member said. "The problem is I would receive 100 other identical stories with only the names changed."
He said that administrative pressures constituted an effective bias in favour of accepting claims to refugee status. If he gave a negative decision on an asylum-seeker's claim on appeal, he would need to write an extensive judgment because it would inevitably be appealed to the courts. If he approved an asylum-seeker's claim, he could write a pro-forma decision as it would never be reviewed.
He also reported that middle-class Iranian asylum-seekers often arrived in Christmas Island barely a week after leaving Tehran and exhibited an aggressive "entitlement mentality".
"I had a colleague producing five 'yes' decisions a day," the former tribunal member said. "The (Immigration) department loved him because of the numbers of cases he could clear."
The former Immigration Department officer said that asylum-seekers would communicate on the phone and the internet with potential asylum-seekers in their home countries to brief them on the best explanations to use in order to get a favourable outcome.
This backs up testimony from former minister Philip Ruddock that recordings of interviews by Australian officials with asylum-seekers were sold in Asian markets as helpful preparation for people intending to make illegal journeys to Australia.
"I believe that Australia should be assisting people in overseas refugee situations through financial, logistical and diplomatic assistance but we cannot solve these situations by the unrestricted entry of people, most of whom are not from the most disadvantaged strata of their societies," the former immigration official wrote.
He also concluded that "literally millions" of people could successfully claim asylum in Australia if they could get here, if the refugee convention were interpreted the way the UN says it should be.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/frauds-granted-refugee-status-as-determination-process-breaks-down/story-fn59niix-1226664169170

People are fed up with continued growth in asylum-seeker numbers
BY:GREG SHERIDAN, FOREIGN EDITOR
From:The Australian
June 13, 2013 12:00AM

THE Australian people are completely fed up with the boatpeople saga. Chief among their concerns is a decent humanitarian desire to stop the drownings that accompany the people-smuggling trade.
But that is not the whole story. The Australian people in their overwhelming majority want the national government to reassert national sovereignty over our borders. When the flow of illegal arrivals in our north started after Labor abolished John Howard's policies in 2008, all the wiseacres said it was silly to get exercised about the relatively small numbers who initially arrived.
But as anyone who had studied these flows for a moment knew, once an illegal entry flow is established, it will grow and grow and grow.
With this week's boats, the total number of refugees who have come since Labor softened the policy is 43,660. But the rate keeps on accelerating and as long as people keep arriving in Australia and don't get sent back, there is really no natural limit to the level it might reach. If you convert the past three months to an annual rate, illegal arrivals are now coming at 40,000 a year. Even without counting the inevitable family reunion chain migration that will follow, you only need that rate for a few years and you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of low-skilled, mainly Muslim immigrants, predominantly with poor English. This is a devastating crisis building up for Australia.
Many Western countries are toughening up their approaches to stop illegal immigration, or the rorting of legal systems. Canada, which has a far smaller rate of boat arrivals than Australia, has now instituted a system of effective temporary protection visas, mandatory detention, declining welfare benefits and the like.
Visas for spouses have been cut down hugely in Denmark and Britain because these are rorted so heavily, and asylum-seeker rules were tightened in Germany.
France and many other European nations have taken comparable action.
In our own region, no nation is remotely as generous, or remotely as soft a touch, as Australia.
Singapore, the richest country in Southeast Asia, could effortlessly absorb 10,000 asylum-seekers a year if it wanted to. But Singapore gets no asylum-seekers because it will accept no asylum-seekers. Singapore understands that if it accepted 10,000 people turning up on its shores this year, then next year it would be dealing with 30,000, and 50,000 the year after.
Similarly, no numbers of any consequence come from the Middle East to Japan or South Korea. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young's recent contention that Australia had the harshest, or one of the harshest, regimes in the world is a typical Greens contribution -- completely and utterly the opposite of reality. As Labor's former immigration minister Gerry Hand points out, no one in Australia's extended region provides anything like the benefits, security, layers of appeal and effective lack of repatriation that Australia does.
I write all this with sadness. I have always been, and remain, a strong supporter of a big, generous, legal immigration program. I am absolutely opposed to illegal arrivals.
The key concept to understanding what is going on is to recognise that we are dealing with determined immigration rather than a classic refugee situation. This is true even if you accept that the majority of people coming to Australia could qualify as refugees. They make their decisions about where to seek permanent residence on the basis of which nation is the softest touch and which offers the most extensive welfare.
The refugee convention envisages people fleeing across borders to avoid persecution. Consider Sri Lankan Tamils. There are tens of millions of Tamils living next door to Sri Lanka in India. They are certainly not persecuted. But India is poorer than Sri Lanka. Australia is much richer. So they choose Australia, not India. That is an immigration decision, not a refugee decision.
Consider Iranians, now the biggest source of illegal arrivals in Australia. Iran has a horrible government but it does not persecute big minority populations internally. Everyone deals with the same horrible political system.
For a middle-class Iranian to fly to Malaysia, where they get visa-free entry, to then take a small illegal boat to Indonesia and then get on a boat to Australia indicates a huge desire to live in Australia. It also indicates a belief that once here they won't be sent back. But it says nothing about a real refugee situation.
Part of the problem is the moral and political intimidation that comes the way of anyone who tries to speak about this honestly.
The Australian Press Council, for example, has ruled that I may not call people who arrive illegally, illegal immigrants. I respect the Press Council, and the integrity with which it deals with such questions. But I believe its ruling is wrong in fundamentally important ways. It leads to a contortion of language and an inability to discuss the issue properly.
It is similar to the coercive political correctness, and the institutional enforcement of a left-liberal ideological world view, which has previously crippled Europe in its ability to deal with illegal immigration. The fraudulent and offensive use of Holocaust rhetoric and analogies rendered sensible debate all but impossible. You either let everyone in or you were Adolf Hitler. Europe

Space invaders
Are there any limits to who can apply for asylum?

Jacob Oldfeld 15 June 2013

Yesterday morning 10,000 Chinese soldiers arrived in Bateman’s Bay, NSW, claiming they were asylum-seekers. They were ferried to the beach during the night from six naval vessels anchored off shore. The post master, the only Commonwealth official in the town, told them he could not process their applications and suggested they apply to the Department of Immigration in Canberra. After breakfasting from their packs, the soldiers assembled into a long column and marched off along the Canberra road.

An emergency meeting of Cabinet was held in Canberra later in the morning. Copies of the departmental submissions, to which are added ‘talking points’ supplied by ministerial staffers, have fallen into my hands. They are reproduced below.

Chief of the Navy

Questions may be asked as to how six naval vessels could unload these asylum-seekers undetected. All Defence White Papers have declared that the threats to Australia will come from the north. Accordingly ships and resources are concentrated in that region. Plans have regularly been made to relocate the ships berthed in Sydney Harbour to Jervis Bay (which is Commonwealth territory, close to Bateman’s Bay) but they have never been actioned because governments of both parties have accepted it would constitute hardship to require the wives of senior naval officers to move from Sydney to Jervis Bay.

Talking point: It is fortunate that the Coalition is not in power for it may have attempted to stop these boats, with disastrous consequences.

Chief of the Army

Most of our infantry battalions are stationed in Townsville and Darwin. Only a small force of 1,000 men, lightly armed, could be assembled in the next few hours. They could attempt to stop the progress of the asylum-seekers at a strategic point where the Canberra road ascends through the coastal range. If the asylum-seekers persisted with their intention of reaching Canberra, they would have to be resisted by force. A holding operation awaiting the arrival of heavier weaponry would nevertheless involve casualties. It should be considered whether the Australian people are ready to see sacrifices of, say, 100 or 200 service personnel in such an operation. It has become the practice of the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition to attend funerals of all service personnel who die in action. Attendance at this number of funerals might be thought too serious an interruption to the business of government. There would also be an increase in the number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. At a time of cutbacks to the defence budget, we are under pressure to keep these to a minimum.

On balance, the Army considers that even if the government’s legal advisers decide that these soldiers can be considered an invading force, it would be more advisable to treat them as asylum-seekers and not impede their march to Canberra.

Talking point: If any person or group calls these asylum-seekers an invading force, they should be criticised as racists and xenophobes.

Department of the Attorney-General

There is nothing in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or its 1967 Protocol that would prevent soldiers in uniform carrying weapons from making a claim for asylum. It is certain that the High Court would adopt this position if the matter were litigated there. The leading refugee advocacy group has been informally consulted. It confirms that it would run a case on behalf of any soldier whose claim for asylum was not considered. It would seek special government funding in order to run what would be a landmark case.

Talking point: Australia would be failing in its international obligations if it did not treat the Chinese soldiers as asylum-seekers and consider their claims. There is no such thing as an illegal arrival.

Department of Immigration

An assessment has been made of facilities for accommodating 10,000 asylum-seekers in Canberra. Option 1 is the oval, grandstand and exhibition sheds of the Canberra Showgrounds. Option 2 is the largest building in the city, Parliament House.

The facilities at the Showgrounds would be adequate, but since tyrannical regimes have often used sports stadia to hold detainees, this option might cast doubt on whether the government’s policy of a humanitarian treatment of asylum-seekers was being followed. No such objection could be made to Option 2. It will be remembered that the Chinese President addressed a joint sitting of the Houses so a strong association between this building and China already exists. Fortunately parliament is not in session and only a skeleton staff remains. If these were re-located to the Showgrounds, the whole building would be available to the asylum-seekers. It is assumed they carry some form of bedding and cooking equipment. The asylum-seekers would have to be supplied with rice but the cost of staffing the restaurants, coffee lounges and so on would be avoided.

Talking point: Only the Labor government with its policy of accommodating asylum-seekers in the community could think of housing 10,000 Chinese soldiers in Parliament House.

Greg Sheridan wrote:

Quote:

The refugee convention envisages people fleeing across borders to avoid persecution. Consider Sri Lankan Tamils. There are tens of millions of Tamils living next door to Sri Lanka in India. They are certainly not persecuted. But India is poorer than Sri Lanka. Australia is much richer. So they choose Australia, not India. That is an immigration decision, not a refugee decision. Consider Iranians, now the biggest source of illegal arrivals in Australia. Iran has a horrible government but it does not persecute big minority populations internally. Everyone deals with the same horrible political system.

Sheridan is being dishonest. Take a look at a map of the signatories to the refugee convention:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Refugeeconvention.PNG/800px-Refugeeconvention.PNG

They don't go to India, because India is not a signatory to the convention. They probably wouldn't even be accepted - as India is under no international obligation to accept them.

He is also being dishonest implying that most asylum seekers are merely middle class "economic" migrants. I think the statistics will show that most asylum seekers are people from one of the persecuted minorities - namely the hazaras and tamils, as well as others including Rohingyas, who have literally fled for their lives. Most of them have spent time in refugee camps in neighbouring countries. I'm sure Sheridan and his ilk would be more than happy for them to languish there with no working, welfare or education rights indefinitely. However I, and I'm sure most reasonable people, would have no problem with them taking the initiative and seeking a better life for themselves and their children. In fact those proactive, initiative-seeking people are  just the sort of people we should be welcoming.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Sheridan is being dishonest.

Dishonesty when discussing refugees?

Gee, I dunno   :-/

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Greg Sheridan wrote: Quote: The refugee convention envisages people fleeing across borders to avoid persecution. Consider Sri Lankan Tamils. There are tens of millions of Tamils living next door to Sri Lanka in India. They are certainly not persecuted. But India is poorer than Sri Lanka. Australia is much richer. So they choose Australia, not India. That is an immigration decision, not a refugee decision. Consider Iranians, now the biggest source of illegal arrivals in Australia. Iran has a horrible government but it does not persecute big minority populations internally. Everyone deals with the same horrible political system. Sheridan is being dishonest. Take a look at a map of the signatories to the refugee convention: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Refugeeconvention.PNG/800px-Refugeeconvention.PNG They don't go to India, because India is not a signatory to the convention. They probably wouldn't even be accepted - as India is under no international obligation to accept them. He is also being dishonest implying that most asylum seekers are merely middle class "economic" migrants. I think the statistics will show that most asylum seekers are people from one of the persecuted minorities - namely the hazaras and tamils, as well as others including Rohingyas, who have literally fled for their lives. Most of them have spent time in refugee camps in neighbouring countries. I'm sure Sheridan and his ilk would be more than happy for them to languish there with no working, welfare or education rights indefinitely. However I, and I'm sure most reasonable people, would have no problem with them taking the initiative and seeking a better life for themselves and their children. In fact those proactive, initiative-seeking people are  just the sort of people we should be welcoming.

As DIAC statistics show, Iranians are the largest illegal boat people cohort. Not a minority. They have  money and they know what they want.

They all go visa-free to Malaysia and Indonesia, being Muslims - but the hospitality ends there. No actual refuge to fellow Muslims. Why?

The Indonesians and Malays, knowing what kind of 'tourism' is their true  purpose, let them use their countries as people smuggling stations. The Indos and the Malays know that they have tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims entering their countries officially - but they have no record of these guys officially exiting. And you think they are not fully aware of what's happening  and what their contribution is?
BS

Imagine the stink these fvckers would kick up if we let tens of thousands of people enter their countries illegally from Australia. They would probably machine-gun them into the sea the moment they appear on the horizon. And they know we are not like them and they are exploiting it to the max.

These smacking Indonesians had no problem with locating 5 Australian journalist in Bilabo, East Timor, 40 years ago and executing them for being there - but they somehow have no fvckn idea where they have put tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslim tourist??

BS.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Gee, I dunno   :-/

Yes, that's you, peanut.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Greg Sheridan wrote: Quote: The refugee convention envisages people fleeing across borders to avoid persecution. Consider Sri Lankan Tamils. There are tens of millions of Tamils living next door to Sri Lanka in India. They are certainly not persecuted. But India is poorer than Sri Lanka. Australia is much richer. So they choose Australia, not India. That is an immigration decision, not a refugee decision. Consider Iranians, now the biggest source of illegal arrivals in Australia. Iran has a horrible government but it does not persecute big minority populations internally. Everyone deals with the same horrible political system. Sheridan is being dishonest. Take a look at a map of the signatories to the refugee convention:

Interesting. The Horn of Africa or Yemen appear closer to Sri Lanka than Australia.

And anyway - what does it tell you about the Tamils if they can't take their own kind, whether there is a convention or not. The Germans absorbed millions of their fellow Germans and did not wait for a convention. Jews ditto. In fact almost every ethinicity in Central Europe in the last 100 years, ditto. 

WHere's the 'simpatico' among today's refugee populations towards their own kind? I wonder. Their 'brothers and sister' don't want them - not in the the Middle East, not among the Arabs, the Persians, the Turks, Hazaras, Kurds, Schmurds, the subcontinental Indians of a million religious persuasions, not the Africans with their millions of tribal and religious persuasions.   
Really? The closest refuge all of them have is Sydney.
BS.i

Soren wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

As DIAC statistics show, Iranians are the largest illegal boat people cohort. Not a minority. They have  money and they know what they want. They all go visa-free to Malaysia and Indonesia, being Muslims - but the hospitality ends there. No actual refuge to fellow Muslims. Why? The Indonesians and Malays, knowing what kind of 'tourism' is their true  purpose, let them use their countries as people smuggling stations. The Indos and the Malays know that they have tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims entering their countries officially - but they have no record of these guys officially exiting. And you think they are not fully aware of what's happening  and what their contribution is? BS Imagine the stink these fvckers would kick up if we let tens of thousands of people enter their countries illegally from Australia. They would probably machine-gun them into the sea the moment they appear on the horizon. And they know we are not like them and they are exploiting it to the max. These smacking Indonesians had no problem with locating 5 Australian journalist in Bilabo, East Timor, 40 years ago and executing them for being there - but they somehow have no fvckn idea where they have put tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslim tourist?? BS.

now, this is the truth.

Soren wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

As DIAC statistics show, Iranians are the largest illegal boat people cohort. Not a minority. They have  money and they know what they want.

What nonsense. Refugees from Iran include members of persecuted minorities - including Ahwazi arabs and christians. Since the 2009 protests, there have also been a lot of democracy advocates fleeing for their lives. Many of these asylum seekers are middle class and secular, and yes they can afford people smugglers - but that doesn't make them any less genuine refugees. Sheridan's portrayal of them as economic migrants is plainly dishonest.


Soren wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

And anyway - what does it tell you about the Tamils if they can't take their own kind, whether there is a convention or not. The Germans absorbed millions of their fellow Germans and did not wait for a convention. Jews ditto. In fact almost every ethinicity in Central Europe in the last 100 years, ditto.

Clearly Soren, the difference is that the Germans and jews and central Europeans are white, and therefore superior - while the tamils are brown, short and speak silly - and therefore inferior.  :P

Your racism couldn't be any more blatant. Clearly when other tamils reject the refugees, then we can draw negative conclusions about the refugees themselves - cause their the same blood right? I've heard the same arguments justifying the demonization of Palestinian refugees because they are treated badly by other arabs. Paint them all with the same brush - it justifies demonizing anyone with brown skin.

Your evasion is just too obvious.

what evasion? That the thread title is just a flat out lie? "evading" the entire topic of the thread by pointing out the lies you and Greg are spouting about Iranian and Tamil refugees?

Soren wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 4:48pm: Gee, I dunno   :-/ Yes, that's you, peanut.

Oh, you're in this thread.

Well excuse me.

In that case, there certainly will be dishonesty.

Carry on.

Old boy, it’s good to see you providing some sound, credible evidence to back up your case. I can see how it would be in immigration officers’ interests to approve refugee claims. This makes perfect sense.

I have also seen the sense of entitlement many Iranians bring with them. This group, in my experience, are most adept at milking the system for what it’s worth. Iranians themselves have also told me this.

But one thing is unclear to me - why would Iranians come by boat? Tehran’s got a huge airport, Iranians do not struggle to get tourist visas to Australia (as Afghans and Sri Lankans do), and there’s a huge Iranian community to offer accommodation and make family visits legitimate.

Why come by boat when they can fly at a fraction of the price?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:50pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:52pm: As DIAC statistics show, Iranians are the largest illegal boat people cohort. Not a minority. They have  money and they know what they want. What nonsense. Refugees from Iran include members of persecuted minorities - including Ahwazi arabs and christians. Since the 2009 protests, there have also been a lot of democracy advocates fleeing for their lives. Many of these asylum seekers are middle class and secular, and yes they can afford people smugglers - but that doesn't make them any less genuine refugees. Sheridan's portrayal of them as economic migrants is plainly dishonest..

True. Many of the Iranians I’ve worked with have long histories of persecution, and for some, torture. They are largely agnostic or atheist - some Marxists. I’d describe most as legitimate refugees, but I’ve also met skilled migrants from Iran. I rarely ask how people got in.

I do, however, have my doubts about many Sri Lankan refugees. When I went there I met many people who had applied to come to Australia. A few asked my advice on how to get in. Sri Lankans are increasingly fed up with their political and economic situation. They were promised milk and honey after the war, and this has not eventuated. Much of the country’s being sold off to foreign investers, and very few Sri Lankans are seeing any benefit. Sri Lankans are, on the whole, very well educated, speak good English, and are outward looking. The big middle class see themselves as global citizens and travellers - a legacy of migration and their inclusion in the Commonwealth. Sri Lankans traditionally formed business and legal cliques throughout the British Empire. Ethnic Sri Lankans are still influential in Malaysian and Singaporean legal circles, and are big in the region’s business. There are a number of Sri Lankan billionaires in South East Asia.

The civil war shut the place down completely, and now - 30 years on - Sri.Lankans are denied visas almost everywhere. I was told they can get work visas in the Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Singapore - that’s it. Almost everywhere restricts tourist visas to Sri Lankans and assesses each application seriously - as you would. For most Sri Lankans, there’s only one way out, and that’s by boat.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Greg Sheridan wrote: Quote: The refugee convention envisages people fleeing across borders to avoid persecution. Consider Sri Lankan Tamils. There are tens of millions of Tamils living next door to Sri Lanka in India. They are certainly not persecuted. But India is poorer than Sri Lanka. Australia is much richer. So they choose Australia, not India. That is an immigration decision, not a refugee decision. Consider Iranians, now the biggest source of illegal arrivals in Australia. Iran has a horrible government but it does not persecute big minority populations internally. Everyone deals with the same horrible political system. Sheridan is being dishonest. Take a look at a map of the signatories to the refugee convention: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Refugeeconvention.PNG/800px-Refugeeconvention.PNG They don't go to India, because India is not a signatory to the convention. They probably wouldn't even be accepted - as India is under no international obligation to accept them. .

That’s strange, because India has accepted millions of Tibetan refugees over the years.

But yes, India did have a problem with Sri Lankan Tamils, who it saw as trouble makers. India worked hard to stay well out of the Sri Lankan civil war. The state of Tamil Nadu may well have had different views, as they have taken in a number of Sri Lankan Tamils.

Big Donger wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 11:00am:

Old boy, it’s good to see you providing some sound, credible evidence to back up your case. I can see how it would be in immigration officers’ interests to approve refugee claims. This makes perfect sense. I have also seen the sense of entitlement many Iranians bring with them. This group, in my experience, are most adept at milking the system for what it’s worth. Iranians themselves have also told me this. But one thing is unclear to me - why would Iranians come by boat? Tehran’s got a huge airport, Iranians do not struggle to get tourist visas to Australia (as Afghans and Sri Lankans do), and there’s a huge Iranian community to offer accommodation and make family visits legitimate. Why come by boat when they can fly at a fraction of the price?

They do have trouble with getting visas - tourist, student, 457, etc.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/un/unsc_sanctions/iran_autonomous_sanctions.html

In Malaysia and Indonesia they are given visas on arrival, so they only need  passport (which inexplicably gets misplaced once they are on the boats.)

Soren wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 5:05pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 11:00am: Old boy, it’s good to see you providing some sound, credible evidence to back up your case. I can see how it would be in immigration officers’ interests to approve refugee claims. This makes perfect sense. I have also seen the sense of entitlement many Iranians bring with them. This group, in my experience, are most adept at milking the system for what it’s worth. Iranians themselves have also told me this. But one thing is unclear to me - why would Iranians come by boat? Tehran’s got a huge airport, Iranians do not struggle to get tourist visas to Australia (as Afghans and Sri Lankans do), and there’s a huge Iranian community to offer accommodation and make family visits legitimate. Why come by boat when they can fly at a fraction of the price? They do have trouble with getting visas - tourist, student, 457, etc. http://www.dfat.gov.au/un/unsc_sanctions/iran_autonomous_sanctions.html In Malaysia and Indonesia they are given visas on arrival, so they only need  passport (which inexplicably gets misplaced once they are on the boats.)

I know Iranians with family members who come over for holidays. Yes, they need to apply, as all tourists do. As far as I know, only New Zealanders can get in without applying for a visa.

And the Queen. One could hardly call her a country shopper, old chap.

A country owner, certainly.

Pity they overthrew their Shah, eh?

Jasonofabitch
wants to slap Karnal Knowledge
on both cheeks  :P

Big Donger wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 11:58am:

But yes, India did have a problem with Sri Lankan Tamils, who it saw as trouble makers. India worked hard to stay well out of the Sri Lankan civil war. The state of Tamil Nadu may well have had different views, as they have taken in a number of Sri Lankan Tamils.

right. All the while selling arms to the Tamils, providing them with bases on Indian soil and logistical support. I thinkTamil Nadu being a state of India is the giveaway here.

ian wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 10:58pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 11:58am: But yes, India did have a problem with Sri Lankan Tamils, who it saw as trouble makers. India worked hard to stay well out of the Sri Lankan civil war. The state of Tamil Nadu may well have had different views, as they have taken in a number of Sri Lankan Tamils. right. All the while selling arms to the Tamils, providing them with bases on Indian soil and logistical support. I thinkTamil Nadu being a state of India is the giveaway here.

And who the hell needs that shite here?

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:08am:

ian wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 10:58pm: Big Donger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 11:58am: But yes, India did have a problem with Sri Lankan Tamils, who it saw as trouble makers. India worked hard to stay well out of the Sri Lankan civil war. The state of Tamil Nadu may well have had different views, as they have taken in a number of Sri Lankan Tamils. right. All the while selling arms to the Tamils, providing them with bases on Indian soil and logistical support. I thinkTamil Nadu being a state of India is the giveaway here. And who the hell needs that shite here?

I concur, old chap. The enemy of our noble demokratic traditions, our proud Western culture; the liberty, reason and benign tolerance and generosity I know you hold so close to your heart, is Sri Lanka.

It has always been the enemy, it will always be the enemy, its very existance is defined by being the enemy - absolutely - eternally - on stilts. Stilts.

What would we do without them, eh?

Big Donger wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 1:20am:

Soren wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:08am: ian wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 10:58pm: Big Donger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 11:58am: But yes, India did have a problem with Sri Lankan Tamils, who it saw as trouble makers. India worked hard to stay well out of the Sri Lankan civil war. The state of Tamil Nadu may well have had different views, as they have taken in a number of Sri Lankan Tamils. right. All the while selling arms to the Tamils, providing them with bases on Indian soil and logistical support. I thinkTamil Nadu being a state of India is the giveaway here. And who the hell needs that shite here? I concur, old chap. The enemy of our noble demokratic traditions, our proud Western culture; the liberty, reason and benign tolerance and generosity I know you hold so close to your heart, is Sri Lanka. It has always been the enemy, it will always be the enemy, its very existance is defined by being the enemy - absolutely - eternally - on stilts. Stilts. What would we do without them, eh?

Don't be a dickheaddle (not that you will listen).

Sri Lanka - not our problem. Disfunctional countries are NOT our problem. We are not here to take on all the fvckers who bugger up their own countries and then bail.
Australia has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin' in Sri Lanka. Where the bugger IS Sri Lanka, anyway??
Don't answer - who cares (other than  sri lankans) about where it is? Why should we take on their goddam burden?

BRING MORE BOAT PEOPLE !!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZe9YxJNs48

:P

Know some Sri Lankans do you, old chap? That’s the spirit. Do you know what you are, old boy?

You’re a mingler - a meeter and greeter. People, places, cultures - you have a fervent curiousity for the human condition.

Keep up the good work, old boy. You might even learn some geography along the way, eh?

Well young girl,
fancy meeting me?
;)

Big Donger wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 11:44am:

I do, however, have my doubts about many Sri Lankan refugees. When I went there I met many people who had applied to come to Australia. A few asked my advice on how to get in.

There are genuine refugees coming out of Sri Lanka.

Ever wonder why tamil refugees suddenly started being rejected seemingly out of the blue? A new process was introduced - known as "advanced screening", and it came directly from the PMs office. Gillard, in her wisdom, suddenly decided that 400 Sri Lankan asylum seekers per week were to be returned. Completely arbitrarily, with no consideration to how many of those were likely to be genuine. Sheridan's meme that department officials are pressured to approve claims is frankly a crock of sh!t.


Quote:

Asylum seeker 'enhanced screenings' dangerous: former official 7.30 By Hayden Cooper Updated Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:02pm AEST A former Immigration Department official has condemned Australia's process of so-called "enhanced screening" of asylum seekers as dangerous and says the department felt pressured by the Prime Minister's office. Under enhanced screening, asylum seekers can be rejected based on their answers in an initial interview soon after arriving in Australia. The method has been used to send more than 1,200 asylum seekers straight home, just days after they arrive on boats. All were Sri Lankans, and the Australian Tamil Congress says some have ended up in prison once they are returned home. Former Immigration Department official Greg Lake has told the ABC's 7.30 program he fears legitimate refugees have been rejected. Mr Lake was the operations manager at the Nauru detention centre earlier this year, and he also held management positions at the Christmas Island and Scherger detention centres, before quitting in April. He says the interviews begin with a simple question: "Why did you come to Australia?". "And if they say, 'I've run for my life because this government is persecuting me, because I'm a Tamil', for example, that's the kind of thing we'll go and explore with further questions", he said. Greg Lake Photo: Greg Lake was the operations manager at Nauru Detention Centre before quitting in April. (ABC) "But if they didn't say anything along those lines ... if the question is asked and nothing is invoked, at times it can be done on one question, which I think is very dangerous, especially given the vulnerability, it's usually done within the first week or so of a person arriving, that's a very volatile time for someone who's just stepped off a boat." He is concerned some legitimate refugees have been rejected. "I would never say with 100 per cent confidence yes, but it wouldn't surprise me if we found out later we had [rejected legitimate refugees]," Mr Lake said. In a statement, the Immigration Department says it rejects any suggestion the enhanced screening process denies asylum seekers an opportunity to demonstrate their protection claims. But lawyer David Manne, from the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, disagrees. "I have received personally credible evidence that some of these people coming here who have then been summarily expelled under this enhanced screening have raised serious and strong claims for refugee protection," Mr Manne said. Tamils returned to Sri Lanka beaten, starved: refugee 7.30 spoke to one Sri Lankan man who passed the enhanced screening test. "Nathan" is now in community detention, but says the interview was stressful. "We were tired after the long journey and once we landed, when they asked these questions, we were puzzled and worried. Some couldn't answer it properly because they were tired," he said. Nathan says his brother was rejected and sent home in December. He says he has been held in Sri Lanka's Negombo prison ever since, along with other Tamil asylum seekers who were sent back by Australia. "At the moment, 26 Tamil detainees are there, and some have been beaten and they are in different cells. My brother is afraid for his life. He has been beaten, he has been without food for many days," he said. "His mother came to know only several days later. She can only talk to him from 30 metres away." Both the Sri Lankan and Australian governments deny that Tamil Sri Lankans are persecuted. But Nathan says that is not true. "Still, people are facing rape, torture, and many, many things you know, that's why the Tamil people are leaving from Sri Lanka," he said. Mr Manne says he is concerned about the issue. "I mean at the end of the day, this is a very serious matter where many people appear to be being denied due process and are at risk, not only of violation of their basic rights but of serious miscarriages of justice where people could in fact be denied protection here and be sent back to the prospect of real danger such as torture or death," he said.

continued...


Quote:

Pressure came from PM's office, former official says Mr Lake says the pressure to deport as many Sri Lankan asylum seekers as possible comes directly from the Prime Minister's office. He says late last year the Department was left in no doubt about Prime Minister Julia Gillard's intentions. "The Prime Minister, as far as I was informed, had an expectation that at least 200 a week initially, and then there was an expectation of more like 400 a week would be returned from Christmas Island, or Darwin, but preferably Christmas Island straight to Colombo in Sri Lanka," he said. "That was made very clear I think to the senior management at Immigration, the department, and they were then, not forced, but really they had no option but to come up with something as best as they could that would execute that expectation for the Prime Minister." Mr Lake also says that when asylum seekers manage to get legal representation, the Immigration Department is much more cautious about deportations. He says since the High Court challenge overturning the Malaysia Solution, the department has developed a "fear of injunction". "Fear of injunction was rife... and I'm aware of at least one situation where a transfer flight was completely cancelled because there was a number of asylum seekers who had been selected for that flight who had legal representation," he said. "Just the fact they had lawyers was enough." He is now looking for a new career after quitting his job at Immigration. He says he no longer felt comfortable doing the job. "I was beginning to look back on some of the experiences I had had and wondering if I was part of the next horrific Australian story that we'll reflect on in 20 or 30 years' time," Mr Lake said. "We might have another prime ministerial apology on this kind of thing."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-10/asylum-seeker-enhanced-screenings-dangerous-former-official-says/4744628

I saw this, Gandalf, and in a quieter time Immigration would not be placed under such pressure.

However, when you’ve got a policy of mandatory detention, when the detention centres are full, and when the war is over, you need to make some tough decisions.

And I’m not sure that being tired after a long boat trip is going to cut it. Surely they’ve been preparing themselves for that very interview for months. Do they really need a few days to rest up to answer the most obvious questions they know they’re going to be asked?

People getting rejected from overflowing refugee camps in Africa do not always get the same chance - and this is the point of a "no advantage" boat policy.

I have no doubt Sri Lankans are imprisoned on their return. Leaving Sri Lanka without a visa is illegal there - no doubt due to pressure from our government.

Australia raised its refugee intake from 12000 to 20000. Those extra 8000 people a year deserve a fair assessment too.They shouldn’t have to have 10 grand and the plane fare to Indonesia to get asylum.

These are very tough choices, but they have to be made. When you take someone in who’s persecution is not altogether clear, you reject those escaping the Taliban, or an African civil war, or the religious police in Iran.

And those regimes don’t ask questions.

Given there are 50 million refugees awaiting resettlement around the world today, I think we need to make sure the 20,000 we take in are clear what they’re running from. It’s not a Greencard lottery, surely it’s how how risky it is for someone to return.

Karnal:

The first thing I would say is that you seem to be viewing this through the prism of guilty until proven innocent. I am not so cynical. When people risk their lives to reach our shores and claim they did it because their lives were threatened, then I tend to take their word for it. Perhaps that is naive of me. On the other hand I tend to take such claims seriously when we are talking about a regime that systematically slaughtered hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians at the end of the civil war, and who one human rights organisation claims, conducted a "politically ordered massacre of people who wanted to surrender or surrendered".

Yes, there is the option to go north to India, and thousands have done so. However, India not being a signatory to the international treaties, they are barred from getting help from international NGOs, and they are not resettled by the government - thus leaving them in permanent limbo. I have no problem with them looking for a permanent resettlement plan that will give themselves and their children a better future. And no, despite what the Sheridan's of this world will insinuate, "country shopping" is perfectly within the asylum seeker's rights under the international refugee conventions.


Big Donger wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 11:23pm:

However, when you’ve got a policy of mandatory detention, when the detention centres are full, and when the war is over, you need to make some tough decisions.

We only need to make "tough decisions" because successive governments have put us into this mess: the mess of insisting on offshore processing and legitimising the ridiculous notion that we are being "swamped" by these irregular arrivals. On the first point, the cost of offshore processing is obscene, and is completely unnecessary. Cost analyses have been done and it is beyond dispute that community processing would be many times cheaper. So why do we do it? Deterrent? What rubbish. The influx of arrivals we are seeing now should put rest to that silly myth - even the punitive measures the so called "expert panel" told us to put in place have only seen even more increases. Clearly asylum seekers are prepared to go through the pain of mandatory detention on a remote island for the (better than even - going by statistics) chance of receiving permanent residence in Australia. We all know the real reasons for offshore processing: out of sight out of mind - processing on other people's shores, its easy to keep the media and lawyers away, but not so for processing centres inside Australia.


Big Donger wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 11:23pm:

Australia raised its refugee intake from 12000 to 20000. Those extra 8000 people a year deserve a fair assessment too.They shouldn’t have to have 10 grand and the plane fare to Indonesia to get asylum.

Including the number of irregular arrivals as part of the overall intake quota is the government's buggered up policy that should be changed - and the blame for it certainly shouldn't be laid at the feet of the asylum seekers themselves. We should be accepting these irregular arrivals over and above the pledged intake of 20 000 "regular" refugees.

And will the sky fall if we do? Will a few extra thousand refugees per year destroy us? Why don't we ask the Germans or Italians, who despite their smaller geographical size, and much large populations, accept many more times the refugees we do. But of course that doesn't mean we should be aiming for those sorts of levels, and our geographic position (surrounded by water, as well as much further distance from source countries), ensures that we are never going to be "swamped" by refugees.

You’re right, Gandalf, our refugees are a trickle compared to the rest of the world, but the game changer in this issue is the increasing refugee death toll. The shipwrecks, the sinkings, the huge loss of life need to be prevented. Otherwise, we’re attracting anfd inadvertently facilitating death at sea.

And I do disagree that everyone who comes is a refugee. Many families in the developing world sponsor a family member to go abroad and become the breadwinner. A number of Sri Lankans work in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Many apply for skilled migration to Australia. It’s actually not a huge leap to apply under the different criteria of asylum. The $5000 to $10,000 people smuggler cost may well be cheaper and easier than the cost of study, assessment, and the inevitable wait of skilled migration.

The only deterrent here, of course, is detentiion.

Big Donger wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

You’re right, Gandalf, our refugees are a trickle compared to the rest of the world, but the game changer in this issue is the increasing refugee death toll. The shipwrecks, the sinkings, the huge loss of life need to be prevented. Otherwise, we’re attracting anfd inadvertently facilitating death at sea.

The solution is reaching a regional agreement. Ideally building a processing facility in Indonesia where claims can be assessed before they hop on a boat.

I really don't think it would be that hard to stop the boats, dismantle the people smuggling trade - while at the same time not deny the rights of genuine refugees to seek asylum in Australia. The only thing stopping such a solution is the pandering of our leaders to the dog whistlers, and the prevailing narrative of "border security" - which is just ridiculous.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 2:00pm: You’re right, Gandalf, our refugees are a trickle compared to the rest of the world, but the game changer in this issue is the increasing refugee death toll. The shipwrecks, the sinkings, the huge loss of life need to be prevented. Otherwise, we’re attracting anfd inadvertently facilitating death at sea. The solution is reaching a regional agreement. Ideally building a processing facility in Indonesia where claims can be assessed before they hop on a boat. I really don't think it would be that hard to stop the boats, dismantle the people smuggling trade - while at the same time not deny the rights of genuine refugees to seek asylum in Australia. The only thing stopping such a solution is the pandering of our leaders to the dog whistlers, and the prevailing narrative of "border security" - which is just ridiculous.

A processing facility is like advertising for the refugee world to come to Indonesia. There would be a massive influx of people . Indonesia needs to tighten is visa avaliability.

Without a HUGE bribe, Indonesia’s not going to buy it. Why would they? A rich continent with a population of 24 million expects a poor archipeligo with 250 million to take its refugees - for domestic political reasons.

What’s in it for Indonesia?

Stopping boats has moved on from pandering to the knuckleheads. It’s become a huge risk to life. The people smugglers are competing to see how many they can fit on a fishing boat - passengers are lucky to get a lifejacket. We have no idea about the ones who don’t make it. After the Tampa, ships are avoiding rescues. The Indonesian navy are staying well out of it, even when the boats are in their waters.

This is a big problem, and it’s not helped by playing the politics of either side. The Greens have just sat on their hands mouthing platitudes. The Libs have played politics with people’s lives - they love the boats. The government is stuck in a political minefield.  Every decision and action has unforseen consequences.

I agree that this issue would be helped by taking it out of the hands of the dog whistlers. It should be bipartisan again - same as it was under Fraser, same under Hawke and Keating. The boats have nothing to do with Asian or Muslim immigration, but this fits into the knucklehead narrative you mention. 43,000 arrivals in a few years does nothing to the population. It only effects the budget with the huge cost of detention - which will have to stop if boats keep coming. The centres are already full.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think it’s easy - or nice.