A UNITED Nations expert on people smuggling and human trafficking says Canberra's tough policy on dealing with asylum seekers arriving by boat has successfully destroyed the current migrant smuggling model into Australia. 
 
Sebastian Baumeister, from the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime, says the government has halted the boats heading to Australia, but questions remain over the whereabouts of thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Asia.

"With the changes in Australian migration asylum policies, there's now been a significant drop of arrivals by boat to Australia," Mr Baumeister told AAP.

On Saturday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared no asylum-seeker boats had arrived in Australia for 100 days.

Mr Abbott dismissed those who had questioned the government's ability to prevent asylum-seeker boats reaching Australia, but he did not disclose the numbers of vessels turned back under Operation Sovereign Borders.

In January, Australia's Department of Immigration and Border Protection said throughout 2013, there were 300 suspected illegal entry vessels with 20,587 asylum seekers on board.

Mr Baumeister said thousands remain in Asia waiting for a fresh opportunity to travel to Australia.

"I'm pretty sure that there must be still in this region, a lot of people from southwest Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq who were on their way to Australia," he said.

"Usually people would come through Thailand or from Thailand to Malaysia, and then to Indonesia. So they are somewhere here in Southeast Asia - Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia. So what happened to them? That's one question, but I cannot give you an answer."

He said the government's policy, while controversial, had succeeded.

"In this regard, the Australians I think quite successfully destroyed the migrant smuggling model.

"But I would assume there must be still significant numbers of people who are there already on the move, who are somewhere stranded," he said.

"So that's why I tend to believe that people still - migrants from southwest Asia - I would think there are still significant numbers in Indonesia, Malaysia and also perhaps Thailand.

And the question remains where these stranded asylum seekers will travel to next.

"This was a significant change on this route (to Australia). On this route, this was very well organised, the migrant smugglers had specialised basically on persons who had good prospects of being granted asylum," he said.

"They had specialised on asylum seekers to whom they could sell this basically," Baumeister said. "So this was a dramatic change and it remains to be seen what happens next," he said.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/asylum-seekers-stranded-by-abbott-policy/story-fni0xqlk-1226873799399

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

A UNITED Nations expert on people smuggling and human trafficking says

I get the people smuggling bit but whats the human trafficking part???...maybe its time to use the word crime when they report on these things.. neither are very nice if drugs are a crime.. then so should this be..

its nice to think someone at least realises that the BOATS HAVE STOPPED...and so have deaths at sea.... now maybe just maybe the UN will work harder at keeping these people safe in their own countries.

cods wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:47pm: A UNITED Nations expert on people smuggling and human trafficking says I get the people smuggling bit but whats the human trafficking part???...maybe its time to use the word crime when they report on these things.. neither are very nice if drugs are a crime.. then so should this be.. its nice to think someone at least realises that the BOATS HAVE STOPPED...and so have deaths at sea.... now maybe just maybe the UN will work harder at keeping these people safe in their own countries.

I'm sure the brain-dead Greens will be fuming over these comments!

WHY DID THE MEDIA PLAY DOWN THE BIGGEST STORY



The biggest news of the week was that in the last 100 days there have been no boats  under the control of the usual criminals landing  their clients on Australian territory.

You wouldn't have thought so from most of the media who were obsessed with matters of such importance as the former Governor-General becoming Dame Quentin Bryce and the opposition's campaign against the Speaker bringing order to the House of Representatives . 

Given that the ALP, the Greens and  the commentariat said that turning back the boats was just a slogan and that Tony Abbott could never achieve that the 100 days free of illegal immigration  was a signal achievement by the PM and Minister Scott Morrison .

Indeed, it was suggested that any attempt to do this could lead to hostilities with Indonesia.

Well, it's worked. In the same period last year 66 boats arrived with 3879 clients.

And how many lives were saved? Over a thousand people lost their lives since the Rudd government in 2008 abandoned the borders and outsourced a significant part of Australian immigration to criminals.

It was clear few illegal immigrants were genuine refugees , notwithstanding the assessment process  loaded in their favour. Why are so many paperless when they would have had to show a passport to fly into Indonesia?

Sailors comment that asylum seekers seem well dressed and well fed.

According to a 2012  report  a RAN  sailor was admonished by an asylum-seeker who wanted more care taken with his bag. Why? It  contained a laptop.

Another sailor lamented: "Last I checked, I was not a baggage handler at the airport, but a sailor in the Royal Australian Navy."

This was maintained by the Gillard government and when the Rudd government returned they measure last in a desperate attempt to block some illegal immigration by an agreement with Papua New Guinea, but without any turnback policy or ''taking the sugar off the table'' as the Indonesian government pleaded.

Was this gross incompetence on the part of the Rudd and Gillard governments? Or was it part of a deliberate policy to bring in large numbers of illegal immigrants most of whom would remain welfare dependent and be able to bring in more family legally? 

Political parties in other countries have already adopted policies converting  illegal immigration into an electoral advantage, no matter what this does to the country.

Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held...

Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime?

THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE!

Protecting your country from foreign invasion is not a disgrace.
And tens of thousands of uninvited arrivals is an invasion.

Well, they have stopped coming to Australia by boat. 

As the article itself states, boats are still making the journey, if unsuccessfully, and somehow I doubt people smugglers don't run on the honour system in terms of payment.  The argument that it has destroyed the model is not true, at least not yet.

The other concerning factor is that the asylum seekers are now (again, as stated in the article) are stuck in places like Indonesia, where there are no rights for refugees, and they cannot receive any government assistance or be employed, leaving them wide open to poverty and exploitation.

I'm glad less people are making the dangerous journey, but there are still a lot of ongoing concerns regarding their safety.

A UNITED Nations expert on people smuggling and human trafficking says Canberra's tough policy on dealing with asylum seekers arriving by boat has successfully destroyed the current migrant smuggling model into Australia. 
 
Sebastian Baumeister, from the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime, says the government has halted the boats heading to Australia, but questions remain over the whereabouts of thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Asia.






http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/asylum-seekers-stranded-by-abbott-policy/story-fni0xqlk-1226873799399


Who f'ckin' CARES !
The world's displaced people are now
"out of sight - out of MIND"

I'm sure the Koalition Krauts - Abetz and  Cormann - are at least elated with this ...


FINAL SOLUTION

You're a f-cking joke, AP.

You're usually saying the UN's opinion on everything is worth sh!t, yet here you are using it as evidence.

Having read a few things in my studies - does anyone seriously think that the UN has any real experts - or is it just filled with strap-hanging public servant types intent on their own promotion track by adhering to the 'approved' line?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:

Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE!

They needed Canada’s help and Canada said no


http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/B97260908Z.120131215191833000G8J4CF6O.11.jpg


It was 1939 and 907 Jewish refugees aboard the German transatlantic liner St. Louis were seeking sanctuary from Nazi Germany.


Canada refused to take them in and the ship sailed back to Europe, where 254 would later die in concentration camps.



http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1174272-canada-turned-away-jewish-refugeesi

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:32pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE! They needed Canada’s help and Canada said no http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/B97260908Z.120131215191833000G8J4CF6O.11.jpg It was 1939 and 907 Jewish refugees aboard the German transatlantic liner St. Louis were seeking sanctuary from Nazi Germany. Canada refused to take them in and the ship sailed back to Europe, where 254 would later die in concentration camps. http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1174272-canada-turned-away-jewish-refugees

Comparing country-shopping queue-jumpers to those fleeing the Holocaust? That's a new low for you.

Stratos wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

The other concerning factor is that the asylum seekers are now (again, as stated in the article) are stuck in places like Indonesia, where there are no rights for refugees, and they cannot receive any government assistance or be employed, leaving them wide open to poverty and exploitation. .

No, the majority of these so called asylum seekers seeking to cross to australia illegally  are affluent and enjoy a high standard of living compared to the average Indo. To state they are not entitled to any government assistance is also incorrect because the Indo government will give subsistence level food to those who cannot afford it. Although the vast majority do not need it. Thats the bit you dont get and I have stated this more than a few times. These people are not coming from detention camps in Indonesia, they are jumping on a plane in their home country, entering Indonesia legally on visas and awaiting their turn on the boat to australia. I have a certain amount of sympathy for real refugees stuck in detention camps in Indonesia and other countries, but the ones buying their way here as economic migrants are taking the place of these genuine refugees.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:38pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 2:32pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE! They needed Canada’s help and Canada said no It was 1939 and 907 Jewish refugees aboard the German transatlantic liner St. Louis were seeking sanctuary from Nazi Germany. Canada refused to take them in and the ship sailed back to Europe, where 254 would later die in concentration camps. http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1174272-canada-turned-away-jewish-refugees Comparing country-shopping queue-jumpers to those fleeing the Holocaust? That's a new low for you.

Hazaras flee 'systematic genocide' in Pakistan

March 30, 2013


Despite the risks of the long, slow boat trip to Australia - made starkly evident by the Christmas Island disaster this week when two asylum seekers drowned - hundreds of ethnic Hazaras in Pakistan are planning the same trip.

Facing what they have described as a ''systematic genocide'' in Pakistan, more and more Hazaras are trying to leave by any means possible.

Fairfax Media understands the 95 asylum seekers on board the fishing boat that capsized off Christmas Island were all Pakistanis, some Hazara and others Pashtun. A boy aged four or five and a woman in her 30s died.

Hazaras, easily identifiable by their Asiatic features, have for generations been the target of sectarian violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sunni extremist groups, in particular Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, have vowed to eliminate them because they are Shiite Muslims.

For hundreds of years, Afghan Hazaras have fled for the relative safety of Quetta, on Pakistan's restive western border. The latest wave of refugees has been driven out of Afghanistan by Taliban violence.

But Quetta is no sanctuary. This year there has been an alarming increase in the rate and severity of attacks on Hazaras in Pakistan. In eight attacks, 216 Hazaras have been killed and more than 300 injured.

The deadliest was when a bomb in a snooker hall on January 10 killed 94 people. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claimed responsibility.

In Pakistan, Hazara representatives told Fairfax young Hazaras, especially, feel they can no longer live in Pakistan.

''Young Hazara men are trying to go by boat, trying to get to Australia,'' Yasin Changezi says.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hazaras-flee-systematic-genocide-in-pakistan-20130329-2gyyv.html#ixzz2xzDOr9RA

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:38pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 2:32pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE! They needed Canada’s help and Canada said no http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/B97260908Z.120131215191833000G8J4CF6O.11.jpg It was 1939 and 907 Jewish refugees aboard the German transatlantic liner St. Louis were seeking sanctuary from Nazi Germany. Canada refused to take them in and the ship sailed back to Europe, where 254 would later die in concentration camps. http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1174272-canada-turned-away-jewish-refugees Comparing country-shopping queue-jumpers to those fleeing the Holocaust? That's a new low for you.

Not 'low' at all.

It's exactly the same thing!

Canada's action then was contemptible and indefensible, as is ours now.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 2:47pm:

A UNITED Nations expert on people smuggling and human trafficking says Canberra's tough policy on dealing with asylum seekers arriving by boat has successfully destroyed the current migrant smuggling model into Australia.    Sebastian Baumeister, from the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime, says the government has halted the boats heading to Australia, but questions remain over the whereabouts of thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Asia. "With the changes in Australian migration asylum policies, there's now been a significant drop of arrivals by boat to Australia," Mr Baumeister told AAP. On Saturday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared no asylum-seeker boats had arrived in Australia for 100 days. Mr Abbott dismissed those who had questioned the government's ability to prevent asylum-seeker boats reaching Australia, but he did not disclose the numbers of vessels turned back under Operation Sovereign Borders. In January, Australia's Department of Immigration and Border Protection said throughout 2013, there were 300 suspected illegal entry vessels with 20,587 asylum seekers on board. Mr Baumeister said thousands remain in Asia waiting for a fresh opportunity to travel to Australia. "I'm pretty sure that there must be still in this region, a lot of people from southwest Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq who were on their way to Australia," he said. "Usually people would come through Thailand or from Thailand to Malaysia, and then to Indonesia. So they are somewhere here in Southeast Asia - Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia. So what happened to them? That's one question, but I cannot give you an answer." He said the government's policy, while controversial, had succeeded. "In this regard, the Australians I think quite successfully destroyed the migrant smuggling model. "But I would assume there must be still significant numbers of people who are there already on the move, who are somewhere stranded," he said. "So that's why I tend to believe that people still - migrants from southwest Asia - I would think there are still significant numbers in Indonesia, Malaysia and also perhaps Thailand. And the question remains where these stranded asylum seekers will travel to next. "This was a significant change on this route (to Australia). On this route, this was very well organised, the migrant smugglers had specialised basically on persons who had good prospects of being granted asylum," he said. "They had specialised on asylum seekers to whom they could sell this basically," Baumeister said. "So this was a dramatic change and it remains to be seen what happens next," he said. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/asylum-seekers-stranded-by-abbott-policy/story-fni0xqlk-1226873799399

On this route, this was very well organised, the migrant smugglers had specialised basically on persons who had good prospects of being granted asylum," he said.


So no - not "country shoppers" - as so often parroted by the racists who have supported the Liberals/Labour policies.  Persons who had good prospects of being granted asylum.  ie. Actual refugees.

And what does Australia do? Tow them back to a country that is not signatory to the UN convention - or dump them in a gulag.

And it seems that Mr Baumeister is suffering from the same lack of information we all are.  If the "boats have stopped" - why do orange lifeboats full of people keep turning up in Indonesia?  Why are our Navy making unauthorised entries into Indonesian waters?

Sound to me like the boats are still coming.  But the racists are not interested in this.  As long as no brown people land in Australia they are happy.  Despite the fact that the vast majority of these people are genuine refugees.  People we have a legal obligation to offer asylum to.

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:32pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE! They needed Canada’s help and Canada said no http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/B97260908Z.120131215191833000G8J4CF6O.11.jpg It was 1939 and 907 Jewish refugees aboard the German transatlantic liner St. Louis were seeking sanctuary from Nazi Germany. Canada refused to take them in and the ship sailed back to Europe, where 254 would later die in concentration camps. http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1174272-canada-turned-away-jewish-refugees

America also refused to take them Buzz.....Something they are keen to forget!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

http://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-features/special-focus/voyage-of-the-st-louis

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:

Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE!

Some would say it is the wet season which stopped the boats, but only those who have never lived in the tropics however would have said something as silly as that.
For the record, the last two wet seasons have been dud rubbers and well below the average in terms of rainfall, cyclone activity and severity, in which case the boats stopped long before the season even started anyway.
The policy which is Operation Sovereign Borders took away the smugglers selling product from the day of implementation, and ensured that any that arrive via illegal means would never ever be given the opportunity to resettle in Australia.
And turning back the boats or sending them to PNG ensures that these country shoppers are aware they are not welcome to migrate to this country in this manner.
The Coalitions border protection policy is once again a winner, and is responsible for the saving of countless lives.

That journalist is being dishonest.  This is what the journalist claimed:

"Sebastian Baumeister, from the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime, says the government has halted the boats heading to Australia, but questions remain over the whereabouts of thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Asia."

See those words ~ 'halted the boats heading to Australia.'

But this is what the UN actually person said:

"With the changes in Australian migration asylum policies, there's now been a significant drop of arrivals by boat to Australia," Mr Baumeister told AAP.

See those words:

"....drop of arrivals by boat to Australia."

There is a substantial substantive difference between the two.

So, here we have more naked dishonesty, not by AP this time, but by a published journalist.

Bloody rubbish.

Australia has nothing to be proud of with its treatment of refugees.....In the future we will look back and wonder why we let this happen in what is a democratic nation....Democracy has its price and allowing everyone the right to be free is the basis of any true democratic State!!!

>:( >:( >:(

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE! Some would say it is the wet season which stopped the boats, but only those who have never lived in the tropics however would have said something as silly as that. For the record, the last two wet seasons have been dud rubbers and well below the average in terms of rainfall, cyclone activity and severity, in which case the boats stopped long before the season even started anyway. The policy which is Operation Sovereign Borders took away the smugglers selling product from the day of implementation, and ensured that any that arrive via illegal means would never ever be given the opportunity to resettle in Australia. And turning back the boats or sending them to PNG ensures that these country shoppers are aware they are not welcome to migrate to this country in this manner. The Coalitions border protection policy is once again a winner, and is responsible for the saving of countless lives.

You could use the same pathetic argument when refugees cross a desert or mountains putting their lives at risk.....Should they be sent back as well.....It is their life to risk and Australia said we would accept them when we ratified the refugee convention.....The argument about saving lives is just convenient to excuse the disgusting treatment of innocent people who have committed no crime???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 5:05pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 4:56pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Some say the Wet Season has a lot to do with it, and the government hasn't stopped anything - merely hijacked them on the high seas and diverted them to Manic Island... a land shrouded in mystery where scarcely a word escapes ab out the conditions in which they are held... Sounds like a 're-settlement' camp in Poland or somewhere circa 1941-45.... if some other country imposed the same conditions would we not be up in arms about this Fascist regime? THIS.... IS.... A... DISGRACE! Some would say it is the wet season which stopped the boats, but only those who have never lived in the tropics however would have said something as silly as that. For the record, the last two wet seasons have been dud rubbers and well below the average in terms of rainfall, cyclone activity and severity, in which case the boats stopped long before the season even started anyway. The policy which is Operation Sovereign Borders took away the smugglers selling product from the day of implementation, and ensured that any that arrive via illegal means would never ever be given the opportunity to resettle in Australia. And turning back the boats or sending them to PNG ensures that these country shoppers are aware they are not welcome to migrate to this country in this manner. The Coalitions border protection policy is once again a winner, and is responsible for the saving of countless lives. You could use the same pathetic argument when refugees cross a desert or mountains putting their lives at risk.....Should they be sent back as well.....It is their life to risk and Australia said we would accept them when we ratified the refugee convention.....The argument about saving lives is just convenient to excuse the disgusting treatment of innocent people who have committed no crime??? ::) ::) ::)

But they are not crossing a desert or mountains except on a 767 flight are they, so there are actually none to be sent back whatsoever and never will be.
Sorry you don't like the Coalition's winning policy in saving lives.
And considering these people are totally and complete strangers, it's a stretch to suggest none have ever committed any crime in their lives.
That's more in the realm of wishful thinking.

It was an election promise and how many of them get fulfilled?

The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia.

The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not.

You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:00pm:

The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else.

Yeas, it is now clear that was the hidden Agenda, cloaked behind claimed concern about people/children drowning at sea attempting to come here.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:00pm:

The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else.

I am a little confused.  Are there people trying to suggest that the boats haven't stopped?  I  thought that was indisputable?

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. Yeas, it is now clear that was the hidden Agenda, cloaked behind claimed concern about people/children drowning at sea attempting to come here.

I would have thought it was clear from the outset his plan was to stop the boats arriving to Australia.
I mean that's all people care about - why overpromise? He isn't going to fix the issue outside of his remit is it?

Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

I am a little confused.  Are there people trying to suggest that the boats haven't stopped?  I  thought that was indisputable?

They have stopped arriving in Australia.  Boats are still set out, and people are still being smuggled.

Oh, and we are still not meeting our own obligations regarding our responsibility to refugees as per the UN refugee convention we have signed, thanks to both the Rudd and Abbott government.

Stratos wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:04pm: I am a little confused.  Are there people trying to suggest that the boats haven't stopped?  I  thought that was indisputable? They have stopped arriving in Australia.  Boats are still set out, and people are still being smuggled. Oh, and we are still not meeting our own obligations regarding our responsibility to refugees as per the UN refugee convention we have signed, thanks to both the Rudd and Abbott government.

They have stopped arriving in Australia. That's his remit. That's all we care about.

As regards the UN Convention - its an un-policed set of articles of nothing.
France - one of the 5 most important countries in the world - routinely ignores it and has paid no attention to it in several decades.
Have a look at their bulldozing of the Sangatte Refugee camp in Calais.

I wouldn't worry about the UN Convention most other countries don't.

Britain has put its migration borders on the French soil at the Channel Tunnel so we can refuse asylum applications before they arrive in the UK.

It seems Aussies are a bit too "play by the rules" all the time.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. Yeas, it is now clear that was the hidden Agenda, cloaked behind claimed concern about people/children drowning at sea attempting to come here. I would have thought it was clear from the outset his plan was to stop the boats arriving to Australia. I mean that's all people care about - why overpromise? He isn't going to fix the issue outside of his remit is it?

No, it was not.  The sales pitch, mantraed over and over and over, was not to stop people getting here by boat, it was to stop people drowning.

Andrei......just accept that as fact.  There is no need for me to provide a link, as there is no-one here in Australia who would disagree with what I have said.


Quote:

It seems Aussies are a bit too "play by the rules" all the time.

Yeas, we are a weird mob expecting Rules to be abided by.  Shame on us for that.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

They have stopped arriving in Australia. That's his remit. That's all we care about.

Well obviously.

Never mind their health well being or right to asylum, as long as they don't turn up to your country.

Your views are just pathetic bigotry AP, and I truly hope you will come to see these people differently.


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

I wouldn't worry about the UN Convention most other countries don't.

Yes, clearly a race to the bottom is the right idea to approach a humaitarian issue ::)

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:10pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. Yeas, it is now clear that was the hidden Agenda, cloaked behind claimed concern about people/children drowning at sea attempting to come here. I would have thought it was clear from the outset his plan was to stop the boats arriving to Australia. I mean that's all people care about - why overpromise? He isn't going to fix the issue outside of his remit is it? No, it was not.  The sales pitch, mantraed over and over and over, was not to stop people getting here by boat, it was to stop people drowning. Andrei......just accept that as fact.  There is no need for me to provide a link, as there is no-one here in Australia who would disagree with what I have said. Quote: It seems Aussies are a bit too "play by the rules" all the time. Yeas, we are a weird mob expecting Rules to be abided by.  Shame on us for that.

The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted.

Quote:

The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted.

Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea?

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:01pm:

You're a f-cking joke, AP. You're usually saying the UN's opinion on everything is worth sh!t, yet here you are using it as evidence.

My sentiments exactly, but the women bashers office girl is paid twenty bucks an hour to write this crap by the bashers enforcer, Lurch Crediln.

Stratos wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:04pm: I am a little confused.  Are there people trying to suggest that the boats haven't stopped?  I  thought that was indisputable? They have stopped arriving in Australia.  Boats are still set out, and people are still being smuggled. Oh, and we are still not meeting our own obligations regarding our responsibility to refugees as per the UN refugee convention we have signed, thanks to both the Rudd and Abbott government.

That in itself is a big .00002 on the Giveacrapometer rating scale of 10.
The government is elected by the people to look after our interests, not simply be puppet to an obsolete 50+ year old UN Refugee Convention and turn a blind eye to the scourge of people smuggling.
The will of the people come first.
Western governments around the world are finally waking up from their slumber, and are changing the way in which they deal with this issue slowly but surely.
The lefts open door expectation left reality along time ago, and is totally unsustainable.

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:

Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea?

He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it.

Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while.

Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while.

Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning.

Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:00pm:

The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia.

No - if you believe all the hand wringing from from Liberal and Labor voters - the plan was to stop people drowning.

People are still getting in boats.  People will still drown.

Only the racists honest enough to admit they are racists say the plan is to stop them arriving in Australia.


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:00pm:

The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else.

When did we stop Australia being signatory to the Refugee Convention?

Racists like you seem to forget that little detail.

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that.

And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters?
The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner.
It's that simple.
It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders.
And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that.
Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government.
And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

Stratos wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:11pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:04pm: I am a little confused.  Are there people trying to suggest that the boats haven't stopped?  I  thought that was indisputable? They have stopped arriving in Australia.  Boats are still set out, and people are still being smuggled. Oh, and we are still not meeting our own obligations regarding our responsibility to refugees as per the UN refugee convention we have signed, thanks to both the Rudd and Abbott government. They have stopped arriving in Australia. That's his remit. That's all we care about.

That is all that racists care about. Don't incude everybody in your bigoted little world.

Most Australians are decent human beings.  Not racist scum like you.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that. And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters? The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner. It's that simple. It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders. And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that. Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government. And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell.

You seem not to have understood.  I have explained here why Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal.  Do you support anyone who benefits from or takes credit for illegal activity?

I don't.  What we are doing is illegal.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. No - if you believe all the hand wringing from from Liberal and Labor voters - the plan was to stop people drowning. People are still getting in boats.  People will still drown. Only the racists honest enough to admit they are racists say the plan is to stop them arriving in Australia. Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. When did we stop Australia being signatory to the Refugee Convention? Racists like you seem to forget that little detail.

And when did the 50+ year old obsolete refugee convention mention people smugglers or anything else relevant to the modern world?
Does the convention when it was written right after WW2 have anything in it about people travelling around the other side of the globe, bypassing many countries they could have claimed asylum in to escape persecution but instead hand picking their choice of a western safe haven.
Well in a word, no.
The convention has nothing in it about migratory outcomes.
The convention is obsolete, and little wonder western nations are ignoring it more and more.
Clowns like you seem to forget that little detail.

Aussie wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:35pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:26pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that. And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters? The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner. It's that simple. It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders. And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that. Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government. And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell. You seem not to have understood.  I have explained here why Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal.  Do you support anyone who benefits from or takes credit for illegal activity? I don't.  What we are doing is illegal.

Who cares really.
The policy works.
That's what matters.
The people get what they voted for.
If it bothers you so much about it being 'illegal', petition the government to change the law to make it legal to you then eh. ;)
Or take then to court yourself. :)
Otherwise, suck it up and accept the governments mandate and the peoples will to stop foreign criminal people smugglers in anyway they so choose.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:36pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. No - if you believe all the hand wringing from from Liberal and Labor voters - the plan was to stop people drowning. People are still getting in boats.  People will still drown. Only the racists honest enough to admit they are racists say the plan is to stop them arriving in Australia. Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. When did we stop Australia being signatory to the Refugee Convention? Racists like you seem to forget that little detail. And when did the 50+ year old obsolete refugee convention mention people smugglers or anything else relevant to the modern world?

If it is obsolete - then maybe Tony should withdraw Australia from it.

Why doesn't he do that ?

Why doesn't Tony man  up and stop breaking international law?


chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:36pm:

Does the convention when it was written right after WW2 have anything in it about people travelling around the other side of the globe, bypassing many countries they could have claimed asylum in to escape persecution but instead hand picking their choice of a western safe haven. Well in a word, no. The convention has nothing in it about migratory outcomes. The convention is obsolete, and little wonder western nations are ignoring it more and more. Clowns like you seem to forget that little detail.

Let's see Tony man up and withdraw then.

Instead if being a gutless little prick - blowing dog-whistles to racists but still trying to look civilised.  Just like climate change - Tony blows dog whistles to the moron deniers with his "abolish the carbon tax" crap - but intends to give us a bigger tax with his "direct action".

Tony is incompetent.  He must go.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:36pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. No - if you believe all the hand wringing from from Liberal and Labor voters - the plan was to stop people drowning. People are still getting in boats.  People will still drown. Only the racists honest enough to admit they are racists say the plan is to stop them arriving in Australia. Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. When did we stop Australia being signatory to the Refugee Convention? Racists like you seem to forget that little detail. And when did the 50+ year old obsolete refugee convention mention people smugglers or anything else relevant to the modern world? Does the convention when it was written right after WW2 have anything in it about people travelling around the other side of the globe, bypassing many countries they could have claimed asylum in to escape persecution but instead hand picking their choice of a western safe haven. Well in a word, no. The convention has nothing in it about migratory outcomes. The convention is obsolete, and little wonder western nations are ignoring it more and more. Clowns like you seem to forget that little detail.

No, the 'clowns' as you call me have not forgotten anything, including that we remain committed to that Convention.  Abbott and his disciples like you will blow me right out of the water, if he took the simple step of announcing that Australia repudiates that Convention.  How hard is that?

I guess it must be.....because Abbott has not had the balls to do it.  Instead, he breaches it, and he like every other bastard who breaches those Conventions, one day, will be held to account at The Hague.

There, we knocked off Japan....because they were in breach of International Law about whales.

Not only do we submit to that Jurisdiction, we invoke it.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:35pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:26pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that. And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters? The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner. It's that simple. It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders. And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that. Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government. And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell. You seem not to have understood.  I have explained here why Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal.  Do you support anyone who benefits from or takes credit for illegal activity? I don't.  What we are doing is illegal. Who cares really. The policy works.

How?  The boats haven't stopped

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:42pm:

That's what matters. The people get what they voted for.

The people voted for stopping boats.
The boats are still coming.
THey are being turned back
But they are still coming

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:42pm:

If it bothers you so much about it being 'illegal', petition the government to change the law to make it legal to you then eh. ;)

Tony has never said he will withdraw from the UN Convention.  Gutless little prick that he is.

Why doesn't he?

THat would make it legal.

Why doesn't the gutless little prick do it?

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:44pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:36pm: rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. No - if you believe all the hand wringing from from Liberal and Labor voters - the plan was to stop people drowning. People are still getting in boats.  People will still drown. Only the racists honest enough to admit they are racists say the plan is to stop them arriving in Australia. Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. When did we stop Australia being signatory to the Refugee Convention? Racists like you seem to forget that little detail. And when did the 50+ year old obsolete refugee convention mention people smugglers or anything else relevant to the modern world? If it is obsolete - then maybe Tony should withdraw Australia from it. Why doesn't he do that ? Why doesn't Tony man  up and stop breaking international law? chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:36pm: Does the convention when it was written right after WW2 have anything in it about people travelling around the other side of the globe, bypassing many countries they could have claimed asylum in to escape persecution but instead hand picking their choice of a western safe haven. Well in a word, no. The convention has nothing in it about migratory outcomes. The convention is obsolete, and little wonder western nations are ignoring it more and more. Clowns like you seem to forget that little detail. Let's see Tony man up and withdraw then. Instead if being a gutless little prick - blowing dog-whistles to racists but still trying to look civilised.  Just like climate change - Tony blows dog whistles to the nice person deniers with his "abolish the carbon tax" crap - but intends to give us a bigger tax with his "direct action". Tony is incompetent.  He must go.

Of course he is incompetent, which is why his policy clearly worked in six months, and achieved what the Labor/ Greens alliance couldn't achieve in six long painful years.
I will take Abbotts level of incompetence over Labor's any day of the week.
Abbott doesn't have to 'man up' and change anything.
He's not about to stop necessary skilled migration to this country to suit your agenda.
But he will, and has stopped foreign criminal people smugglers who smuggle unemployable dole queue fodder to this country.
You need to learn to accept the will of the people.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:48pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:35pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:26pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that. And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters? The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner. It's that simple. It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders. And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that. Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government. And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell. You seem not to have understood.  I have explained here why Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal.  Do you support anyone who benefits from or takes credit for illegal activity? I don't.  What we are doing is illegal. Who cares really. The policy works. How?  The boats haven't stopped chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: That's what matters. The people get what they voted for. The people voted for stopping boats. The boats are still coming. THey are being turned back But they are still coming chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: If it bothers you so much about it being 'illegal', petition the government to change the law to make it legal to you then eh. ;) Tony has never said he will withdraw from the UN Convention.  Gutless little prick that he is. Why doesn't he? THat would make it legal. Why doesn't the gutless little prick do it?

Oh, that's your 'law' is it that makes the governments policy 'illegal'?
A convention is no law, and never will be.
Who cares if country shoppers continue to pay $10k to be sent to PNG.
None of my business.
Sooner or later the Governments resolve will win out.
That's what matters.
You keep saying the boats keep coming, however your fantasy has no substance.
Nothing has been reported from Indonesia now for many weeks about orange boats arriving with incensed foreigners aboard, and the Coalition is right now clearing the detention centres of Labor's policy failures by returning country shoppers home.
The government has already announced the closure of Northern Australian detention centres later this year.
Sounds like policy success to me.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:08am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:48pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:35pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:26pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that. And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters? The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner. It's that simple. It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders. And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that. Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government. And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell. You seem not to have understood.  I have explained here why Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal.  Do you support anyone who benefits from or takes credit for illegal activity? I don't.  What we are doing is illegal. Who cares really. The policy works. How?  The boats haven't stopped chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: That's what matters. The people get what they voted for. The people voted for stopping boats. The boats are still coming. THey are being turned back But they are still coming chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: If it bothers you so much about it being 'illegal', petition the government to change the law to make it legal to you then eh. ;) Tony has never said he will withdraw from the UN Convention.  Gutless little prick that he is. Why doesn't he? THat would make it legal. Why doesn't the gutless little prick do it? Oh, that's your 'law' is it that makes the governments policy 'illegal'?

Australia is a signatory to a Convention.  It is international law.  Not "my law".  And we are in breach of it.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:08am:

A convention is no law, and never will be.

Wrong
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty


chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:08am:

Who cares if country shoppers continue to pay $10k to be sent to PNG. None of my business. Sooner or later the Governments resolve will win out. That's what matters. You keep saying the boats keep coming, however your fantasy has no substance. Nothing has been reported from Indonesia now for many weeks about orange boats arriving with incensed foreigners aboard, and the Coalition is right now clearing the detention centres of Labor's policy failures by returning country shoppers home. The government has already announced the closure of Northern Australian detention centres later this year. Sounds like policy success to me.

Another orange lifeboat carrying asylum seekers arrives on Indonesia's Java coast: military source
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/another-orange-lifeboat-carrying-asylum-seekers-arrives-in-indo/5281484

As long as racists like yourself are happy that the information has stopped - then racists are happy.

Most Australians are not racists like you.  We are not happy.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:57pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:44pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:36pm: rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. No - if you believe all the hand wringing from from Liberal and Labor voters - the plan was to stop people drowning. People are still getting in boats.  People will still drown. Only the racists honest enough to admit they are racists say the plan is to stop them arriving in Australia. Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. When did we stop Australia being signatory to the Refugee Convention? Racists like you seem to forget that little detail. And when did the 50+ year old obsolete refugee convention mention people smugglers or anything else relevant to the modern world? If it is obsolete - then maybe Tony should withdraw Australia from it. Why doesn't he do that ? Why doesn't Tony man  up and stop breaking international law? chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:36pm: Does the convention when it was written right after WW2 have anything in it about people travelling around the other side of the globe, bypassing many countries they could have claimed asylum in to escape persecution but instead hand picking their choice of a western safe haven. Well in a word, no. The convention has nothing in it about migratory outcomes. The convention is obsolete, and little wonder western nations are ignoring it more and more. Clowns like you seem to forget that little detail. Let's see Tony man up and withdraw then. Instead if being a gutless little prick - blowing dog-whistles to racists but still trying to look civilised.  Just like climate change - Tony blows dog whistles to the nice person deniers with his "abolish the carbon tax" crap - but intends to give us a bigger tax with his "direct action". Tony is incompetent.  He must go. Of course he is incompetent, which is why his policy clearly worked in six months, and achieved what the Labor/ Greens alliance couldn't achieve in six long painful years. I will take Abbotts level of incompetence over Labor's any day of the week. Abbott doesn't have to 'man up' and change anything. He's not about to stop necessary skilled migration to this country to suit your agenda. But he will, and has stopped foreign criminal people smugglers who smuggle unemployable dole queue fodder to this country. You need to learn to accept the will of the people.

You said the Convention was "obsolete".

Why aren't you calling for Tony to withdraw from the Convention?

To gutless to admit you are a racist?

Because that is what you are , isn't it.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:18am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:08am: rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:48pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:35pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:26pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that. And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters? The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner. It's that simple. It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders. And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that. Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government. And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell. You seem not to have understood.  I have explained here why Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal.  Do you support anyone who benefits from or takes credit for illegal activity? I don't.  What we are doing is illegal. Who cares really. The policy works. How?  The boats haven't stopped chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: That's what matters. The people get what they voted for. The people voted for stopping boats. The boats are still coming. THey are being turned back But they are still coming chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: If it bothers you so much about it being 'illegal', petition the government to change the law to make it legal to you then eh. ;) Tony has never said he will withdraw from the UN Convention.  Gutless little prick that he is. Why doesn't he? THat would make it legal. Why doesn't the gutless little prick do it? Oh, that's your 'law' is it that makes the governments policy 'illegal'? Australia is a signatory to a Convention.  It is international law.  Not "my law".  And we are in breach of it. chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:08am: A convention is no law, and never will be. Wrong A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:08am: Who cares if country shoppers continue to pay $10k to be sent to PNG. None of my business. Sooner or later the Governments resolve will win out. That's what matters. You keep saying the boats keep coming, however your fantasy has no substance. Nothing has been reported from Indonesia now for many weeks about orange boats arriving with incensed foreigners aboard, and the Coalition is right now clearing the detention centres of Labor's policy failures by returning country shoppers home. The government has already announced the closure of Northern Australian detention centres later this year. Sounds like policy success to me. Another orange lifeboat carrying asylum seekers arrives on Indonesia's Java coast: military source http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/another-orange-lifeboat-carrying-asylum-seekers-arrives-in-indo/5281484 As long as racists like yourself are happy that the information has stopped - then racists are happy. Most Australians are not racists like you.  We are not happy.

I'm beginning to think that's PRECISELY what most Australians are.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:18am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:08am: rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:48pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:35pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:26pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:09pm: Mandy_oz wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:53pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Quote: The slogan was 'Stop the Boats'.  I don't know how that can possibly be misinterpreted. Just to clear it up.  Are you attempting to inform this Forum that Abbott (and Rudd) did not go to the last election on the platform of destroying Achmed's business model so that people no longer drowned at sea? He said he would literally Stop the Boats. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, but he promised that and delivered it. Being somewhat of a cynic, I am just pleased for once to see an election promise fulfilled.  it has been a while. Okay.....I'll go off on this tangent to humour you even  though the sales pitch (of both major parties) was to stop people drowning. Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal, and I have posted why exhaustively, and no-one here has challenged that. And why would it be challenged, except by criminal people smugglers and their supporters? The government has kept an election promise to it's people in a timely manner. It's that simple. It's also a governments responsibility to ensure a country has secure borders. And it's up to each and every nations government on the planet to determine the best way to achieve that. Operation Sovereign Borders clearly works for Australia, and so therefore will remain in force during the term of a Coalition government. And the people smugglers and those that support them can all go to hell. You seem not to have understood.  I have explained here why Operation Sovereign Borders is illegal.  Do you support anyone who benefits from or takes credit for illegal activity? I don't.  What we are doing is illegal. Who cares really. The policy works. How?  The boats haven't stopped chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: That's what matters. The people get what they voted for. The people voted for stopping boats. The boats are still coming. THey are being turned back But they are still coming chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: If it bothers you so much about it being 'illegal', petition the government to change the law to make it legal to you then eh. ;) Tony has never said he will withdraw from the UN Convention.  Gutless little prick that he is. Why doesn't he? THat would make it legal. Why doesn't the gutless little prick do it? Oh, that's your 'law' is it that makes the governments policy 'illegal'? Australia is a signatory to a Convention.  It is international law.  Not "my law".  And we are in breach of it. chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:08am: A convention is no law, and never will be. Wrong A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 12:08am: Who cares if country shoppers continue to pay $10k to be sent to PNG. None of my business. Sooner or later the Governments resolve will win out. That's what matters. You keep saying the boats keep coming, however your fantasy has no substance. Nothing has been reported from Indonesia now for many weeks about orange boats arriving with incensed foreigners aboard, and the Coalition is right now clearing the detention centres of Labor's policy failures by returning country shoppers home. The government has already announced the closure of Northern Australian detention centres later this year. Sounds like policy success to me. Another orange lifeboat carrying asylum seekers arrives on Indonesia's Java coast: military source http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/another-orange-lifeboat-carrying-asylum-seekers-arrives-in-indo/5281484 As long as racists like yourself are happy that the information has stopped - then racists are happy. Most Australians are not racists like you.  We are not happy.

It doesn't matter as you weren't happy anyway.
It's not as if the Coalition lost your vote eh, they never had it anyway.
So you managed to find news about one orange life raft from February.
Congratulations.
That was two months ago.
The policy is working.
And I'm not a racist, nor am I a people smuggler supporter either.
And whilst the government continues to take in over 13,000 legal refugees per annum, neither are they.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:48pm:

Tony has never said he will withdraw from the UN Convention.  Gutless little prick that he is. Why doesn't he? THat would make it legal. Why doesn't the gutless little prick do it?

because we still take 20.000 asylum seekers through the FRONT door every year...

we just got sick of People Smugglers choosing who can and cannot come here...thats all.

you do realise all those that came via people smugglers....reduced the intake by the front door...

in other words they pushed others waiting back......

not sure where it says in the convention...people smugglers should get priority... as they are really working hard for asylum seekers.. >:(

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:21am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:57pm: rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:44pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:36pm: rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The plan - so I believe - was always to stop them arriving in Australia. No - if you believe all the hand wringing from from Liberal and Labor voters - the plan was to stop people drowning. People are still getting in boats.  People will still drown. Only the racists honest enough to admit they are racists say the plan is to stop them arriving in Australia. Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00pm: The push factors in those parts of the world are well beyond the remit of the Australian PM - but the pull factors are not. You stop Australia being easy to get to, you stop the benefits system making it less attractive and you actively push them somewhere else. When did we stop Australia being signatory to the Refugee Convention? Racists like you seem to forget that little detail. And when did the 50+ year old obsolete refugee convention mention people smugglers or anything else relevant to the modern world? If it is obsolete - then maybe Tony should withdraw Australia from it. Why doesn't he do that ? Why doesn't Tony man  up and stop breaking international law? chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:36pm: Does the convention when it was written right after WW2 have anything in it about people travelling around the other side of the globe, bypassing many countries they could have claimed asylum in to escape persecution but instead hand picking their choice of a western safe haven. Well in a word, no. The convention has nothing in it about migratory outcomes. The convention is obsolete, and little wonder western nations are ignoring it more and more. Clowns like you seem to forget that little detail. Let's see Tony man up and withdraw then. Instead if being a gutless little prick - blowing dog-whistles to racists but still trying to look civilised.  Just like climate change - Tony blows dog whistles to the nice person deniers with his "abolish the carbon tax" crap - but intends to give us a bigger tax with his "direct action". Tony is incompetent.  He must go. Of course he is incompetent, which is why his policy clearly worked in six months, and achieved what the Labor/ Greens alliance couldn't achieve in six long painful years. I will take Abbotts level of incompetence over Labor's any day of the week. Abbott doesn't have to 'man up' and change anything. He's not about to stop necessary skilled migration to this country to suit your agenda. But he will, and has stopped foreign criminal people smugglers who smuggle unemployable dole queue fodder to this country. You need to learn to accept the will of the people. You said the Convention was "obsolete". Why aren't you calling for Tony to withdraw from the Convention? To gutless to admit you are a racist? Because that is what you are , isn't it.

Why would I call for Australia to withdraw from the convention, as this would clearly effect the 13,000+ people we resettle in this country each year.
Abbott will never and should never do this, however he has an obligation to protect our borders and stop the crime of people trafficking in our region.
And the convention protocol is obsolete, and does require revising which is why the signatories are changing the ways they deal with the scourge of people trafficking and are ignoring this ancient protocol.
It simply does not reflect 2014 realities, and was written in a different time.
Wanting to have safe borders has nothing to do with racism.
You need to learn the difference.

Fair Dinkum don't you idiots read anything or if you do it doesn't sink into your big thick head.

This is a bit of what Mr Baumeister said


Quote:

Mr Baumeister said thousands remain in Asia waiting for a fresh opportunity to travel to Australia. "I'm pretty sure that there must be still in this region, a lot of people from southwest Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq who were on their way to Australia," he said. "Usually people would come through Thailand or from Thailand to Malaysia, and then to Indonesia. So they are somewhere here in Southeast Asia - Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia. So what happened to them? That's one question, but I cannot give you an answer."

Then people come out with things like this


bogarde73 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

It was clear few illegal immigrants were genuine refugees , notwithstanding the assessment process  loaded in their favour. Why are so many paperless when they would have had to show a passport to fly into Indonesia?

ian wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

These people are not coming from detention camps in Indonesia, they are jumping on a plane in their home country, entering Indonesia legally on visas and awaiting their turn on the boat to australia.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 5:29pm:

But they are not crossing a desert or mountains except on a 767 flight are they, so there are actually none to be sent back whatsoever and never will be.

So come on all you brain dead if Asylum Seeker are flying into Indonesia how come people would come through Thailand or from Thailand to Malaysia, and then to Indonesia.

Also if they are flying into Indonesia they would need a passport and visa before they get on a plane and how would they get a passport and visa if they are fleeing their country.


Next time you go to put bullshyte up that you believe it doesn't mean that it is true.

John S wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:12am:

Fair Dinkum don't you idiots read anything or if you do it doesn't sink into your big thick head. This is a bit of what Mr Baumeister said Quote: Mr Baumeister said thousands remain in Asia waiting for a fresh opportunity to travel to Australia. "I'm pretty sure that there must be still in this region, a lot of people from southwest Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq who were on their way to Australia," he said. "Usually people would come through Thailand or from Thailand to Malaysia, and then to Indonesia. So they are somewhere here in Southeast Asia - Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia. So what happened to them? That's one question, but I cannot give you an answer." Then people come out with things like this bogarde73 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: It was clear few illegal immigrants were genuine refugees , notwithstanding the assessment process  loaded in their favour. Why are so many paperless when they would have had to show a passport to fly into Indonesia? ian wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 2:46pm: These people are not coming from detention camps in Indonesia, they are jumping on a plane in their home country, entering Indonesia legally on visas and awaiting their turn on the boat to australia. chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 5:29pm: But they are not crossing a desert or mountains except on a 767 flight are they, so there are actually none to be sent back whatsoever and never will be. So come on all you brain dead if Asylum Seeker are flying into Indonesia how come people would come through Thailand or from Thailand to Malaysia, and then to Indonesia. Also if they are flying into Indonesia they would need a passport and visa before they get on a plane and how would they get a passport and visa if they are fleeing their country. Next time you go to put bullshyte up that you believe it doesn't mean that it is true.

I don't think anyone believes they all fly into Indonesia, that's your assumption and no-one else.
And yes, 10's of 1000's have flown into Indonesia with passport and visa in hand.
Next time you go to put bullshyte up that you believe it doesn't mean that it is true.

It's obvious they walk through all those countries and across the water to indonesia... ::)