Mandatory detention of refugees (Stop the boats. 5k a head. Part 2)

kwikfix

Club Legend
Jul 11, 2016
1,704
1,683
In your head
AFL Club
Fremantle
OK listen up all you loopy lefties, no one is buying your bullshit any more.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/3551885...alia-despite-lying-on-visa-application/#page1

Six Iranian boat people have been given permission to stay in Australia despite being caught taking trips back to the country they left in fear of their lives.

Since receiving their Australian protection visas, some of them returned numerous times to Iran, sparking suspicion from Immigration Minister Peter Dutton on their intentions for living in Australia.

However, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) foiled Mr Dutton’s attempts to deport the Iranians, allowing them to stay here anyway, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Documents obtained by the newspaper reveal in each case, the Iranians, who paid people smugglers to get to Australia, were given protection visas after claiming their lives would be in danger if they returned to Iran.

The visas were cancelled by Mr Dutton, or his delegate, after the Immigration Department discovered they voluntarily returned to Iran and later came back to Australia.

The six people each arrived in Australia between 2009 and 2014.

It's understood one person made three return trips to Iran after getting their Australian visa.

One of the three trips was to get married under Islamic law.

The AAT reinstated the protection visa after ruling that just because the person took trips from Australia to Iran, it didn't mean the person didn’t fear persecution in the country.

Another person claimed to be on an Iranian wanted list but the Immigration Department later discovered the person was in no danger if they returned to Iran.

Mr Dutton’s delegate found the person had not fled Iran on a false identity, was not in any danger in Iran and was an economic migrant rather than a genuine refugee and thus cancelled the protection visa.

A couple who arrived by boat claimed to have no identification documents and they would be killed if they returned.

However it was revealed they actually had valid Iranian passports when they travelled to Iran and back using them.

In both these cases, the AAT found the individual and the couple had lied on their visa applications, but still overturned the decision to kick them out of Australia.

And two Iranian family members claimed to be stateless with no identity documents.

It was soon discovered this wasn't the case when another family member applied to join them in Australia and provided documents to show all were Iranian citizens who were in no danger.

The AAT reinstated their visas after accepting the documents were fake, even though an expert gave evidence to the AAT that the documents were genuine.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...to-make-conditions-harsher-for-manus-refugees
For more than a year, camp managers and security staff have waged a campaign to make Australia’s detention centre for refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island as inhospitable as possible, leaked documents reveal.

A plan drafted in early 2016 outlines moves to coerce those recognised as refugees into leaving the detention centre and accepting resettlement in Papua New Guinea, while pushing asylum seekers to abandon their protection claims and return home.

Documents obtained by the Guardian acknowledge that many felt unsafe in the Manus community, would face violence and danger if forced out and had been “institutionalised” during their detention.
It's a good thing this a humanitarian policy.
 
Sep 15, 2011
31,463
47,753
AFL Club
West Coast
Actively trying to make refugee accommodation inhospitable, what a bunch of campaigners. There will be an inquiry into the way asylum seekers were treated one day, much like the Stolen Generation, and those responsible or supportive will either claim they never supported it or try to claim it 'was in the best interests at the time'. But enough people now know that's bullshit.
 

kwikfix

Club Legend
Jul 11, 2016
1,704
1,683
In your head
AFL Club
Fremantle
A total of 4,389 out of 11,323 visa decisions made by Mr Dutton or his delegates were overturned – despite the Immigration Department finding 20 refugees lied on their applications and claimed they were at risk of persecution in their native countries, the Herald Sun reports.

But in one case, an Iranian man claimed he was at risk of execution in his homeland but made three trips back there after being allow to stay in Australia.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dered-leave-Australia-here.html#ixzz4hKCO9uJm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Even one? So you would release them all because just one maybe legitimate? Wow.

We know that most of the people in those camps fly to indo and choose to get rid of their ID docs. It doesnt take a genius to join the dots from there.

FFS you would think people would learn a lesson from the utter disaster unfolding in Europe.

That sort of is the theory behind innocent until proven guilty. Or the whole "it doesn't matter they broke the law, it was because they were affected by drugs/mental illness/ whatever sob story they tell the judge" so reduce sentences/ slap on wrists approach.
 
Just a few? FFS. You are encouraging them by the tens of thousands.

We KNOW we can take ONLY genuine refugees WITHOUT taking economic migrants nor by encouraging them.

By taking them from UN camps

Its NOT rocket science.

meh, don't see a point in taking these UN refugees. Economic migrants more likely to be able to work, provide skills, and a taxation base.
 

Ratts of Tobruk

Cancelled
May 1, 2013
9,168
5,975
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
ATV Irdning
meh, don't see a point in taking these UN refugees. Economic migrants more likely to be able to work, provide skills, and a taxation base.
You've missed a trick here. He's saying they're the same thing. People exaggerating or pretending they need asylum in order to make a better life for themselves and their family/villages/etc. They aren't two separate sources.
 
Sep 15, 2011
31,463
47,753
AFL Club
West Coast
You've missed a trick here. He's saying they're the same thing. People exaggerating or pretending they need asylum in order to make a better life for themselves and their family/villages/etc. They aren't two separate sources.
He's saying we might as well take the economic migrants pretending to be refugees since they have shown they have skills and get-up-and-go rather than helpless refugees from a UN camp that don't have skills to add to our taxation base.
 

Ratts of Tobruk

Cancelled
May 1, 2013
9,168
5,975
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
ATV Irdning
He's saying we might as well take the economic migrants pretending to be refugees since they have shown they have skills and get-up-and-go rather than helpless refugees from a UN camp that don't have skills to add to our taxation base.
Yes, that appears to be what he is saying. So I was pointing out that the criticism from anti-refugee people is that we can't tell the difference.
 
Apr 30, 2006
8,272
2,248
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Yearly 75 billion is spent on asylum seekers worldwide (ie: those who come by boat or plane or the tiny numbers who receive resettlement)

5 billion on the 90% of hapless folks stuck in refugee camps and don't have the means to get out.

A ratio of $135 to 1

misplaced priorities perhaps? >_>

https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/find-your-next-read/extracts/2017/mar/refuge-extract/

Worse, some of the money appropriated for the few who have reached Europe has been diverted from funds previously earmarked for poor countries. For example, in 2015, Sweden, formerly one of the most generous donors, diverted fully half of its aid budget in this way. An arcane loophole in the OECD rules as to what counts as ‘aid’ actually enables the Swedish government to continue to count this diverted money in its aid budget, but think about who is really paying for Sweden’s refugees. Yet there is also no evidence that those who leave of their own volition are necessarily the most vulnerable.

Australia is no different with much of the aid budget diverted to deal with boat people.
 
Sep 15, 2011
31,463
47,753
AFL Club
West Coast
Historically, not much has been spent in refugees on UN camps. Out of sight, out of mind. One might suggest that's why some have opted to risk their life on a boat instead. Let's not pretend if boat people disappeared tomorrow that the government would invest heavily in supporting refugees around the globe.
 
Apr 30, 2006
8,272
2,248
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Historically, not much has been spent in refugees on UN camps. Out of sight, out of mind. One might suggest that's why some have opted to risk their life on a boat instead. Let's not pretend if boat people disappeared tomorrow that the government would invest heavily in supporting refugees around the globe.

Noone pretends that the coalition actually cares about the problem other than the bare minimum.

But the supposed refugee advocates in Labor and the Greens?

Why have they spent so much oxygen on the 10% and forgotten about the 90% out of sight.

Look at it this way, since John Howard's policies was blown up a decade ago, tens of billions of dollars have been spent on the issue.

Perhaps if a future labor government came to power again, they could concentrate on those stuck in refugee camps?

ie: as in investing on economic development in places like Sudan, Turkey and Jordan so many could have a future.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...resettling-refugees-was-the-bane-of-our-lives

Resettlement, in fact, was the bane of our lives. Seen as the golden ticket out of Sudan, it was at the forefront of the thoughts of most refugees and asylum seekers. But as resettlement would only happen for a very limited number, it also destroyed community cohesion, with community members casting aspersions on the stories of potential resettlement candidates. Unjustified accusations of wrongdoing were thrown at my Sudanese colleagues, and it was the reason I was called so often to the reception. The Sudanese staff were not trusted to give an honest answer, but after a while of being wheeled out the refugees were starting to mistrust me too.

Refugees are selected for resettlement based upon certain criteria, usually, but not always, vulnerability. But let’s be clear – this is not working, as the need always outpaces the numbers foreign countries are willing to take. The UNHCR and Sudanese government have around 16,000 refugees registered on its database but there is probably double this number who you could consider as ‘persons of concern’. Yet only a few hundred are resettled from Sudan each year. Those with a chance of a new life abroad also have to compete with refugees from other crises around the world. With resettlement places so scarce, it is no wonder that there’s bitterness towards those who seemingly denied them an opportunity of a new life abroad.
 
Last edited:

Ratts of Tobruk

Cancelled
May 1, 2013
9,168
5,975
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
ATV Irdning
Yearly 75 billion is spent on asylum seekers worldwide (ie: those who come by boat or plane or the tiny numbers who receive resettlement)

5 billion on the 90% of hapless folks stuck in refugee camps and don't have the means to get out.

A ratio of $135 to 1

misplaced priorities perhaps? >_>

https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/find-your-next-read/extracts/2017/mar/refuge-extract/



Australia is no different with much of the aid budget diverted to deal with boat people.
You can rightly lecture the Libs and Labor (although they deserve credit for changing their mind when faced with facts), but you're exaggerating in saying it's only "tiny numbers who receive resettlement". I also find it hard to believe that $75B would be for refugees who haven't been in a camp - which is the understanding you appear to have taken. Resettlement is refugees "means to get out", which you suggest erroneously doesn't exist, and just because a lot of money would be spent on them comparatively when they get to their host nation, that doesn't mean it isn't helping people in camps.
 
Apr 30, 2006
8,272
2,248
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Resettlement is refugees "means to get out", which you suggest erroneously doesn't exist,

Missing the point completely.

Its like using the Coalition's direct action plan as a strategy to face climate change.

pissing in the wind by planting trees.

The book I was quoting is suggesting a different strategy to simply resettlement. Investing in refugee hosting countries so that the many would have rights to participate in the local economy, provide subsidies and trade concessions to encourage foreign companies to invest in employment through new industries etc.

Money spent would be on rebuilding an economic base that could one day return to conflict regions like Syria.

When refugees make an economic contribution, as with other workers the income they generate primarily accrues to the refugees themselves, and to the wider private sector in Europe; it is not reallocated to the global refugee policy pot. Remittances aside, the benefits do very little to help the 90 per cent of refugees still in the region of origin. If refugees can contribute to the GDP of European countries, they can also contribute to the growth of host countries of first asylum: that is where development is really needed.

Our policy-makers are thereby operating a two-tier system for refugees: a boutique model for the 10 per cent who travel successfully to the rich world by whatever means, and a dependency and destitution model for most of the 90 per cent who remain in havens near their country of origin.

The current system for refugees who remain in their region of origin is a disaster. It is premised upon an almost exclusively ‘humanitarian’ response. A system designed for the emergency phase – to offer an immediate lifeline – ends up enduring year after year, sometimes decade after decade. External provision of food, clothing, and shelter is absolutely essential in the aftermath of having to run for your life. But over time, if it is provided as a substitute for access to jobs, education, and other opportunities, humanitarian aid soon undermines human dignity and autonomy.

Jordan is a middle-income country. As such, one of the key priorities of its national-development strategy is to make the leap to manufacturing. Yet transitioning to manufacturing is hard. Jordan is in a ‘middle-income trap’: unable to compete with low-income countries on cheap labour and unable to compete with advanced industrialized countries on technology and innovation. Much of the world’s manufacturing is today concentrated in China.

For example, most of the world’s buttons are manufactured in just one city, colloquially known as ‘Buttonopolis’. The reason for this is what is known as ‘clustering’; economies of scale emerge for access to labour, supply chains, and buyers when manufacturing is geographically concentrated. This makes it challenging – though not impossible – for a country to break into manufacturing. What it requires is a small number of significant firms to relocate their manufacturing operations to Jordan and for a threshold level of infrastructure and clustering to emerge over time.

For a country like Jordan, refugees arguably represent an opportunity to transition to manufacturing. They are a potential source of labour. Syrians, for example, are often skilled and well-educated, and share a common language with Jordanians. Crucially, the international recognition of a regional refugee crisis creates a potential opportunity for the government of Jordan to appeal for the relocation of a number of multinational corporations to Jordan for reasons that partly connect to corporate social responsibility and partly to core business interests. The crisis also offers a basis on which the government could appeal to other governments – in say Europe or North America – to provide trade concessions that improve access to their markets.

A range of external actors might support the creation of such economic zones for refugees. For example, EU trade concessions, which are conditional upon the employment of and right to work for refugees, might be available to businesses operating within the designated areas. Furthermore, one opportunity might lie in Syrian businesses no longer able to operate in Syria, which could be encouraged to relocate to such zones, assuming they were eventually able to return. Among these businesses are multinational corporations such as American Express, Sony Corporation, and Caterpillar, as well as many Syrian companies.

A key part of this model, we argued, is that it would contribute to post-conflict reconstruction. Ideally, many of the businesses developed within such spaces would be footloose, enabling them to follow refugees back to Syria when the security situation allows, and thereby play a key role in political and economic transition. The model would not depend upon the end of insecurity within Syria but could be premised upon the idea that it is working towards an eventual post-conflict reconstruction rather than feeding into a narrative of ‘local integration’. In that sense it would be a model that works directly to enhance refugees’ autonomy, to meet Jordan’s concerns about national development and regional security, and to support rebuilding in the new Syria.
 
Last edited:

Ratts of Tobruk

Cancelled
May 1, 2013
9,168
5,975
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
ATV Irdning
Missing the point completely.

Its like using the Coalition's direct action plan as a strategy to face climate change.

pissing in the wind by planting trees.

The book I was quoting is suggesting a different strategy to simply resettlement. Investing in refugee hosting countries so that the many would have rights to participate in the local economy, provide subsidies and trade concessions to encourage foreign companies to invest in employment through new industries etc.

Money spent would be on rebuilding an economic base that could one day return to conflict regions like Syria.
"Missing the point" or you not explaining the point? The second post is very different to the first, which pretends that "the 90%" are "out of sight" despite plenty of discussion around UNHCR camps over the years and foreign aid - things Labor also enacted policy on.
 
Apr 30, 2006
8,272
2,248
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
"Missing the point" or you not explaining the point? The second post is very different to the first, which pretends that "the 90%" are "out of sight" despite plenty of discussion around UNHCR camps over the years and foreign aid - things Labor also enacted policy on.

yes missing the point again.

Investment on camps is mainly in emergency relief rather than long term strategies.

Some refugee camps have been running for over 50 years with no change in planning.
 
Sep 15, 2011
31,463
47,753
AFL Club
West Coast
Noone pretends that the coalition actually cares about the problem other than the bare minimum.

But the supposed refugee advocates in Labor and the Greens?

Why have they spent so much oxygen on the 10% and forgotten about the 90% out of sight.

Look at it this way, since John Howard's policies was blown up a decade ago, tens of billions of dollars have been spent on the issue.

Perhaps if a future labor government came to power again, they could concentrate on those stuck in refugee camps?

ie: as in investing on economic development in places like Sudan, Turkey and Jordan so many could have a future.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...resettling-refugees-was-the-bane-of-our-lives
You're not going to find me defending Labor's refugee policy any more than the Libs. Through a combination of political naivety and cowardice, they have found themselves in lockstep with the Coalition. But at least they do have a history of funding foreign aid and the UN, which can work to address the long term problems you speak. The Coalition, on the other hand, not only walks back funding commitments but slashes foreign aid every budget. They don't even use the excuse of boat refugees either, they rationalise it as budget repair, suggesting they would do it regardless of the circumstances.
 
Apr 30, 2006
8,272
2,248
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
You're not going to find me defending Labor's refugee policy any more than the Libs. Through a combination of political naivety and cowardice, they have found themselves in lockstep with the Coalition. But at least they do have a history of funding foreign aid and the UN, which can work to address the long term problems you speak. The Coalition, on the other hand, not only walks back funding commitments but slashes foreign aid every budget. They don't even use the excuse of boat refugees either, they rationalise it as budget repair, suggesting they would do it regardless of the circumstances.

And now you miss the point.

you can't have it both ways. A policy that encourages asylum seekers by irregular methods (though boat or plane) means inevitably those stuck in refugee camps are forgotten about.

I've already shown that in the disparity in funding by a ratio of $135 to 1 and Sweden slashing their foreign aid budget in half similar to Labor and the coalition.

The coalition's policies are all stick and the greens all carrot.

That leaves Labor the only party that is able to bridge the middle by maintaining the tenets of Howard era policies (the offshore centres were eventually emptied through resettlement in new zealand or temporary protection visas in Australia) with a focus of funding on the improvement of refugee camps.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You would think after the latest terror attack certain people would finally grasp the stupidity of letting undocumented people in from countries linked to Islamic terrorism.

Of course some are a bit too thick to realise that a large % of people persecuted in countries such as Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan due to their allegiance to hard core Islamic groups.

Its not like Australia has let in many people in the past with links to the Tamil tigers nor that many funds were raised in Australia for their cause.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You're not going to find me defending Labor's refugee policy any more than the Libs. Through a combination of political naivety and cowardice, they have found themselves in lockstep with the Coalition.

The ALP changed policy when it was clear the changes they made attracted far more illegal immigrants (we can all remember the doctors wives trying to claim there was no such thing as a pull factor)

Just as it was the ALP who brought in detention centres in the first place.

You can rightly lecture the Libs and Labor (although they deserve credit for changing their mind when faced with facts),

Yes Ratts, I agree they do deserve credit for realising their policy had failed. Not easy for parties to do.
 
Sep 21, 2009
16,583
14,728
AFL Club
St Kilda
You would think after the latest terror attack certain people would finally grasp the stupidity of letting undocumented people in from countries linked to Islamic terrorism.
Absolutely. We need to stop letting undocumented asylum seekers into this country, because the Islamic terrorist was a second generation Manc, with documentation, born of parents who weren't asylum seekers, who did have documentation.

Humour.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Noone pretends that the coalition actually cares about the problem other than the bare minimum.

But the supposed refugee advocates in Labor and the Greens?

They know they are importing voters en mass. Its crocodile tears, most people arent so utterly gullible they cant see past it.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Absolutely. We need to stop letting undocumented asylum seekers into this country, because the Islamic terrorist was a second generation Manc, with documentation, born of parents who weren't asylum seekers, who did have documentation.

Humour.

Are you ever right about anything ever?

People dying due to Islamic terrorism is "humour". Sums up the sort of campaigners who advocate the job done by people smugglers.

What was the background of the Borough market filth?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/everything-know-manchester-suicide-bomber-salman-abedi/

Suicide bomber Salman Abedi is believed to have travelled to Syria and become radicalised before returning to the UK to cause carnage at a gig in the city where he was born.

The son of Libyan parents, who reportedly fled their native country and sought refuge in the UK, he is thought to have come back to Britain from Libya just days before the massacre.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/ringleader-london-bridge-terror-attack-named-khuram-butt/

Butt reportedly arrived in the UK from Pakistan as a child refuge
 
Last edited:
Sep 21, 2009
16,583
14,728
AFL Club
St Kilda
People dying due to Islamic terrorism is "humour". Sums up the sort of campaigners who advocate the job done by people smugglers.
So just to be clear. Every time you've used that "humour" bit, you've been talking about the topic, not people's reaction/explanation/response?



Now let's look back at what you actually stated.
You would think after the latest terror attack certain people would finally grasp the stupidity of letting undocumented people in from countries linked to Islamic terrorism.

And to back yourself up... you've shown that they were documented... and that it was the son who was born and raised in Manchester...


But, you knew how weak your position was, so you had to try and throw in some insults, and make a false claim about me finding death funny.

You're not even a shadow of the poster you used to pretend to be.
 
Back