http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/13866296/accused-people-smugglers-operating-in-aust/

An alleged people smuggler has set up operations in Canberra after coming to Australia as a refugee, ABC TV's Four Corners program says.

The story, broadcast on Monday, says six people-smuggling agents came to Australia on a boat in early 2010, posing as genuine asylum seekers.

The ABC says at least two of those agents are allegedly still conducting people smuggling operations in Australia.

One, described as "the head of the snake" and known as Captain Emad or Abu Khalid, is living in the nation's capital, the report says.

Four Corners says Emad sent his wife, three adult children and their dependents to Australia on a boat ahead of him in 2009.

All were granted refugee status and live in taxpayer-funded public housing in different Canberra suburbs.

Four Corners interviewed other passengers from the ship the smugglers travelled on in January 2010.

They identified Emad and Yemeni man Abdullah Al Shariffi, a long associate of Emad.

The passengers said the Indonesian boat pilot left the ship early on and Emad, who trained in the navy, navigated the boat to Australia.

"After the Indonesian had gone, Abu Khalid, Captain Emad, took over the boat, the food, the driving, and the equipment," a passenger known as Mustapha said.

Near Christmas Island, he lit flares to alert the Australian Navy.

Officials didn't uncover the deception, listing the boat as suspected illegal entry vessel 96 with 43 passengers and no crew.

The smugglers on board, including Emad, soon became Australian residents.

"Those who were with him and had a history of smuggling get out (of immigration detention) in a short time ... two-and-a-half or three months," Mustapha said.

Four Corners confronted Emad at a shopping centre in the northern suburb of Gungahlin.

He refused to answer questions about whether he was running a people smuggling network, telling the ABC repeatedly he was "too busy".

The discovery of Emad's operations happened as part of an investigation into the fate of 97 asylum seekers on a boat from Indonesia which disappeared in late 2010.

Let me get this.

Under Gillard - this happened?

Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee.

How FREAKING easy it is for smugglers to pass Gillard's immigration test!!??

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 7:14am:

Let me get this. Under Gillard - this happened? Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee. How FREAKING easy it is for smugglers to pass Gillard's immigration test!!??

Yes, it was much harder to pass the test under Howard. You had to know Bradman's batting average for a start, just like every other Australian.  :P

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/06/05/1226383/965151-captain-emad.jpg

Alleged people smuggling network boss Captain Emad...works as a trolley collector in Canberra.


Remember to say, 'Thanks Cap'n', when you pat your local trolley collector on the head as you slip him a 20 cents tip when he collects your trolley in the carpark.

It's the only caring and sensitive and inclusive thing to do.

Shouldn't the headline be "Refugee becomes people smuggler"
Whatever the headline anyone caught people smuggling should be thrown in gaol for at least 20yrs.

I am surprised we havent got AL Qaeda  agents to be honest.

if we just have people smugglers why on earth would anyone be surprised about that? lets consider ourselves LUCKY..

if anyone would know the ropes on how to get an easy passage and life in Australia  its the PEOPLE SMUGGLERS>.

you did say it was the ABC didnt you??

just checking to make sure it isn t a pack of lies spread by New Ltd.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 8:34am:

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/06/05/1226383/965151-captain-emad.jpg Alleged people smuggling network boss Captain Emad...works as a trolley collector in Canberra. Remember to say, 'Thanks Cap'n', when you pat your local trolley collector on the head as you slip him a 20 cents tip when he collects your trolley in the carpark. It's the only caring and sensitive and inclusive thing to do.

a QUEUE jumper.. how fitting..now I am going to look on all trolley collectors with great suspicion


he could even he the owner of the business

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13868211/people-smuggler-works-as-trolley-boy/

Capt. Emad - also known as Abu Khalid - hoodwinked Department of Immigration officials to give him and his family refugee status after he arrived on a boat in 2010, ABC TV's Four Corners program revealed last night.

The program claimed that Capt. Emad had come to Australia along with other people smugglers to expand their business by targeting families who wanted to bring loved ones here.

The embarrassing revelations come after four boats of asylum seekers were intercepted in Australian waters in three days.

The latest boat was stopped on Sunday near Ashmore Reef, with 85 passengers and three crew aboard. This year, 3700 boat people have arrived on 48 boats.

Four Corners' investigation found that in early 2010, a syndicate of Iraqi people smugglers meeting in Jakarta decided to send some operators on a boat to Australia to boost their presence here, including Capt. Emad.

One former refugee, Hussain Nasir, described Capt. Emad as "head of the snake" for his role in running the syndicate.

The group posed as genuine asylum seekers to deceive Australian authorities and on January 10, 2010 Capt. Emad skippered a boat from Java with a fellow people smuggler and 41 passengers.

Capt. Emad, who had trained in the navy and worked on cargo ships, steered the boat towards Christmas Island. He gave a false name and was found to be a refugee and given residency within three months.

His wife, three adult children and their dependants had been granted refugee status a year earlier after they arrived on boats.
The ABC discovered that Capt. Emad and his family were living in public housing in Canberra. He refused to talk when confronted at the shopping centre where he works.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/13866296/accused-people-smugglers-operating-in-aust/ An alleged people smuggler has set up operations in Canberra after coming to Australia as a refugee, ABC TV's Four Corners program says. The story, broadcast on Monday, says six people-smuggling agents came to Australia on a boat in early 2010, posing as genuine asylum seekers. The ABC says at least two of those agents are allegedly still conducting people smuggling operations in Australia. One, described as "the head of the snake" and known as Captain Emad or Abu Khalid, is living in the nation's capital, the report says. Four Corners says Emad sent his wife, three adult children and their dependents to Australia on a boat ahead of him in 2009. All were granted refugee status and live in taxpayer-funded public housing in different Canberra suburbs. Four Corners interviewed other passengers from the ship the smugglers travelled on in January 2010. They identified Emad and Yemeni man Abdullah Al Shariffi, a long associate of Emad. The passengers said the Indonesian boat pilot left the ship early on and Emad, who trained in the navy, navigated the boat to Australia. "After the Indonesian had gone, Abu Khalid, Captain Emad, took over the boat, the food, the driving, and the equipment," a passenger known as Mustapha said. Near Christmas Island, he lit flares to alert the Australian Navy. Officials didn't uncover the deception, listing the boat as suspected illegal entry vessel 96 with 43 passengers and no crew. The smugglers on board, including Emad, soon became Australian residents. "Those who were with him and had a history of smuggling get out (of immigration detention) in a short time ... two-and-a-half or three months," Mustapha said. Four Corners confronted Emad at a shopping centre in the northern suburb of Gungahlin. He refused to answer questions about whether he was running a people smuggling network, telling the ABC repeatedly he was "too busy". The discovery of Emad's operations happened as part of an investigation into the fate of 97 asylum seekers on a boat from Indonesia which disappeared in late 2010.

......

Another day....another Labor scandal.

Who is surprised? There would probably be others who have come in under the guise of being "asylum seekers". After all, they are being hastened through the system these days and given mainland residences. Are there adequate security checks being made? If so, how were these people accepted.

In my opinion, anyone who is caught "people smuggling" should immediately be arrested and returned from whence he came. What is the difference between someone from Iraq who is people smuggling and any other person found to be flouting Australia's laws. Don't we refuse entry to people who have lied about their circumstances and especially if there is evidence of them openly breaking our immigration laws?

olive wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 9:45am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:13am: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/13866296/accused-people-smugglers-operating-in-aust/ An alleged people smuggler has set up operations in Canberra after coming to Australia as a refugee, ABC TV's Four Corners program says. The story, broadcast on Monday, says six people-smuggling agents came to Australia on a boat in early 2010, posing as genuine asylum seekers. The ABC says at least two of those agents are allegedly still conducting people smuggling operations in Australia. One, described as "the head of the snake" and known as Captain Emad or Abu Khalid, is living in the nation's capital, the report says. Four Corners says Emad sent his wife, three adult children and their dependents to Australia on a boat ahead of him in 2009. All were granted refugee status and live in taxpayer-funded public housing in different Canberra suburbs. Four Corners interviewed other passengers from the ship the smugglers travelled on in January 2010. They identified Emad and Yemeni man Abdullah Al Shariffi, a long associate of Emad. The passengers said the Indonesian boat pilot left the ship early on and Emad, who trained in the navy, navigated the boat to Australia. "After the Indonesian had gone, Abu Khalid, Captain Emad, took over the boat, the food, the driving, and the equipment," a passenger known as Mustapha said. Near Christmas Island, he lit flares to alert the Australian Navy. Officials didn't uncover the deception, listing the boat as suspected illegal entry vessel 96 with 43 passengers and no crew. The smugglers on board, including Emad, soon became Australian residents. "Those who were with him and had a history of smuggling get out (of immigration detention) in a short time ... two-and-a-half or three months," Mustapha said. Four Corners confronted Emad at a shopping centre in the northern suburb of Gungahlin. He refused to answer questions about whether he was running a people smuggling network, telling the ABC repeatedly he was "too busy". The discovery of Emad's operations happened as part of an investigation into the fate of 97 asylum seekers on a boat from Indonesia which disappeared in late 2010. ...... Another day....another Labor scandal. Who is surprised? There would probably be others who have come in under the guise of being "asylum seekers". After all, they are being hastened through the system these days and given mainland residences. Are there adequate security checks being made? If so, how were these people accepted. In my opinion, anyone who is caught "people smuggling" should immediately be arrested and returned from whence he came. What is the difference between someone from Iraq who is people smuggling and any other person found to be flouting Australia's laws. Don't we refuse entry to people who have lied about their circumstances and especially if there is evidence of them openly breaking our immigration laws?

hi olive

But the easy of these people in gaining refugee status despite the fact that lefties claims of long term detention

If a people smuggler can gain refugee status within 3 months - then why are the other people being detained?

The conclusion must be that they represent serious threats to the Australian community

Yet we have Australian lawyers out there defending these people who represents a security threat!!!!!

It's no wonder Howard wants them processed off-shore

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

olive wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:45am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:13am: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/13866296/accused-people-smugglers-operating-in-aust/ An alleged people smuggler has set up operations in Canberra after coming to Australia as a refugee, ABC TV's Four Corners program says. The story, broadcast on Monday, says six people-smuggling agents came to Australia on a boat in early 2010, posing as genuine asylum seekers. The ABC says at least two of those agents are allegedly still conducting people smuggling operations in Australia. One, described as "the head of the snake" and known as Captain Emad or Abu Khalid, is living in the nation's capital, the report says. Four Corners says Emad sent his wife, three adult children and their dependents to Australia on a boat ahead of him in 2009. All were granted refugee status and live in taxpayer-funded public housing in different Canberra suburbs. Four Corners interviewed other passengers from the ship the smugglers travelled on in January 2010. They identified Emad and Yemeni man Abdullah Al Shariffi, a long associate of Emad. The passengers said the Indonesian boat pilot left the ship early on and Emad, who trained in the navy, navigated the boat to Australia. "After the Indonesian had gone, Abu Khalid, Captain Emad, took over the boat, the food, the driving, and the equipment," a passenger known as Mustapha said. Near Christmas Island, he lit flares to alert the Australian Navy. Officials didn't uncover the deception, listing the boat as suspected illegal entry vessel 96 with 43 passengers and no crew. The smugglers on board, including Emad, soon became Australian residents. "Those who were with him and had a history of smuggling get out (of immigration detention) in a short time ... two-and-a-half or three months," Mustapha said. Four Corners confronted Emad at a shopping centre in the northern suburb of Gungahlin. He refused to answer questions about whether he was running a people smuggling network, telling the ABC repeatedly he was "too busy". The discovery of Emad's operations happened as part of an investigation into the fate of 97 asylum seekers on a boat from Indonesia which disappeared in late 2010. ...... Another day....another Labor scandal. Who is surprised? There would probably be others who have come in under the guise of being "asylum seekers". After all, they are being hastened through the system these days and given mainland residences. Are there adequate security checks being made? If so, how were these people accepted. In my opinion, anyone who is caught "people smuggling" should immediately be arrested and returned from whence he came. What is the difference between someone from Iraq who is people smuggling and any other person found to be flouting Australia's laws. Don't we refuse entry to people who have lied about their circumstances and especially if there is evidence of them openly breaking our immigration laws? hi olive But the easy of these people in gaining refugee status despite the fact that lefties claims of long term detention If a people smuggler can gain refugee status within 3 months - then why are the other people being detained? The conclusion must be that they represent serious threats to the Australian community Yet we have Australian lawyers out there defending these people who represents a security threat!!!!! It's no wonder Howard wants them processed off-shore

....
Hi maqqa.
If  a 4 Corners reporter can find out what they have been up to....then why hasn't ASIO been onto it? And if they DO know about it, why isn't it being stopped?
I wonder how this bloke managed to get through the "system" so quickly. You have to wonder if there is some inside help.

It sickens me....especially if the story that people died on a sinking boat, and he knew about it...but STILL demanded money from relatives o/s saying they had arrived safely.

It is about time we had some accountability from this Government.  After all....they have instigated this scenario.

This comes as no surprise whatsoever.
I've been saying it for years.
Anyone that arrives via a smugglers boat and disposes of their identity papers has something to hide.
Period.
The Department is under enormous pressure to process these illegals, and with no identity and a plausable story offered is obviously enough proof for the Department to hand over a visa and public house.
Bloody ridiculous situation.
This government has to go.

wow..one crook..that must mean all refugees are crooks just as Ivan Milat makes all Liberal supporters brutal serial killers  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:11am:

wow..one crook..that must mean all refugees are crooks just as Ivan Milat makes all Liberal supporters brutal serial killers  ;D

Of course it's only one crook Adelcrow. ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 7:14am:

Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee.

1. They aren't "illegals": it's perfectly legal to arrive in Australia by boat, with no passport or visa, and claim asylum.

2. The majority are granted genuine refugee status (not all, but certainly the majority).

3. If they're not genuine refugees, send them home.  Simple.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:11am:

wow..one crook..that must mean all refugees are crooks just as Ivan Milat makes all Liberal supporters brutal serial killers  ;D

A man with a Che alter ego has absolutely no sense of proportion, naturally. The tragedy as well as the comedy about abject skuppies like you is that you have simply no idea just how amazingly stupid you are.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:14am: Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee. 1. They aren't "illegals": it's perfectly legal to arrive in Australia by boat, with no passport or visa, and claim asylum. 2. The majority are granted genuine refugee status (not all, but certainly the majority). 3. If they're not genuine refugees, send them home.  Simple.

You don't get it. These fvckers were granted 'genuine' refugee status, numpty.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:11am: wow..one crook..that must mean all refugees are crooks just as Ivan Milat makes all Liberal supporters brutal serial killers  ;D A man with a Che alter ego has absolutely no sense of proportion, naturally. The tragedy as well as the comedy about abject skuppies like you is that you have simply no idea just how amazingly stupid you are.

So, you have evidence that there's more than "one crook"?

How many are we looking at then?  As a percentage?  1%, 20%, 50%, 80%?

There's probably more than one, sure.  But how many exactly?

What percentage is it and where are you getting the figures from?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:17am: adelcrow wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:11am: wow..one crook..that must mean all refugees are crooks just as Ivan Milat makes all Liberal supporters brutal serial killers  ;D A man with a Che alter ego has absolutely no sense of proportion, naturally. The tragedy as well as the comedy about abject skuppies like you is that you have simply no idea just how amazingly stupid you are. So, you have evidence that there's more than "one crook"? How many are we looking at then?  As a percentage?  1%, 20%, 50%, 80%? There's probably more than one, sure.  But how many exactly? What percentage is it and where are you getting the figures from?

We know all Aussie tourists are drug smugglers because of the Bali 5 and Corby  ;D
We know all Aussies are terrorists because of David Hicks  ;D

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:18am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:17am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:14am: Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee. 1. They aren't "illegals": it's perfectly legal to arrive in Australia by boat, with no passport or visa, and claim asylum. 2. The majority are granted genuine refugee status (not all, but certainly the majority). 3. If they're not genuine refugees, send them home.  Simple. You don't get it. These fvckers were granted 'genuine' refugee status, numpty.

No, you don't get it, divvy.

If they're granted genuine refugee status, they're legal   ::)

You can call them "illegals" as much as you like, however, you are 100% wrong (as usual).  There's nothing illegal about being granted genuine refugee status by the Government.   ;)

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:17am: adelcrow wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:11am: wow..one crook..that must mean all refugees are crooks just as Ivan Milat makes all Liberal supporters brutal serial killers  ;D A man with a Che alter ego has absolutely no sense of proportion, naturally. The tragedy as well as the comedy about abject skuppies like you is that you have simply no idea just how amazingly stupid you are. So, you have evidence that there's more than "one crook"? How many are we looking at then?  As a percentage?  1%, 20%, 50%, 80%? There's probably more than one, sure.  But how many exactly? What percentage is it and where are you getting the figures from?

Well, we have evidence that being granted refugee status is no guarantee of being 'genuine refugees' - in other words, the process of granting refugee status to undocumented foreigners is EVIDENTLY flawed.


How flawed? Let's find out! Apparently DIAC has known for years that it has been a flawed processes. What happened? Nothing. People like you kept parroting that if the are given refugee status then they are genuine refugees.

This is but one example of how an unthinking approach will eventually come back and bite you. What percentage of them are crooks doesn't matter. What matters is that the process is not trusted. And you can't have an orderly immigration or refugee process if the way it is done is not trusted.

But I guess this remains incomprehensible to you, Che and the usual unthinking parrots.  SO carry on, altogether now 'oh. it's only one guy, but the rest are all genuine refugees', while the rest of us, the sensible demographic, laugh at you.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:14am: Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee. 1. They aren't "illegals": it's perfectly legal to arrive in Australia by boat, with no passport or visa, and claim asylum. 2. The majority are granted genuine refugee status (not all, but certainly the majority). 3. If they're not genuine refugees, send them home.  Simple.

I have never said the "action" of claim asylum was illegal. This is becoming tedious with the rhetoric from the left!!!

Claiming asylum is not illegal. It's actually one of the many ways of obtaining a VISA

But anyone arriving in Australia without a VISA and/or the correct paperwork is illegal

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/irregular-entry/

Check your facts before posting!!!!

Also interesting to note you did not post a link for your claims yet I have posted a link. Difference is I know what I am talking about!!

I have not mentioned about the majority.

I have highlighted that this person was given refugee status within 3 months even though he is not a genuine refugee. This is a failure on the Gillard government

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:17am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:14am: Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee. 1. They aren't "illegals": it's perfectly legal to arrive in Australia by boat, with no passport or visa, and claim asylum. 2. The majority are granted genuine refugee status (not all, but certainly the majority). 3. If they're not genuine refugees, send them home.  Simple. I have never said the "action" of claim asylum was illegal. This is becoming tedious with the rhetoric from the left!!! Claiming asylum is not illegal. It's actually one of the many ways of obtaining a VISA But anyone arriving in Australia without a VISA and/or the correct paperwork is illegal http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/irregular-entry/ Check your facts before posting!!!! Also interesting to note you did not post a link for your claims yet I have posted a link. Difference is I know what I am talking about!! I have not mentioned about the majority. I have highlighted that this person was given refugee status within 3 months even though he is not a genuine refugee. This is a failure on the Gillard government

Showing up here without documents and claiming asylum is not illegal.
Just as losing your documents when you are overseas does make you illegal.
Falsifying documents with the intention of obtaining a visa does make you illegal

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

Difference is I know what I am talking about!!

Nope.  Your post proves otherwise.

Anyone arriving in Australia without a VISA and/or the correct paperwork is not illegal, as long as they are claiming asylum.

You need to check your facts young man.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

SO carry on, altogether now 'oh. it's only one guy, but the rest are all genuine refugees', ...

Lift your game old man.  I never said it's only one guy.

In fact, I said: "There's probably more than one, sure."

I then asked you how many you think it may be (but you failed to answer).

If you can't answer the question, just say so (we all knew that anyway).

What is ASIO doing?
They could not find their own arse with both hands.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:47am: SO carry on, altogether now 'oh. it's only one guy, but the rest are all genuine refugees', ... Lift your game old man.  I never said it's only one guy. In fact, I said: "There's probably more than one, sure." I then asked you how many you think it may be (but you failed to answer). If you can't answer the question, just say so (we all knew that anyway).

Common sense tells us that not all people claiming asylum are genuine but we do know the vast majority of them are.
There will always be shonks in all walks of life but we dont abandon all mankind due to the actions of a few.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

Also interesting to note you did not post a link for your claims yet I have posted a link.

Let me fix that for you:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/boats.php

"Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not engaging in illegal activity. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.

"In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation."

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/boats.php

As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article.

Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices."

Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive".

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:47am: SO carry on, altogether now 'oh. it's only one guy, but the rest are all genuine refugees', ... Lift your game old man.  I never said it's only one guy. In fact, I said: "There's probably more than one, sure." I then asked you how many you think it may be (but you failed to answer). If you can't answer the question, just say so (we all knew that anyway).

5975.

Happy?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:47am: Also interesting to note you did not post a link for your claims yet I have posted a link. Let me fix that for you: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/boats.php "Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not engaging in illegal activity. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum. "In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation." http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/boats.php

Let me enlighten you with the fact that I have NEVER called "the act of claiming" refugee status as illegal!!

Let me enlighten you the process:

(1) Arrival in Australia without a valid documentation is illegal. At this stage they are classified as illegal

(2) Two choices are opened to this illegal. First deportation. Second they claim asylum. At this stage they are STILL classified as ILLEGAL

(3) An assessment is made. At this stage they are still classified as ILLEGAL

(4) A determination is made. If their application is rejected they are deported. Or an appeal is made. But they are still ILLEGAL.

(5) If they are accepted as a refugee - then and ONLY then will they be issued with a a VISA. They can now enter Australia!!!


You are welcome!!!

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:47am: Also interesting to note you did not post a link for your claims yet I have posted a link. Let me fix that for you: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/boats.php "Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not engaging in illegal activity. The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum. "In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation." http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/boats.php

Let me enlighten you with the fact that I have NEVER called "the act of claiming" refugee status as illegal!!

Let me enlighten you the process:

(1) Arrival in Australia without a valid documentation is illegal. At this stage they are classified as illegal

(2) Two choices are opened to this illegal. First deportation. Second they claim asylum. At this stage they are STILL classified as ILLEGAL

(3) An assessment is made. At this stage they are still classified as ILLEGAL

(4) A determination is made. If their application is rejected they are deported. Or an appeal is made. But they are still ILLEGAL.

(5) If they are accepted as a refugee - then and ONLY then will they be issued with a a VISA. They can now enter Australia!!!


You are welcome!!!

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive".

Jesus, Peter, you must have been pigging out on gelatin or something similar because you are really getting thicker before our eyes.

News outlets use the word 'allegedly' when they report on something that has not yet been decided by a court. It is news - needs to be reported - but the criminality is not proven yet - so it is only an allegation.

If they are not illegal then there's no need to detain them!!!!

So the Council can say whatever it wants - but without referencing to the applicable Immigration Laws then it's simply an opinion.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum/boats.php

Australia's Migration Act 1958 requires all unlawful non-citizens to be detained, regardless of circumstances, until they are granted a visa. As such, an asylum seeker who arrives or is present in Australian territory without a visa must be detained.



..


.


Interesting isn't it?

The Council says that mandatory detention is required for unlawful non-citizen and goes ahead to provide reference to the Migration Act

But it also makes a claim that these boat people are not illegal - but does no provide references

Seems strange they should provide reference for one point yet stay silent for the other.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:47am: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:17am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:14am: Lefties continue to advocate that these illegals are genuine refugee. 1. They aren't "illegals": it's perfectly legal to arrive in Australia by boat, with no passport or visa, and claim asylum. 2. The majority are granted genuine refugee status (not all, but certainly the majority). 3. If they're not genuine refugees, send them home.  Simple. I have never said the "action" of claim asylum was illegal. This is becoming tedious with the rhetoric from the left!!! Claiming asylum is not illegal. It's actually one of the many ways of obtaining a VISA But anyone arriving in Australia without a VISA and/or the correct paperwork is illegal http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/irregular-entry/ Check your facts before posting!!!! Also interesting to note you did not post a link for your claims yet I have posted a link. Difference is I know what I am talking about!! I have not mentioned about the majority. I have highlighted that this person was given refugee status within 3 months even though he is not a genuine refugee. This is a failure on the Gillard government Showing up here without documents and claiming asylum is not illegal. Just as losing your documents when you are overseas does make you illegal. Falsifying documents with the intention of obtaining a visa does make you illegal

showing up here without papers isnt illegal... funny that.. has anyone heard of anyone arriving by plane without papers???>... anyone????

as adel keeps reminding us more overstayers arrive by plane and are more illegal..

even though they do have papers..

when caught they do have a passport.. which usually gives the age and country of the person carrying it..

as it is we are basically at the mercy of what the people smugglers tell their travellers what to claim when they arrive. by boat...

I am sure our immigration people have heard the lot! and the same story over and over.

I wonder what would happen to ADEL If he was caught on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan without papers....??? do you think they would send him straight down to the Australian Embassy just because he claimed he was Australian..

hoe about doing a little experiment next time you travel overseas adel.. leave your papers on a bus..you wont have a scrap of trouble by the sound of you..

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive".

so the ABC didnt do or say any of the things the DT has printed.. is that what you are saying??????

you are not allowed to print up other people articles without a link..a link to the APC thank you.

cods wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 2:26pm:

showing up here without papers isnt illegal... funny that..

So, why do you think these people are not charged with an offence (relating to their lack of documentation)?

Quite simply, because they can't be.  They are protected under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention.

States "shall not impose penalties".

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:53pm: As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive". Jesus, Peter, you must have been pigging out on gelatin or something similar because you are really getting thicker before our eyes. News outlets use the word 'allegedly' when they report on something that has not yet been decided by a court. It is news - needs to be reported - but the criminality is not proven yet - so it is only an allegation.

Rubbish. Offensive rubbish seems to be your strongest suit. After more than 40 years working in the media I suspect I might just know a little more about it than you.

The DT had not done any sort of investigation, simply taking the TV programme and shoving "allegedly" in to try and cover their backsides. There is no court case pending and not even any arrests made.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 2:53pm:

cods wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:26pm: showing up here without papers isnt illegal... funny that.. So, why do you think these people are not charged with an offence (relating to their lack of documentation)? Quite simply, because they can't be.  They are protected under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention. States "shall not impose penalties".

I quoted from your very own source

They are classified as unlawful non-citizen under the Migration Act

Under this Act the penalty is deportation

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:53pm: cods wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:26pm: showing up here without papers isnt illegal... funny that.. So, why do you think these people are not charged with an offence (relating to their lack of documentation)? Quite simply, because they can't be.  They are protected under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention. States "shall not impose penalties". I quoted from your very own source They are classified as unlawful non-citizen under the Migration Act Under this Act the penalty is deportation

They are not deported if they are claiming asylum.

And, they are not charged with any offence.

States "shall not impose penalties".

cods wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:53pm: As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive". so the ABC didnt do or say any of the things the DT has printed.. is that what you are saying?????? you are not allowed to print up other people articles without a link..a link to the APC thank you.

I'm saying exactly what I am saying, nothing more, nothing less.

The adjudication is new and does not yet appear on the APC website.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/australian-press-council-makes-ruling-about-material-in-the-daily-telegraph-sydney-on-26-november-2011/story-e6freuy9-1226383959453

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:01pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:53pm: As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive". Jesus, Peter, you must have been pigging out on gelatin or something similar because you are really getting thicker before our eyes. News outlets use the word 'allegedly' when they report on something that has not yet been decided by a court. It is news - needs to be reported - but the criminality is not proven yet - so it is only an allegation. Rubbish. Offensive rubbish seems to be your strongest suit. After more than 40 years working in the media I suspect I might just know a little more about it than you. The DT had not done any sort of investigation, simply taking the TV programme and shoving "allegedly" in to try and cover their backsides. There is no court case pending and not even any arrests made.

;D

You worked more than 40 years in the media, did you? As what, a newsagent?

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 3:39pm: Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:01pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:53pm: As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive". Jesus, Peter, you must have been pigging out on gelatin or something similar because you are really getting thicker before our eyes. News outlets use the word 'allegedly' when they report on something that has not yet been decided by a court. It is news - needs to be reported - but the criminality is not proven yet - so it is only an allegation. Rubbish. Offensive rubbish seems to be your strongest suit. After more than 40 years working in the media I suspect I might just know a little more about it than you. The DT had not done any sort of investigation, simply taking the TV programme and shoving "allegedly" in to try and cover their backsides. There is no court case pending and not even any arrests made. ;D You worked more than 40 years in the media, did you? As what, a newsagent?

Paperboy.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 4:23pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:53pm: cods wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:26pm: showing up here without papers isnt illegal... funny that.. So, why do you think these people are not charged with an offence (relating to their lack of documentation)? Quite simply, because they can't be.  They are protected under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention. States "shall not impose penalties". I quoted from your very own source They are classified as unlawful non-citizen under the Migration Act Under this Act the penalty is deportation They are not deported if they are claiming asylum. And, they are not charged with any offence. States "shall not impose penalties".

Claiming refugee status is one way of getting a VISA

If the claims cannot be verified then no VISA is issued and the illegal will be deported

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 4:34pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 4:23pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:53pm: cods wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:26pm: showing up here without papers isnt illegal... funny that.. So, why do you think these people are not charged with an offence (relating to their lack of documentation)? Quite simply, because they can't be.  They are protected under Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention. States "shall not impose penalties". I quoted from your very own source They are classified as unlawful non-citizen under the Migration Act Under this Act the penalty is deportation They are not deported if they are claiming asylum. And, they are not charged with any offence. States "shall not impose penalties". Claiming refugee status is one way of getting a VISA If the claims cannot be verified then no VISA is issued and the illegal will be deported

So they are legal until they are found to be otherwise..just like everyone here except for you and a few neo cons have been claiming all along.
Its good to see you are finally coming to the party

The sooner we become a republic and private ownership of the Australian peoples assets and resources is abolished the better.  The day usury and gaming venues are outlawed and usury made a capital crime should be made a public holiday.  It should also be a serious offense to hang a royal portrait in a public place.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

So they are legal until they are found to be otherwise..just like everyone here except for you and a few neo cons have been claiming all along.

Exactly.  At last, we can all agree on something.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:54pm: So they are legal until they are found to be otherwise..just like everyone here except for you and a few neo cons have been claiming all along. Exactly.  At last, we can all agree on something.

Well I'm glad that's resolved. It's only taken a few zillion posts to get it through to one of them. Wonder how long before the rest catch on?  :-/

These alleged refugees and country shoppers should be punted as they are illegal entrants to our country according to the UN convention. And why are Sri Lankans fleeing Sri Lanka? I thought the Sri Lankans put down the recent war based on RACE.


Quote:

Article 31 refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country. http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

If you live at Katoomba and your neighbour is threatening you do you go to the Katoomba police or do you report the threats to the Ballina police?

If you are fleeing oppression in Afghanistan do you go to Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Australia? If you go to Pakistan and leave that country you are no longer a refugee.

These alleged refugees and country shoppers should be punted as they are illegal entrants to our country according to the UN convention. And why are Sri Lankans fleeing Sri Lanka? I thought the Sri Lankans put down the recent war based on RACE.


Quote:

Article 31 refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country. http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

If you live at Katoomba and your neighbour is threatening you do you go to the Katoomba police or do you report the threats to the Ballina police?

If you are fleeing oppression in Afghanistan do you go to Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Australia? If you go to Pakistan and leave that country you are no longer a refugee.

salad in wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

These alleged refugees and country shoppers should be punted as they are illegal entrants to our country according to the UN convention. And why are Sri Lankans fleeing Sri Lanka? I thought the Sri Lankans put down the recent war based on RACE. Quote: Article 31 refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country. http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html If you live at Katoomba and your neighbour is threatening you do you go to the Katoomba police or do you report the threats to the Ballina police? If you are fleeing oppression in Afghanistan do you go to Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Australia? If you go to Pakistan and leave that country you are no longer a refugee.

You would flee to Pakistan where you would be further discriminated against and where there is no future for you or your family?..I doubt that very much.

I didn't agree with a lot of what Howard imposed, but Nauru was one of his best works. Rudd abandoning it was arrogance at its best, or worst, as the case may be.

This is not an isolated occurrence. There would be literally thousands like this grub.

I have a question on this.

If a boat with 50 people gets picked up in Australian waters and the occupants sent to Christmas Island for processing, etc, does that mean that 50 people who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world get pushed back in the line?

Not trying to put an argument forward or anything here - just trying to understand the circumstances of this better.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

I have a question on this. If a boat with 50 people gets picked up in Australian waters and the occupants sent to Christmas Island for processing, etc, does that mean that 50 people who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world get pushed back in the line? Not trying to put an argument forward or anything here - just trying to understand the circumstances of this better.

Yes

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 10:22pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:31pm: I have a question on this. If a boat with 50 people gets picked up in Australian waters and the occupants sent to Christmas Island for processing, etc, does that mean that 50 people who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world get pushed back in the line? Not trying to put an argument forward or anything here - just trying to understand the circumstances of this better. Yes

what line?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:54pm: So they are legal until they are found to be otherwise..just like everyone here except for you and a few neo cons have been claiming all along. Exactly.  At last, we can all agree on something.

What are they under the Migration Act?

They are unlawful non-citizen

What's the definition of unlawful?

ILLEGAL!!!!

Suck it up princess

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:22pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:31pm: I have a question on this. If a boat with 50 people gets picked up in Australian waters and the occupants sent to Christmas Island for processing, etc, does that mean that 50 people who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world get pushed back in the line? Not trying to put an argument forward or anything here - just trying to understand the circumstances of this better. Yes what line?

When more than one person seeks services and the demand exceeds the supply of service then a line is formed. A line is a sequential gathering of people waiting for products and/or services.

Since there are more than one person seeking refugee assessment service - then a line exists.

You are welcome adel

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 10:30pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:22pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:31pm: I have a question on this. If a boat with 50 people gets picked up in Australian waters and the occupants sent to Christmas Island for processing, etc, does that mean that 50 people who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world get pushed back in the line? Not trying to put an argument forward or anything here - just trying to understand the circumstances of this better. Yes what line? When more than one person seeks services and the demand exceeds the supply of service then a line is formed. A line is a sequential gathering of people waiting for products and/or services. Since there are more than one person seeking refugee assessment service - then a line exists. You are welcome adel

where is this line?

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:30pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:22pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:31pm: I have a question on this. If a boat with 50 people gets picked up in Australian waters and the occupants sent to Christmas Island for processing, etc, does that mean that 50 people who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world get pushed back in the line? Not trying to put an argument forward or anything here - just trying to understand the circumstances of this better. Yes what line? When more than one person seeks services and the demand exceeds the supply of service then a line is formed. A line is a sequential gathering of people waiting for products and/or services. Since there are more than one person seeking refugee assessment service - then a line exists. You are welcome adel where is this line?

At every Australian immigration assessment and processing point all over the world

Terrorists, posing as smugglers, posing as refugees. Thanks labor.

This is worrying - read down toward the bottom...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/people-smugglers-facing-eviction-says-immigration-minister-chris-bowen/story-e6freuzr-1226385383297

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 11:19pm:

Terrorists, posing as smugglers, posing as refugees. Thanks labor.

Did Labor invade Afghanistan and Iraq and destabilise the middle east and south asia?
I dont think so..................................

For all the lefties out their - regardless of how you feel about Abbott - you need to analyse each of Labor's mistakes in isolation.

The reality here is Labor has given refugee status to a group of people smugglers.

If there was ever evidence that these actions are representative of queue jumping then this is it. Don't automatic revert to the rhetoric of "what queue" but look at the fact that these families have taken the places of other applicants in detention in Australia and overseas.

You are a disgrace Labor

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 7:14am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:19pm: Terrorists, posing as smugglers, posing as refugees. Thanks labor. Did Labor invade Afghanistan and Iraq and destabilise the middle east and south asia? I dont think so..................................

So you are now blaming the LIBs for making this guy become a people smuggler because of the war?

You are abhorrent adel!!!

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 7:54am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:14am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:19pm: Terrorists, posing as smugglers, posing as refugees. Thanks labor. Did Labor invade Afghanistan and Iraq and destabilise the middle east and south asia? I dont think so.................................. So you are now blaming the LIBs for making this guy become a people smuggler because of the war? You are abhorrent adel!!!

Hey, I'm abhorrent and I object to being compared with Adel.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 7:14am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:19pm: Terrorists, posing as smugglers, posing as refugees. Thanks labor. Did Labor invade Afghanistan and Iraq and destabilise the middle east and south asia? I dont think so..................................

Brilliant. Tell us, how did Howard turn you into an abject idiot? 

Cap'n Mahmood, or whatever his name is, lived in Malaysia for years, making big money from organising boats. SO he wasn't fleeing hardship, yhou bloody fool.
Then he boarded a boat himslef and Gillard accepted him as a refugee. Then he organised 'family reunion' for his wife and grown up kids. That are all here, all pulling in benefits and live in separate public housing - all paid for by taxpayers. Claiming benefitr and at the same time pulling in big dollars for organising boats.

And all you have is the same tired old reflex about wars? You idiots haven't had an independent thought for most of your adult lives, if ever.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:22pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:31pm: I have a question on this. If a boat with 50 people gets picked up in Australian waters and the occupants sent to Christmas Island for processing, etc, does that mean that 50 people who are in refugee camps somewhere else in the world get pushed back in the line? Not trying to put an argument forward or anything here - just trying to understand the circumstances of this better. Yes what line?

The cap of 14,000 annual refugee visas, Che Geriant.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2012 at 5:04pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 3:39pm: Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:01pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:53pm: As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive". Jesus, Peter, you must have been pigging out on gelatin or something similar because you are really getting thicker before our eyes. News outlets use the word 'allegedly' when they report on something that has not yet been decided by a court. It is news - needs to be reported - but the criminality is not proven yet - so it is only an allegation. Rubbish. Offensive rubbish seems to be your strongest suit. After more than 40 years working in the media I suspect I might just know a little more about it than you. The DT had not done any sort of investigation, simply taking the TV programme and shoving "allegedly" in to try and cover their backsides. There is no court case pending and not even any arrests made. ;D You worked more than 40 years in the media, did you? As what, a newsagent?

Once again, Soren, you prove yourself both ignorant and offensive. Why you constantly resort to personal attacks, only you can answer.

I worked as a senior journalist for a major New Zealand newspaper and served two terms as National President of the NZ Journalists Union.

From any  half decent person I would now expect an apology. So that probably leaves you out. We'll see.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:04pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 3:39pm: Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:01pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:53pm: As always the right wing media waxes hysterically and those who believe everything they read in the rightwing media bark on command. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, in a beat up on the Four Corner's programme, uses the term "alleged" or "allegedly" NINE times in its article. Translated, the term means: "Look, we have no idea whether this is true or not, but we're going to publish it anyway because it suits our prejudices." Ironically the DT article appears alongside a report that the Australian Press Council has caned the newspaper for "an especially serious breach of its principles" in previous coverage of asylum seekers. The APC found the DT's coverage was "gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive". Jesus, Peter, you must have been pigging out on gelatin or something similar because you are really getting thicker before our eyes. News outlets use the word 'allegedly' when they report on something that has not yet been decided by a court. It is news - needs to be reported - but the criminality is not proven yet - so it is only an allegation. Rubbish. Offensive rubbish seems to be your strongest suit. After more than 40 years working in the media I suspect I might just know a little more about it than you. The DT had not done any sort of investigation, simply taking the TV programme and shoving "allegedly" in to try and cover their backsides. There is no court case pending and not even any arrests made. ;D You worked more than 40 years in the media, did you? As what, a newsagent? Once again, Soren, you prove yourself both ignorant and offensive. Why you constantly resort to personal attacks, only you can answer. I worked as a senior journalist for a major New Zealand newspaper and served two terms as National President of the NZ Journalists Union. From any  half decent person I would now expect an apology. So that probably leaves you out. We'll see.

Oh PLEASE!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thanks angeleyes. I had already realised where you come from. Being a reactionary means never having to say you're sorry, doesn't it darling?

Absolutely not. Angeleyes recently apologised to Phallic Baldwin during a costume change.

Matty saw it.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13877315/smuggler-may-lose-his-visa/

Despite insisting Australia's system for processing asylum claims was "rigorous", Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has ordered his department to investigate Capt. Emad's case, warning his protection visa could be torn up.

Until yesterday, Capt. Emad was employed as a trolley collector at a supermarket in Canberra, working as a subcontractor for the Sydney company Jae My Holdings.

Company director Susan Lee told _The West Australian _ she terminated the contract yesterday when she learnt of his alleged past.

Ms Lee said she had contracted his company about six weeks ago after he produced company extracts and a passport, which she believed showed he was an Australian citizen. She photocopied this document.

_The West Australian _ has confirmed Capt. Emad does not have a passport but a so-called certificate of identity that allows people on protection visas to travel.

A company search showed Ali al-Abassi is director of Top Collector Pty Ltd, which was established in April. It gives his date of birth as July 19, 1957, the same date as on his certificate of identity.

When his wife Hanan Mohammad Ahmad al-Abassi, three sons Ahmad, Muhammad and Murad and daughter Sarah claimed asylum in 2009 they said he was dead.

Attempts to contact Capt. Emad were unsuccessful.

HMAS Ararat yesterday intercepted the 49th boat in Australian waters this year, stopping it north-west of Christmas Island with 49 people aboard.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

Once again, Soren, you prove yourself both ignorant and offensive. Why you constantly resort to personal attacks, only you can answer. I worked as a senior journalist for a major New Zealand newspaper and served two terms as National President of the NZ Journalists Union. From any  half decent person I would now expect an apology. So that probably leaves you out. We'll see.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

Posting on forums about unions and journalism don't count.

(Will this do?)


Are you saying that you were the president of the EPMU twice? That's bollocks. You big note yourself, trying to somehow have some authority, but it doesn't work. SO people laff at you and you get offended. Mebbe cut the Baron Munchausen stuff.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 6^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:04pm: ;D You worked more than 40 years in the media, did you? As what, a newsagent? Once again, Soren, you prove yourself both ignorant and offensive. Why you constantly resort to personal attacks, only you can answer.

Hey, there is nothing offensive about being a newsagent! Are you a newsagent-hater?