greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 9:37am:


Maybe your truth

& yeah ...nah I won't accept it

figures lie & liars figure

In theory, ‘genuine’ refugees are admitted in a timely manner and integrated into society. Those whose claims fail go home. In reality, however, it can take several years to complete the entire process of claiming asylum while the applicants build social and sometimes familial and professional ties in Australia. When they finally receive a rejection, many are unwilling to go home, or have nowhere to return to. Their countries of origin may not want them back. What should host governments do?

While it’s preferable that failed asylum seekers return home voluntarily, ultimately it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that they do not stay unlawfully. The international protection regime is not limited to people who we accept as refugees, but must also grapple with what to do with the people whose claims we reject.

Amid the growing crisis in global governance for protecting migrants and refugees, a consistently enforced yet humane policy of returning rejected asylum seekers has become ever more important.

Between 2010 and 2016, Australia doubled the number of removals of failed asylum seekers from 877 to 1752 per year. The rate of removals to finally rejected asylum claims also rose from 30.7% to 35.4% during this period. However, beyond the increase in numbers and rate, the policy faces several challenges.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/what-happens-failed-asylum-seekers...


T he process takes far to long - at taxpayers' expense with multiple appeal opportunities -  and the rejected refuse to return and most of them are not booted. Even criminal with no visas cannot be booted out - how much harder is it to then return those whose claim was found to be simply bogus.

Basically, if you made it onshore and claimed asylum, you wil stay as long as you like. this is not right in any sense.

I could do with a slave or two.
They can run the treadmill conveyor belt like mice and keep my electricity running. 

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2024 at 8:40pm:


1 boat, with the potential to devastate Australia's agricultural industry... even if the damage is contained to a small section of the coastal region where the boat landed. Yes, we should be concerned.

Gnads wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 9:43am:


I have watched portions of Australian Border Security. That show just reinforces my point about people are unlikely to get the flora and fauna through customs "that would go on to destroy our wildlife and fragile ecosystem". Sick people would get through customs. The foodstuff and plant material, animals, and such get quarantined or confiscated.

I could imagine that these boat people brought their food and still had some food when they arrived in Australia. And they would have tracked whatever soil on their shoes onto land in Australia. There were no customs to prevent these biohazards from coming onto the mainland.

Gnads wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 9:55am:



yes, you've always preferred the voices in your head to facts

Jasin wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 5:09pm:


You're confusing the migration program with the humanitarian program.

After all these years, you still don't understand the difference.

Quite frankly, that's scary.

Jasin wrote on Feb 21^st, 2024 at 5:18pm:


Intelligent, rational, caring individuals.