Oceanic Viking pics up new asylum seekers

[Black Ball]

Asylum seekers who are assessed to not be refugees are deported/repatriated.

Why the simpletons of this country crack the shits whenever a boat of them rocks up I have no idea.

Those same simpletons happen to be in the majority unlike you, the same simpletons who will let Mr Rudd and his cronies know all about it come election time.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Mmmm has little to do with Rudd's policies and more to do with global trends.

I support the idea of accepting genuine asylum seekers, but understand the angst illegal refugees cause.

That said the way we treat some of the asylum seekers in detention (or more the way the contractors do) is nothing short of disgusting.

 

[GuruJane]

Why the simpletons of this country crack the shits whenever a boat of them rocks up I have no idea.

The simpletons will just have to get used to it as the boats rock up in increasing numbers.

From the Australian online, Kevin's second new year present:

Two boats in 24 hours push Christmas Island to the brink

Samantha Maiden, Online Political Editor From: The Australian January 04,

KEVIN Rudd could be forced to bring asylum-seekers to the mainland for processing within weeks after the arrival of another boat took Christmas Island close to capacity.

The second boat in 12 hours, this time carrying 30 passengers, was confirmed today by the Rudd government.

The earlier boat - the first of 2010 - was intercepted off Christmas Island with 76 asylum-seekers on board.

While capacity on Christmas Island is about 1700, there are currently 1400 asylum-seekers on the island awaiting processing of their claims and a further 100 who have arrived in the past 24 hours.

That leaves the Rudd government with two options: expanding the capacity on Christmas Island or activating the contingency plan it has already outlined to bring asylum-seekers to Darwin for processing.

In the year to November 20, Admiral, the boats had been arriving at an average of one every 3 weeks. In the year to Nov 20 the weekly average of asylum seekers being absorbed by the Australian system was 45. This was a huge increase in itself on 2008 until the day Rudd abolished the so-called Pacific Solution. But since Nov 20, they have been arriving at average of 3 per week. And since Nov 20 the average arrival having to be absorbed has risen from 45 per week to over 100.

If 2000/2001 is any guide then the numbers will increase by 50-70% this year.

Good luck to the smugglers; good luck to their customers. Opportunity =creating demand=creating supply.

 

[medusala]

Mmmm has little to do with Rudd's policies and more to do with global trends.

Why would you believe this?

Why would you think changes in govt policy have no effect on where such people attempt to immigrate to?

If Australia was to say that all boat people would (at best) only received temporary protection visas and had no chance of a passport or family reunion do you not think this would act as a deterrent?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Why would you believe this?

Why would you think changes in govt policy have no effect on where such people attempt to immigrate to?

If Australia was to say that all boat people would (at best) only received temporary protection visas and had no chance of a passport or family reunion do you not think this would act as a deterrent?

Firstly logic.

There is a global increase in asylum seekers, one specific example being Sri Lanka.

Australia has a fairly high level of development and is in moderate regional proximity.

Just like if conflict of this kind escalated in say Pakistan or Indonesia (as it has in the past), around that time there is a liklihood that countries in the same region and the world to a greater extent will receive an increase in refugees from this area.

Now you may quibble about reasons why Australia may be a more attractive destination but the underlying cause is the greater number of people seeking asylum.

I remember a fairly funny rebuttal for one of Bolts blog entries on the same issue:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytic...ld-be-*******ed-with-a-calculator-–-part-142/

Not a professional or comprehensive analysis but a nifty amateur one (ignoring the rant).

It may lack in depth but does illustrate the point on a basic level.

Yep from the age and Chris Evans no less, but I find the explanation solid.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/co...ng-boat-people-20091023-hbns.html?comments=30

Other simple evidence.

Look at the unhcr's Asylum levels and trends in industrialised nations. You can see that across blocks of recognised developed nations there was a spike corresponding to a global spike in requests for asylum in the latter part of 2008, which then decreased in the 1st semester of 2009.

http://www.unhcr.org/4adebca49.html

Provide me a solid measurable way to approach your point of view meds and I will consider it (both examples are imperfect but I can provide more, neither are especially compelling but as of yet beat some of the political rhetoric), till then....

 

[medusala]

Firstly logic.

It is not a logical argument. Clearly in a world where information is readily available it is rational to think that readily communicated policies will influence behaviour. Why do you think asylum seekers travel the entire width of Europe to apply for asylum in the UK?

Provide me a solid measurable way to approach your point of view meds and I will consider it (both examples are imperfect but I can provide more, neither are especially compelling but as of yet beat some of the political rhetoric), till then....

Firstly using Crikey for anything to do with statistics is just shocking. They also attempted to have a crack at Bolt re crime stats and made utter fools of themselves, even their comments sections was full of attacks.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...for-asylum-seeker-arrivals-20091106-i0j3.html

In Australia's case, annual arrival numbers fell by 8850 between 1997-2002 and 2002-2006. Professor Hatton estimated the toughening of policy after Tampa explained just under 30 per cent of this decline.

n a subsequent study using different statistical techniques Professor Hatton and researcher Audrey Lim estimated the Howard government's post-Tampa stance explained a higher 55 per cent of the decline in arrivals from the end of 2001 to 2004.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_3_44/ai_n24217340/

For his part. Sherif Elsayed-Ali, head of the refugee and migrants' rights team at Amnesty International Secretariat, acknowledged that complex policies adopted by States not only had a "negative effect" on access to asylum, but also led to declining numbers of asylum-seekers.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It is not a logical argument. Clearly in a world where information is readily available it is rational to think that readily communicated policies will influence behaviour. Why do you think asylum seekers travel the entire width of Europe to apply for asylum in the UK?



Firstly using Crikey for anything to do with statistics is just shocking. They also attempted to have a crack at Bolt re crime stats and made utter fools of themselves, even their comments sections was full of attacks.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...for-asylum-seeker-arrivals-20091106-i0j3.html

In Australia's case, annual arrival numbers fell by 8850 between 1997-2002 and 2002-2006. Professor Hatton estimated the toughening of policy after Tampa explained just under 30 per cent of this decline.

n a subsequent study using different statistical techniques Professor Hatton and researcher Audrey Lim estimated the Howard government's post-Tampa stance explained a higher 55 per cent of the decline in arrivals from the end of 2001 to 2004.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_3_44/ai_n24217340/

For his part. Sherif Elsayed-Ali, head of the refugee and migrants' rights team at Amnesty International Secretariat, acknowledged that complex policies adopted by States not only had a "negative effect" on access to asylum, but also led to declining numbers of asylum-seekers.

Firstly meds, don't be daft I qualified the first link and little has to do with the fact it is on crikey more the article itself. Attack bolt it did and rightly so. Making that point is not a refutation.

Secondly, all I am commenting on is the current situation.

Can you explain the trend for a greater degree of asylum applications over the developed world in late 2008 in comparison to first term 08, 09?

What makes Australia's situation unique and why is the increase not attributable to global factors only in Australia's case? Perhaps the seriousness of the push factors involved (armed conflict/ethnic cleansing) has led to an across the board surge to most developed nations (Australia's pull factors being regional proximity and level of development). Due to the relative increase in applications to other developed countries (somewhat negates regionality claim), these seem like the most common, so something as specific as an individual countries asylum laws or political climate in that regard is far less likely.

As for the last comment, no doubt but in this case it does not seem to be the overriding pull factor. Is there any numerical support for your position in this case and is it even possible to provide an accurate breakdown of the current situation to support your opinion.

I also see you conveniently ingnored the "with all else being equal" comment in the opinion piece. You are making a one size fits all argument ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

 

[medusala]

Can you explain the trend for a greater degree of asylum applications over the developed world in late 2008 in comparison to first term 08, 09?

Noone is saying conflicts dont make a difference. What I am saying (and the research backs up) is that govt policies do make a difference. That doesnt mean changes in policy account for all or even most of the difference.

What makes Australia's situation unique and why is the increase not attributable to global factors only in Australia's case?

You can actually link to that chaps research (this was gone over in a prev thread). He endeavoured to strip out for a number of countries changes caused by policy and those that were not.

In Australia's case there were clear policy changes with respect to TPVs, offshore processing etc.

A number of Euro countries also significantly tightened policy.

As for the last comment, no doubt but in this case it does not seem to be the overriding pull factor. Is there any numerical support for your point in this case and is it even possible to provide an accurate breakdown of the current situation to support your opinion.

I would not think that this is easy to determine. How are you going to definitively prove it either way (I think that chap gives the basis for his efforts).

I also see you conveniently ingnored the "with all else being equal" comment in the opinion piece.

No I am not at all. As I have clearly stated above noone argues it is the only determinant yet it clearly has an effect and often a very large one. Australia is hardly the only example, many countries in Europe have made themselves far less attractive to asylum seekers eg Netherlands.

However, the ABC, Rudd, Fairfax and numerous gullible sorts on this thread will attempt to make the argument policy changes have no effect.

Misology on a biblical scale.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Last point is well made.

It is also pretty universal.

I am yet to see a comprehensive analysis of the current situation, if you do not include the UNHCR report.

But give it a read meds whilst not providing qualitative insights, it is full of plenty of quantitative facts and figures.

It gives you a good idea of who increased relative to the total and from where. When looking at the numbers provided for an increase in number of total Sri Lankan and Afgani refugees, total Australian/NZ refugee applications for asylum and general % increase (if you can be bothered quickly doing the numbers).

Refugee council of Australia is another good source, whereas the UNHCR report only gives numbers of applicants countries of origin and total intake by countries/regions, the refugee council gives an Australia specific breakdown. Don't forget though one gives 2 term per year periods, the other a backdated yearly total, plus the diff between applications and Visas granted .

I know that we saw a 16% increase in onshore Visas granted between the 06/07 and 07/08 period to Sri Lankan refugees (the single biggest for the 07/08 period), corresponding to a similar global increase.

For overall applications (all countries) between 1st-2nd terms in 08 Aus/NZ experienced a 28% total increase. Similar to the EU and Japan/ROK.
All three also experienced a similar decrease in 2nd term 08-1st 09.

And you are right it is hard to make a solid case either way and I should probably invest a bit more time giving exact figures and a more thorough breakdown, but there seems to be some support for my position. It is worth noting though that not all of the global spike originates from the same places. We have also seen a large increase of Sri Lankan boat people as opposed to those who have had Visa's granted in the last year (not the period I mentioned).

As for looking at all the push/pull factors in detail and how they are reflected in the data, I will leave it to the more professionally qualified (or motivated) though it dosn't seem to be an Australia specific increase brought on by changes in policy (pull factor).

Another good article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/test-of-stamina/story-e6frg6z6-1225797967508

and let me know if you want some relevant links to facts/figures meds

 

[medusala]

For overall applications (all countries) between 1st-2nd terms in 08 Aus/NZ experienced a 28% total increase. Similar to the EU and Japan/ROK.
All three also experienced a similar decrease in 2nd term 08-1st 09.

If you go back over a number of years you can see differences develop in Europe as a number of countries significantly tightened up. The Netherlands did. Denmark made a number of changes. Whereas the UK did bugger all. It was/is a surprise to noone that large number of asylum seekers sit at Calais trying to get to the UK rather than attempting to claim asylum in France.

For example in 2002 more people applied for asylumin the UK than any other EU country but between 1900 - 2000 four times as many applied in Germany.

http://www.refugee-action.org.uk/information/challengingthemyths1.aspx

Also here.

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/Staff/hatton/pdf/TampaAgendaRev.pdf

The UK profile is particularly interesting because the numbers decline after the
end of 2002, when legislation was followed by Tony Blair’s public commitment to halve the number of applicants. Finally Figure 3 shows very divergent trends in two other EU countries, Germany and France. While the trend of applications in Germany follows that of Canada and the United States, France appears to buck the trend, with a continuing rise in applications after 2001.

...

One thing we can be 100% sure of is that Rudd is lying through this teeth when he says his policy changes have made no difference.

The argument is merely how much of the increase is due to that and hence how great the lie.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

If you go back over a number of years you can see differences develop in Europe as a number of countries significantly tightened up. The Netherlands did. Denmark made a number of changes. Whereas the UK did bugger all. It was/is a surprise to noone that large number of asylum seekers sit at Calais trying to get to the UK rather than attempting to claim asylum in France.

For example in 2002 more people applied for asylumin the UK than any other EU country but between 1900 - 2000 four times as many applied in Germany.

http://www.refugee-action.org.uk/information/challengingthemyths1.aspx

Also here.

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/Staff/hatton/pdf/TampaAgendaRev.pdf

The UK profile is particularly interesting because the numbers decline after the
end of 2002, when legislation was followed by Tony Blair’s public commitment to halve the number of applicants. Finally Figure 3 shows very divergent trends in two other EU countries, Germany and France. While the trend of applications in Germany follows that of Canada and the United States, France appears to buck the trend, with a continuing rise in applications after 2001.

...

One thing we can be 100% sure of is that Rudd is lying through this teeth when he says his policy changes have made no difference.

The argument is merely how much of the increase is due to that and hence how great the lie.

Indeed, but in this case I am not so sure it is significant.

The push factors, 1 in particular seem to be the most resounding.

It has been global and the numbers do support it over this time period, right down to corresponding regional increases and dips.

If he has been smoothing over any increase due to policy changes he may just well get away with it considering the overall circumstances.

 

[medusala]

Indeed, but in this case I am not so sure it is significant.

The push factors, 1 in particular seem to be the most resounding.

This was not what that researcher found.

In any event let us not forget this ie they were there for quite a while.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2730171.htm

The asylum seekers have been on the Oceanic Viking now for more than two weeks. But they say they've been in limbo for years, waiting in Indonesia to be settled in a new country by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

It has been global and the numbers do support it over this time period, right down to corresponding regional increases and dips.

How do the numbers support this?

Where is the evidence to support this? Was there no conflict in Afghanistan or Iraq in Howards time?

If the research suggests that policies introduced by Howard post Tampa cut numbers by up to 50%then how is it reasonable to suggest relaxing such policies has no effect?

It is illogical.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

This was not what that researcher found.

In any event let us not forget this ie they were there for quite a while.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2730171.htm

The asylum seekers have been on the Oceanic Viking now for more than two weeks. But they say they've been in limbo for years, waiting in Indonesia to be settled in a new country by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.



How do the numbers support this?

Where is the evidence to support this? Was there no conflict in Afghanistan or Iraq in Howards time?

If the research suggests that policies introduced by Howard post Tampa cut numbers by up to 50%then how is it reasonable to suggest relaxing such policies has no effect?

It is illogical.

Firstly the circumstances/research you mentioned in the post before the quoted are not specifically relevant.

Different period, place and circumstances.

If you don't also want to read the reports and links, then why comment meds.

What is the tenuous correlation that you can draw between then and now. You are simply trying to invent or imply a historical connection to fit your ideological/partisan leanings. You ignore current circumstances and just pick unrelated ones to fabricate causation.

The surge in Sri Lankan refugees corresponds with the displacement of the Tamils, 09 jump in Chinese with the Uigihar riots.

The Pakistani and Afghani (not as prevalent in Australia) with the deterioration of the conflict in both countries.

Once again our numbers are reflected in corresponding spikes and dips with other regional numbers. There is solid statistical evidence in what I have linked to and more if you can finally be arsed actually reading it and requesting other links from me.

You are getting a bit abstract. My position is very logical, whereas changes in the political climate of Australia is merely one pull factor, it might be of more account if it were only Australia experiencing heightened amounts of refugees from these countries.

If you are not actually going to read what I post/link I can't engage you because you are just playing silly buggers.

 

[medusala]

Firstly the circumstances/research you mentioned in the post before the quoted are not specifically relevant.

????

The chap specifically mentions Australia!!

If you don't also want to read the reports and links, then why comment meds.

I have, they dont back your case.

What is the tenuous correlation that you can draw between then and now. You are simply trying to invent or imply a historical connection to fit your ideological/partisan leanings. You ignore current circumstances and just pick unrelated ones to fabricate causation.

Bollocks. The research shows causation not correation (put at up to 50%)

Once again our numbers are reflected in corresponding spikes and dips with other regional numbers. There is solid statistical evidence in what I have linked to and more if you can finally be arsed actually reading it and requesting other links from me.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/90-of-asylum-seekers-win-refugee-status-20090422-af2d.html

April 22, 2009

Since then, numbers have fallen, with 53 people arriving in Australia from 2003/4 on boats, and another 29 at offshore excised places. Fifty-six came to Australia by sea in 2005/6, 135 in 2006/7 and 25 in 2007/8.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924339,00.html

The number of asylum seekers seeking to enter Australia by boat is on the rise. Nine months into 2009, there have already been 1239 recorded "irregular maritime arrivals" in Australia; in 2008, there were only 161 during the whole year.


From YOUR link

http://www.unhcr.org/4adebca49.html

The number of individuals requesting refugee or asylum status in the 44 industrialized
countries included in this report continued the upward trend already observed over the past
two years.

An estimated 185,500 applications were recorded during the first six months of
2009, 10 per cent more than during the same period in 2008 (168,900).

 

[DivideandMultiply]

????

The chap specifically mentions Australia!!



I have, they dont back your case.



Bollocks. The research shows causation not correation (put at up to 50%)



http://www.smh.com.au/national/90-of-asylum-seekers-win-refugee-status-20090422-af2d.html

April 22, 2009

Since then, numbers have fallen, with 53 people arriving in Australia from 2003/4 on boats, and another 29 at offshore excised places. Fifty-six came to Australia by sea in 2005/6, 135 in 2006/7 and 25 in 2007/8.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924339,00.html

The number of asylum seekers seeking to enter Australia by boat is on the rise. Nine months into 2009, there have already been 1239 recorded "irregular maritime arrivals" in Australia; in 2008, there were only 161 during the whole year.


From YOUR link

http://www.unhcr.org/4adebca49.html

The number of individuals requesting refugee or asylum status in the 44 industrialized
countries included in this report continued the upward trend already observed over the past
two years.

An estimated 185,500 applications were recorded during the first six months of
2009, 10 per cent more than during the same period in 2008 (168,900).

Don't back it up?

Absolute bullshit, you are a flat out liar or havn't bothered to read the links/articles.

Secondly the UK link (the one I was referring) to does not mention Australia.

As for 50% implying causation, only to that circumstance. You are taking something unrelated to the current situation which applies to one pull effect, then pretending it is the dominant all the time and "the research" is somehow applicable to now.

Faaaaarrrrk and nice quoting. Our 2009 increase in applications is proportionally in line with other countries.

The official statistics for applications are not the same thing as those for the "irregular maritime arrivals" mentioned in the time article.

But hey you can bend the truth as it suits you. I am starting to realise you are just a bit of a bullshit artist. You pretend to discuss the issue but really dodge anything that contradicts you, fit unrelated tidbits in or selectively quote to try to bamboozle people and if you can't well to heck with it.

From your same Proffesor Hatten:

The trend in asylum seeker numbers has been rising in all industrialised countries since around the end of 2007 and the start of 2008.

Firstly, you can't help thinking that part of the story for the surge in Australia relative to other countries is that Australia receives proportionately more people from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and that is where asylum seekers arriving in the West are coming from," he said.

Secondly, we know that Australia's economy has suffered less in the global financial crisis than amost any other OECD country and we also know that asylum seekers are sensitive to economic conditions in the receiving countries.

The wonder of Meds selectively quoting, see I can do it to.

Explain to me meds, from the same unhcr facts sheet how, the EU, Aus/NZ and Japan/ROK all have a similar % increase and decrease.

Or how the increased displacement of Tamils and refugee applications from Sri Lankans are not related (refer to the refugee council of Australia for specific numbers), where this and other cases of ethnic violence/conflict as a push factor are directly reflected in rises in intake of refugees originating from those countries.

Or how the rise in Sri Lankan refugee visas being granted (similar % to applications) as a % is reflective of the increase in % of Sri Lankan refugees over that period.

Oh you can't, you will just point to a study on the era following the Tampa incident or talk about how previous UK governments policies (might have) influenced refugee application numbers.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.

 

[medusala]

Don't back it up?

Clearly not.

Absolute bullshit, you are a flat out liar or havn't bothered to read the links/articles.

I even quoted from the article. How you think it backs your case is beyond me.

Secondly the UK link (the one I was referring) to does not mention Australia.

I was referring to the research I mentioned that specifically talked re Howards policies ie it was actually relevant.

As for 50% implying causation, only to that circumstance. You are taking something unrelated to the current situation which applies to one pull effect, then pretending it is the dominant all the time and "the research" is somehow applicable to now.

Bollocks. What were the changes that Howard made? What has Rudd changed? They are related.

What circumstances did they relate to? Boat people!!

Faaaaarrrrk and nice quoting. Our 2009 increase in applications is proportionally in line with other countries.

??????

An estimated 185,500 applications were recorded during the first six months of 2009, 10 per cent more than during the same period in 2008 (168,900).

VS (boat people not total number)

The number of asylum seekers seeking to enter Australia by boat is on the rise. Nine months into 2009, there have already been 1239 recorded "irregular maritime arrivals" in Australia; in 2008, there were only 161 during the whole year

Even Crikey concedes the total number ie on and offshore was 19%.

One wonders if 19% is statistically different to 10%?

The official statistics for applications are not the same thing as those for the "irregular maritime arrivals" mentioned in the time article.

No because it does not include other types of application. However this is where Rudd made big policy changes ie re boatpeople

But hey you can bend the truth as it suits you. I am starting to realise you are just a bit of a bullshit artist. You pretend to discuss the issue but really dodge anything that contradicts you, fit unrelated tidbits in or selectively quote to try to bamboozle people and if you can't well to heck with it.

Dont get upset because your argument has been smashed and its been conclusively shown that Rudds policies have effected numbers.

Explain to me meds, from the same unhcr facts sheet how, the EU, Aus/NZ and Japan/ROK all have a similar % increase and decrease.

This is not true wrt boat people. The maths is simple.

Or how the increased displacement of Tamils and refugee applications from Sri Lankans are not related (refer to the refugee council of Australia for specific numbers), where this and other cases of ethnic violence/conflict as a push factor are directly reflected in rises in intake of refugees originating from those countries.

Yet as you have been told not all the Sri Lankan boat people have come from Sri Lanka. Many on the Ocean Viking had been in Indo for years. You can not link them solely to recent violence in Sri Lanka.

Oh you can't, you will just point to a study on the era following the Tampa incident or talk about how previous UK governments policies (might have) influenced refugee application numbers.

You are destroying your own argument. You are attempting to say we have similar applications to everyone else but the increase is due to the Tamils (which obviously effects others less).

There is no logic to that argument. In fact it suggests that if our increase is in line with others yet we have more Tamils then it is likely that Rudds policies have decreased numbers compared to what they would otherwise be.

Crikey logic.

So here we have detailed research, Amnesty, Sri Lankan govt etc all saying the policies have had an effect.

vs you and Crikey.

btw your own link to the Oz states

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/test-of-stamina/story-e6frg6z6-1225797967508

The numbers have risen this year. Of the 1890 people on 39 boats that have washed up this year in northern Australia, almost half are Sri Lankan Tamils, Ragavan says.

..

so how do you account for the rest of the arrivals?

Even if you strip out Sri Lankans there has been a very big increase.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/BN/sp/BoatArrivals.htm

Appendix A:
Boat arrivals since 1976 by calendar year
Year
Number of Boats1
Number of people2
(excludes crew)

1976 111

1977 868

1978 746

1979 304

1980 0

1981 30

1982–88 0

1989 1 26

1990 2 198

1991 6 214

1992 6 216

1993 3 81

1994 18 953

1995 7 237

1996 19 660

1997 11 339

1998 17 200

1999 86 3721

2000 51 2939

2001 43 5516

2002 1 1

2003 1 53

2004 1 15

2005 4 11

2006 6 60

2007 5 148

2008 7 161

2009 (to 21 June 09)
16
589


In the pre-election environment of 2001, the Howard Government introduced legislative changes allowing some of Australia's territory to be excised from the migration zone in order to discourage non-citizens from arriving unlawfully in Australia by boat. People attempting to do so since then have been intercepted at sea where possible and either returned to Indonesia, removed to third countries in the Pacific, or sent to Australia’s immigration facilities at Christmas Island. Any claims made by those people for refugee status could then be processed by the Immigration Department outside the jurisdiction of Australian courts, and with no guarantee of a resettlement place in Australia. These border protection measures were officially known as the Pacific Strategy, although they become colloquially known as the 'Pacific Solution'.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Bollocks. What were the changes that Howard made? What has Rudd changed? They are related.

What circumstances did they relate to? Boat people!!


The number of asylum seekers seeking to enter Australia by boat is on the rise. Nine months into 2009, there have already been 1239 recorded "irregular maritime arrivals" in Australia; in 2008, there were only 161 during the whole year

Even Crikey concedes the total number ie on and offshore was 19%.

One wonders if 19% is statistically different to 10%?




No because it does not include other types of application. However this is where Rudd made big policy changes ie re boatpeople



Dont get upset because your argument has been smashed and its been conclusively shown that Rudds policies have effected numbers.




This is not true wrt boat people. The maths is simple.



Yet as you have been told not all the Sri Lankan boat people have come from Sri Lanka. Many on the Ocean Viking had been in Indo for years. You can not link them solely to recent violence in Sri Lanka.



You are destroying your own argument. You are attempting to say we have similar applications to everyone else but the increase is due to the Tamils (which obviously effects others less).

There is no logic to that argument. In fact it suggests that if our increase is in line with others yet we have more Tamils then it is likely that Rudds policies have decreased numbers compared to what they would otherwise be.

Crikey logic.

So here we have detailed research, Amnesty, Sri Lankan govt etc all saying the policies have had an effect.

vs you and Crikey.

btw your own link to the Oz states

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/test-of-stamina/story-e6frg6z6-1225797967508

The numbers have risen this year. Of the 1890 people on 39 boats that have washed up this year in northern Australia, almost half are Sri Lankan Tamils, Ragavan says.

Smashed my argument?

You have not proven a thing and continue to twist the truth.

Your position hedges on the research of one Proffesor Hatten even he concedes that push factors likely influenced the current increase.

You quote numbers of boat arrivals yet there is no proof they are attributable to changes in policy.

The EU saw a 17% rise in applications. Japan/ROK 25%, Aus/NZ a 28%. This was over the period between 1st and 2nd terms 2008.

The same regions saw a decline of 8.5%, 14% and 11% consecutively entering 09.

So in that period we saw only a slight % increase over industrialized countries in the same region in Japan/ROK. One of which has some of the worlds most strict immigration laws.

Hatten cites regionality of conflicts as being one of the reasons why we have probably received a slight percentage bump over other averages in what has been a global trend. Also Australias economic position relative to others is something to take into account as a pull factor.

And not to selectively quote Hatten again but:

The trend in asylum seeker numbers has been rising in all industrialised countries since around the end of 2007 and the start of 2008.

Firstly, you can't help thinking that part of the story for the surge in Australia relative to other countries is that Australia receives proportionately more people from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and that is where asylum seekers arriving in the West are coming from, he said.

Secondly, we know that Australia's economy has suffered less in the global financial crisis than amost any other OECD country and we also know that asylum seekers are sensitive to economic conditions in the receiving countries.

Our two biggest increases came from Sri Lankan refugees then in 09 Chinese. Both happened after periods of ethnic trouble. Both are already our two biggest sources of applicants. As for boat people this has also been partially attributable to the situation in Afghanistan.

The facts are that there has been a global spike in irregular people movement around the world. The UNHCR 2008 Global Trends Report released last month stated there were 42 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, driven from their homelands by insecurity, persecution and conflict.

In particular, the worsening situations in places such as Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have forced many thousands of people to flee those countries and seek refuge elsewhere around the world.

There was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide in 2008 and so far this year, more than 14,000 Afghans have claimed asylum in Western Europe. This compares with the 752 Afghans who have arrived by boat in Australian waters this year.

In the case of Sri Lanka, violence in the long-running civil war escalated in 2008 and peaked earlier this year before the bloody conflict ended in May.

There are now some 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people and there are significant numbers of people fleeing Sri Lanka to seek refuge in industrialised countries and Australia, as a secure and stable democracy, is one of the destinations.

In 2008, there was a 24 per cent increase in the number of Sri Lankan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide. While some 700 Sri Lankan asylum seekers have been intercepted on boats in Australian waters this year, more than 4000 headed to Europe, principally France and Switzerland, an increase of nearly 20 per cent on the same period last year.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/co...ng-boat-people-20091023-hbns.html?comments=30

The % increase for each in terms of applications from both years was lower than the total % increase in numbers of these refugees in the industrialised world. Countries like Canada though already have larger refugee intakes so in the end the proportional numbers do not look so bad (compared to our 2900, then 2600).

Note that this is despite the fact that many illegal arrivals from China are from overstayed visas and the fact they make up a substantial amount of our legal immigration.

Your argument completely falls apart if anyone actually bothers to look at it. I have cited numerous sources which back up my claims, even your own the best you can do is say no they do not or compare boat numbers to applications and in a warped way pretend it proves something.

Heck the Professor you cites agrees with me and you blatantly ignore global trends, where yes due to regionality we experience a slight comparative increase (as does Japan/ROK), also attributable to our already two main refugee groups in consecutively in following years.

There are a number of push/pull factors. I doubt war/conflict is the only one but it has certainly been the most dominant, with regional proximity and current economic situation as a pull factor.

Cut the blatantly partisan bullshit.

 

[GuruJane]

You quote numbers of boat arrivals yet there is no proof they are attributable to changes in policy. ...

...

Heck the Professor you cites agrees with me and you blatantly ignore global trends, where yes due to regionality we experience a slight comparative increase (as does Japan/ROK), also attributable to our already two main refugee groups in consecutively in following years.
.

But would the asylum seekers be paying people smugglers $10,000US EACH to bring them Australia such numbers if they knew they would be ending up in Nauru or Manus for years?

That is the point. The only point. How about addressing it?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

But would the asylum seekers be paying people smugglers $10,000US EACH to bring them Australia such numbers if they knew they would be ending up in Nauru or Manus for years?

That is the point. The only point. How about addressing it?

Hahahahahaha one of the funniest responses I have received. Nice melodrama.

Never been asked to answer that before in this thread and no it is not the only point. Just the only question you choose to pose in that post.
Many would and no doubt do risk it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/test-of-stamina/story-e6frg6z6-1225797967508

Article cites the Australian refugee council with the figures that 95% of boat people are found to be genuine refugees. As opposed to 45% of those whom arrive by plane.

My guess is many have no choice (some also fleeing from political or ethnic strife where mass migration via conventional methods may not be an option) and are willing to bank their life savings on traveling to Australia as well as many other industrialized nations.

 

[GuruJane]

Many would and no doubt do risk it.

Would they? What's your evidence? Your precedents?

Article cites the Australian refugee council with the figures that 95% of boat people are found to be genuine refugees. As opposed to 45% of those whom arrive by plane.

The point is NOT "Are the boat asylum seekers who pay US$10,000 EACH to come to Australia later found to be genuine refugees.

The point is: Would they be paying people smugglersUS10,000 EACH
to bring them to Australia if they knew they were going to end up in Nauru or Manus?

Address the point please and provide your evidence. It should be easy.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Would they? What's your evidence? Your precedents?



The point is NOT "Are the boat asylum seekers who pay US$10,000 EACH to come to Australia later found to be genuine refugees.

The point is: Would they be paying people smugglersUS10,000 EACH
to bring them to Australia if they knew they were going to end up in Nauru or Manus?

Address the point please and provide your evidence. It should be easy.

And what is your evidence the current wave would not?

Changes in immigration laws and treatment of detainees is simply one factor.

Some obviously do because their cases are genuine. Fleeing to many countries with almost civilised asylum laws they have a chance. The global numbers reflect this as Australia is not the only target nor the largest in the latest wave. Yet all of these countries have differeing immigration policy.

Genuine refugees (so a proportion would have eventually made it to our shores whether the pacific solution was in effect or not), fleeing genuine persecution or war. To me that indicates people who would be willing to take a risk, any risk. Once again the incidence of certain regional conflicts and total refugee numbers from these countries supports this position.

Heck historically people flee from warzones to countries where they face discrimination and persecution.

I would argue that the only difference between those that risk somewhere like Australia, Japan or Germany as opposed to border migration is means.

Anyway if you are going to make the claim that they would not risk $10,000 (even if a genuine refugee likely to make it to our shores after detention) the burden of proof is on you.

Still this is a very difficult position to prove one way or the other conclusively. You would need to survey every single refugee to gain an accurate idea as to motivations.

What cannot be ignored is the other evidence, which is conveniently what you are trying to do.

 

[GuruJane]

And what is your evidence the current wave would not?

But is you who have been making the claim repeatedly that they would.

What's your evidence?

Changes in immigration laws and treatment of detainees is simply one factor.

Are you agreeing that changes in immigration laws are a factor?

How much of a factor or how little? What's the evidence?

Some obviously do because their cases are genuine. Fleeing to many countries with almost civilised asylum laws they have a chance. The global numbers reflect this as Australia is not the only target nor the largest in the latest wave. Yet all of these countries have differeing immigration policy.

This is all agreed. Many if not most asylum seekers are found to be genuine.

Also agreed that many asylum seekers go to other countries. But not many pay huge sums to people smugglers to fly them 8000klicks and then finish the journey by boat.

So. Would the asylum seekers pay US$10,000 to people smugglers to bring them by plane and boat to Australia if they knew they would end up at Nauru or Manus?

To me that indicates people who would be willing to take a risk, any risk. Once again the incidence of certain regional conflicts and total refugee numbers from these countries supports this position.

Again, this is agreed. It is not the point of the question.

Heck historically people flee from warzones to countries where they face discrimination and persecution.

Agreed.

This was also the case between 2002 and 2008, was it not?

I would argue that the only difference between those that risk somewhere like Australia, Japan or Germany as opposed to border migration is means.

Quite possibly. But that is a theory. Not the point of the question.

Anyway if you are going to make the claim that they would not risk $10,000 (even if a genuine refugee likely to make it to our shores after detention) the burden of proof is on you.

You are the one making the claims at great length here. Where is your evidence to say asylum seekers would pay US10,000 to people smugglers to bring them to Australia, if they knews they would end up Nauru/Manus?

Still this is a very difficult position to prove one way or the other conclusively. You would need to survey every single refugee to gain an accurate idea as to motivations.

Very difficult? Why don't you look at the 7 and half consecutive years from 2002/mid 2008 which was the period when asylum seekers knew they would end up on Nauru/Manus and compare the numbers of arrivals in bthat period to the years when the asylum seekers knew they would come straight to Australia ie 1999, 2000, 2001 and then mid July 2008 ongoing?

If there is no great disparity in the numbers, or if any disparity is clearly due to a dramatic worldwide drop in the numbers of asylum seekers in 2001-2008, then that will be evidence to prove your contention is correct.

Easy peasey. Just do it.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Check the first Polytics link, it is in there.

Originally from UNHCR. Check their yearly reports. There to.

As far as I know there was a sharp worldwide decline between 2001-2006. Saw an increase in 07 and 2008 a sharper increase.

I thought it was well documented?

Not to stir the pot just saying......

 

[medusala]

You have not proven a thing and continue to twist the truth.

Give it up. I have quoted stats including from your own sources.

The evidence is straight forward.

Your position hedges on the research of one Proffesor Hatten even he concedes that push factors likely influenced the current increase.

Yes he does as do I. However he noted that up to 50% of the change in number post Tampa was due to policy.

You quote numbers of boat arrivals yet there is no proof they are attributable to changes in policy.

See the above research.

The EU saw a 17% rise in applications. Japan/ROK 25%, Aus/NZ a 28%. This was over the period between 1st and 2nd terms 2008.

Apples and pears. The increase Australia saw re boat people was far greater than this.

I gave you the numbers.

As for boat people this has also been partially attributable to the situation in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan conflict has been going for a number of years, you are clutching at straws to use that.

The % increase for each in terms of applications from both years was lower than the total % increase in numbers of these refugees in the industrialised world.

The sort of blatant muppetry that one would expect from Fairfax. We are talking of boat people (see thread title). Fairfax attempts to muddy the waters by referring to the total number of applications. They are not the same thing.

Countries like Canada though already have larger refugee intakes so in the end the proportional numbers do not look so bad (compared to our 2900, then 2600).

Irrelevant.

Note that this is despite the fact that many illegal arrivals from China are from overstayed visas and the fact they make up a substantial amount of our legal immigration.

Irrelevant.

Your argument completely falls apart if anyone actually bothers to look at it.

Absolute rubbish. Research shows that post Tampa policies dramatically cut boat people numbers. It is also clear that since Rudds policy reversals numbers have increased substantially even if you strip out Sri Lankan refugees.

It is very, very simple.

I have cited numerous sources which back up my claims, even your own the best you can do is say no they do not or compare boat numbers to applications and in a warped way pretend it proves something.

No you havent. They dont relate to the effect of policy on boat people rather total applications.

Cut the blatantly partisan bullshit.

It is obvious you cant even grasp what the argument is about.

Further if you think it is partisan you clearly have no grasp of the reality either. It was the ALP that introduced mandatory detention.

Why? To act as a deterremt. Obviously (well at least to a non Crikey/Age reader)

Both sides of politics agree that certain actions taken by governments can influence numbers.

That is beyond dispute.

Why you are unable to grasp this is beyond me.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Wow you need to chillax guy.

Having read the thread, his arguments make far more sense to me than yours.

A crikey blogger is wrong, fairfax news media sources are wrong, the UNHCR statistics don't show the "real" picture, a Professor you both quote and other posters who are not 100% on board are wrong. According to you.

This is disregarding the evidence against you and a far more coherent or cohesive argument.

Thats it I have said my bit, not going to get further involved in this one.