News & Events Asylum seekers and Visa overstayers

[garygee]

Last year we "let in" about 4000 asylum seekers out of 185000 immigrants.
That's less than 2% of our intake. More than 75000 people from the US or UK overstayed their VISA. Aren't these 75000 overstayers more of a problem than the 4000 refugees?

 

[LouisCK]

A lot of tourists overstay for a couple of weeks, it doesn't cost us much.

As for what affects Australians the most, its skilled migrants and business sponsored migrants.

Cheap labour used to drive down the price of wages in this country. We have a huge amount of these guys come in every year, literally taking jobs away from Australians and keeping downward pressure on wages. Yet because asylum seekers are a very easy target, they get kicked around and treated like shit.

Elephant, meet room.

I have (like most) my own opinions on how best to run the processing of irregular arrivals - its a difficult situation with no clear cut solution - but what I can't fathom is the sheer ignorance and hatred towards such a small group of people who are mostly (95%) genuine refugees.

 

[HarryTiger]

Last year we "let in" about 4000 asylum seekers out of 185000 immigrants.
That's less than 2% of our intake. More than 75000 people from the US or UK overstayed their VISA. Aren't these 75000 overstayers more of a problem than the 4000 refugees?

Please define "let in" and "overstay", and state why you believe the latter example is more of a problem. What exactly is problematic in both cases?

 

[Upgrayedd]

Yeah but the US/UK overstayers are white so it's ok.

Would we have a figure of people flying over then claiming asylum rather then boats? Why doesnt anyone kick up a fuss about this?

 

[garygee]

Yeah but the US/UK overstayers are white so it's ok.

Would we have a figure of people flying over then claiming asylum rather then boats? Why doesnt anyone kick up a fuss about this?

The 4K includes those that arrive by plane.

 

[garygee]

Please define "let in" and "overstay", and state why you believe the latter example is more of a problem. What exactly is problematic in both cases?

'let in' could be defined as accepted as having a legitimate claim to asylum seeking and accepted as residents. I have no problem with this.
Overstaying on the other hand,as good as scabs, take jobs from legitimate residents etc. Overstayers are not a matter of "a cuople of days. They intentionally stay longer than their Visa allows and frequently work. 75000 vs 4000, aren't the media and politicians etc. making more of an it than the issue deserves? Your turn now. (ha ha, bet you thought I was in for some asylum seeker bashing).

 

[HarryTiger]

'let in' could be defined as accepted as having a legitimate claim to asylum seeking and accepted as residents. I have no problem with this.
Overstaying on the other hand,as good as scabs, take jobs from legitimate residents etc. Overstayers are not a matter of "a cuople of days. They intentionally stay longer than their Visa allows and frequently work. 75000 vs 4000, aren't the media and politicians etc. making more of an it than the issue deserves? Your turn now. (ha ha, bet you thought I was in for some asylum seeker bashing).

No I didn't think you were bashing anyone in particular, but I wanted to make sure you knew how different the two categories are and your response shows you do.

Residents with full entitlements forever including their offspring, and theirs and theirs....
vs
Temporary visitors we chuck out as soon as they're caught.

I don't see why the two are even compared though of course you're not the first to do that.