Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

[Gough]

You have to be high.

 

[Malifice]

What do these strawmen have to do with a worldwide open borders policy?

Huh? Every single example I quoted was an open borders policy on a continental scale.

I also left out the British empire as well. My bad. Thats as close to a global one world government as we've had.

You've previously given tacit support for the 'White mans burden' and how former British colonies 'are better off' because of the single government.

Why the sudden change of heart?

Also, why are you happy to help 'Australians' but not happy to help 'Africans' or 'Americans'? Whats the difference?

 

[crackerjack4X4]

Huh? Every single example I quoted was an open borders policy on a continental scale.

I also left out the British empire as well. My bad. Thats as close to a global one world government as we've had.

You've previously given tacit support for the 'White mans burden' and how former British colonies 'are better off' because of the single government.

Why the sudden change of heart?

Also, why are you happy to help 'Australians' but not happy to help 'Africans' or 'Americans'? Whats the difference?

Me finks you are a troll but I will play your game.

1. Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day.
2. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.
3. 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat. Food banks are especially important in providing food for people that can’t afford it themselves. Run a food drive outside your local grocery store so people in your community have enough to eat. Sign up for Supermarket Stakeout.
4. More than 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water. Diarrhea caused by inadequate drinking water, sanitation, and hand hygiene kills an estimated 842,000 people every year globally, or approximately 2,300 people per day.
5. In 2011, 165 million children under the age 5 were stunted (reduced rate of growth and development) due to chronic malnutrition.

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

That's 3 BILLION people that would head straight to America, Canada, Europe and Australia.
If Australia took just 1% of those that would be 30 Million people!!!
So Malifice, how are we going provide for an extra 30 million?

 

[Xsess]

Your s**t at trolling Mal. No one thinks like that, no-one.

Even far-whack greens know it (they just dont care because they hate people)

 

[Malifice]

Me finks you are a troll but I will play your game.

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

That's 3 BILLION people that would head straight to America, Canada, Europe and Australia.
If Australia took just 1% of those that would be 30 Million people!!!
So Malifice, how are we going provide for an extra 30 million?

Lol. Why is the government of Australia providing for them? Its the government of 'The planet Earth'.

Remember - no borders, one government. That was the original argument. We now have access to the entire worlds resources and food (with no competition) to look after every one.

For starters our 'world government' can disband most of the worlds defence forces (as they are no longer needed) saving 1.7 trillion per annum:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

 

[crackerjack4X4]

Now I know your trolling.

 

[Malifice]

Now I know your trolling.

How so?

What is wrong with one world government, and no borders?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Disgraceful Labor supported the libs emergency bill without ammendments.

Honestly though, dispicable, facist, traitorous, inhumane, these are the words that come to mind when I think of the Abbott governement and their treatment of the weakest in society, aggressive attack on our rights and the rule of law.

 

[Malifice]

Disgraceful Labor supported the libs emergency bill without ammendments.

Honestly though, dispicable, facist, traitorous, inhumane, these are the words that come to mind when I think of the Abbott governement and their treatment of the weakest in society, aggressive attack on our rights and the rule of law.

I believe he calls it the 'guideline of law'.

He'll be having a go at the judiciary soon. Can't have those pesky judges stopping him centralising power can we?

 

[Play by Numbers]

I believe he calls it the 'guideline of law'.

He'll be having a go at the judiciary soon. Can't have those pesky judges stopping him centralising power can we?

Emergency legislation to cut off a court challenge, that would likely have ruled current policy unlawful..

Pretty disgraceful.

This post subverting the courts with the citizenship legislation and promotion of the TPP, which is a direct threat on our sovereignty

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

Emergency legislation to cut off a court challenge, that would likely have ruled current policy unlawful..

Pretty disgraceful.

Policy that 80+% or so of the voting population agreed with at the last election. If the courts legislated from the bench who would be subverting what again?

 

[medusala]

The very process is designed to make an application virtually impossible unless you can clearly demonstrate you are a genuine refugee.

That is wrong. Anyone can apply. I think you meant to say successfully apply? 80% of boat people throw away their docs. How then can they prove they are who they say they are?

I couldn't even open a bank account on that basis but they can prove they are "genuine" refugees.

Utter joke.

 

[midorigreenwood]

I've already posted it before but this is the best article I've found outlining how asylum seeker assessments used to work by someone who was part of the system and why coming by boat and destroying your documentation gave you an advantage in the process. (in the past)

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/opinion/9646-Two-tiered-justice-The-in-built-bias-in-Australia-

Its a strong reason why if we are to resettle refugees it should be done exclusively from camps which is what government policy is moving towards.

 

[Maggie5]

Interesting article re the two ways refugees seek asylum.
The first way is for a cashed refugee is to apply for a tourist visa, buy a plane ticket, arrive in Australia and apply for asylum as opposed to a refugee possibly sells everything they own, pay a people smuggler for boat ride risking death and hope that they will be accepted.
The second group are demonised and the first group are congratulated. Something seems wrong here.
The article was written in 2011, however it is an interesting site to read other articles.

 

[Jakko]

Interesting article re the two ways refugees seek asylum.
The first way is for a cashed refugee is to apply for a tourist visa, buy a plane ticket, arrive in Australia and apply for asylum as opposed to a refugee possibly sells everything they own, pay a people smuggler for boat ride risking death and hope that they will be accepted.
The second group are demonised and the first group are congratulated. Something seems wrong here.
The article was written in 2011, however it is an interesting site to read other articles.

The second "way" has clear and successful solutions, which have proven to be unpalatable for some of the population.

The first is a different beast, that cannot be solved without a) racial/country profiling and questioning on arrival b) making it a hassle to visit this country legally (important words those, "visit this country legally"). What people do after they arrive is the great unknown. Do they commit some kind of crime, overstay their official welcome, or claim asylum after checking into their hotel? Or just have fun spend some $$$ take many selfies and go home again?

Personally, I would take neither for a long term camp refugee. Shrug.

 

[GuruJane]

Great link Mids:

There is one other major known difference in the two tracks. Applicants in the onshore assessment inevitably have to produce their passport, and the decision-makers have access to their original visa application and all the supporting documents.
Applicants in the offshore assessment track almost never produce passports or other documents, although in almost all such cases they have used passports to enter Indonesia or Malaysia.

...

In the offshore track, an asylum seeker who does not produce any documents has a near blank canvas on which to sketch their identity, claims and history.
In that situation, the decision-maker can only check the claims for internal consistency, and compare them to general information known about the country in question.

... What the decision-maker doesn't have is any other known reference points - no travel, educational, residential or family history, against which the applicant's identity, claims and evidence can be measured.
This, of course, involves a much less rigorous examination of the applicant's claims and history than is available in onshore assessment.

Provided the identity and claims are plausible, i.e. they fit in with information known about the country of origin and pass a common sense test, they are likely to be accepted, whether or not they are true.
The result: a 98 per cent success rate for boat arrivals.

Successive Australian governments have been keen to discourage asylum seekers from arriving by boat, but there's little they can achieve when arriving by boat without documents can provide for an easier way to ultimately obtain a protection visa.

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/opinion/9646-Two-tiered-justice-The-in-built-bias-in-Australia-

In summary, Maggie's "second way"- cashed up people smuggler clients fly into Indonesia, destroy their travel documents, swamp the Diac system then lie and cheat their way into an Australian protection visas and ultimately citizenship.

Written by a refugee advocate and former member of the refugee appeals tribunal this article is the authoritative word on this disastrous period of Australian border control.

 

[Gough]

As opposed to now where it's really working well too.

 

[Maggie5]

Still silent on the first way and over stayers. LOL
It is still whack an AS.
How is that report reading going GJ, you have gone very quiet when you are provided with evidence.

 

[GuruJane]

The first way:

Between October 2008 and December 2010, the Department of Immigration approved 94 per cent of all refugee status claims by asylum seekers who arrived by boat, according to figures obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws. Those same figures show that in the first half of this financial year the department approved only 39 per cent of protection visa requests made by non-boat - the better safeguarded onshore track.

....

Remarkably it is the second track (second way), with much less legal protection of the rights of asylum seekers, which produces vastly better results for applicants. And, as mentioned above 94 per cent of offshore applicants succeed, compared to 39 per cent in the lawyer-rich and seemingly more generous onshore track. (Second way)
How does this happen?

.... countries such as Afghanistan or Sri Lanka, which are more likely to produce refugees, are more heavily represented in the offshore track; whereas many of the applicants in the onshore stream are from countries such as India or Indonesia, where there are less likely to be refugees.
However there are sufficient numbers of Sri Lanka applicants in both streams to make a comparison. In the last year, the Refugee Review Tribunal set aside the Department's decision to refuse a protection visa to Sri Lankan applicants in only 31 per cent of cases, showing that many Sri Lankan applicants in the onshore track are unsuccessful, but almost none in the offshore track are.

In other words, Sri Lankans who come the second people smuggler way destroying their documents get waved through with the same 98% success rate, but the equal number of SLs coming through the first way with passports, ID, visas and are knocked back at the same rate as the others - because their stories can be more easily checked.

There is one other major known difference in the two tracks. Applicants in the onshore assessment inevitably have to produce their passport, and the decision-makers have access to their original visa application and all the supporting documents.
Could the absence of documentation make a difference? I believe it can and does...

In the onshore track (first way, the asylum seeker's identity, claims and history can and will be cross-checked against the supporting documents that they themselves have provided. This will usually mean a passport, but may also include travel, educational, employment and residential histories and documents.

For instance, the applicant's claims will be checked against his or her known movements as disclosed by the passport, or by residential or educational records produced in support of a visitor or student visa, and the applicant will be invited to explain any discrepancies. If an applicant claims to have been present at a momentous event in the history of their country, then the documentary evidence must support that presence.

If an applicant claims to have been on the run from the authorities for some period of time, then they would need to explain any employment or educational records which may cast doubt on this.

In the offshore track second way, an asylum seeker who does not produce any documents has a near blank canvas on which to sketch their identity, claims and history. ...
Result: a 98 per cent success rate for boat arrivals.

Successive Australian governments have been keen to discourage asylum seekers from arriving by boat, but there's little they can achieve when arriving by boat without documents can provide for an easier way to ultimately obtain a protection visa.

In summary: Because the stories of those who arrive legally with passports and documents and then claim asylum can be more easily checked, far fewer of them qualify for a protection visa.

This is why the majority of boat arrivals destroy their documents and then spin a sob story knowing Diac and the system is so swamped they will be waved through.

Written by a former member of refugee appeals tribunal and now a refugee advisor this is the authoritative account of how the people smugglers and their customers scam the system.

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/opinion/9646-Two-tiered-justice-The-in-built-bias-in-Australia-

 

[romeohwho]

Great link Mids:



...









http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/opinion/9646-Two-tiered-justice-The-in-built-bias-in-Australia-

In summary, Maggie's "second way"- cashed up people smuggler clients fly into Indonesia, destroy their travel documents, swamp the Diac system then lie and cheat their way into an Australian protection visas and ultimately citizenship.

Written by a refugee advocate and former member of the refugee appeals tribunal this article is the authoritative word on this disastrous period of Australian border control.

Why are 'cashed up' people not genuine refugees please?

 

[Gough]

Somewhat remarkably politics in Australia this week managed to be united. One of the very few things that our politicians can agree on is that there is no need for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse that takes place in Nauru detention facilities. Well done Australia.

 

[CM86]

Somewhat remarkably politics in Australia this week managed to be united. One of the very few things that our politicians can agree on is that there is no need for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse that takes place in Nauru detention facilities. Well done Australia.

Disgusting.

I'm very concerned about the direction Abbott is taking Australia, but I can't see myself voting for Shorten.
Both parties are moving more and more to the right, and are doing what it takes to stay in power, rather than working for Australia.

Wish we had some options.

 

[Gough]

Disgusting.

I'm very concerned about the direction Abbott is taking Australia, but I can't see myself voting for Shorten.
Both parties are moving more and more to the right, and are doing what it takes to stay in power, rather than working for Australia.

Wish we had some options.

I'd do anything to stop a second Abbott term, it'll make the last eighteen months look like a teddy bears picnic.

 

[Power Raid]

Interesting article re the two ways refugees seek asylum.
The first way is for a cashed refugee is to apply for a tourist visa, buy a plane ticket, arrive in Australia and apply for asylum as opposed to a refugee possibly sells everything they own, pay a people smuggler for boat ride risking death and hope that they will be accepted.
The second group are demonised and the first group are congratulated. Something seems wrong here.
The article was written in 2011, however it is an interesting site to read other articles.

I agree Maggie. both deserve resettlement but it doesn't change the fact we need a queue to ensure our services aren't overwhelmed.

At least with one; it is safe and provides a clear identification process.

The other adds to the desperation, hardship and suffering. Worse if left unregulated it would swamp our ability to provide essential services to them and our current population.


I don't know how your family came here but mine was by boat after WW2. The boats were authorised but on arrival the family was put into work camps in outback Australia until they were cleared for disease, their identities confirmed (war crimes), their skills assessed, their english assessed, accommodation made available and employment found. So we have understood the concept of running a proper process in this nation for a long long time.

 

[Gough]

We're in the midst of an RC into responses to child abuse which is shocking the country, and our elected representitives decide that kids on Nauru can be abused, and nobody has to even report it. Holy f***, there is some sort of amazing disconnect here.