• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Australian Federal Election 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.
That, quite frankly, is a load of absolute codswallop.

Far more asylum seekers arrive by plane than by boat, and by far boat arrivals are more likely to be found to be genuine refugees, and that's not because of some absurd notion that somehow Immigration goes soft on boat arrivals, tell that to the genuine refugees banged up on Christmas Island and who still haven't been released to the community because ASIO hasn't got around to giving them security clearances.

Appeal to emotion noted. Do you dispute that boat people are taking the place of those already processed waiting for settlement here? And that they are using up most of the refugee quota? Does this not concern you?

As both parties are committed to stopping boat people in much the same way, what's your solution? Let people smugglers continue to dictate our immigration policy?
 
Appeal to emotion noted. Do you dispute that boat people are taking the place of those already processed waiting for settlement here? And that they are using up most of the refugee quota? Does this not concern you?

Yes, I'm sure there's orderly queues where people are just standing in front of a line with a little sign saying "Australia, this way".
 
Yes, I'm sure there's orderly queues where people are just standing in front of a line with a little sign saying "Australia, this way".
I didn't say that, and I think you know it. There are, however, over 100 UNHCR refugee camps. Are you saying that those who pay people smugglers have priority over those in camps? Because that's precisely what they are getting.
 
Yes, I'm sure there's orderly queues where people are just standing in front of a line with a little sign saying "Australia, this way".

There is no orderly queue, which is all the more reason that people with the money and connections to get processed by people smugglers shouldn't get preferential treatment.

A recent case in Australia was an Iraqi who claimed it was not safe to return to Iraq because he sold DVDs on the street that Islamists did not like and threaten him with death. So he did what every person does in such a situation - purchased a plane ticket to SE Asia and then got in contact with people smugglers to take a trip to Christmas Island.

Why not instead fly him back to a processing center in Jordan and in exchange take a family sitting there?
 
Too late now if you didn't. :p

The people who owned my house before I bought it don't seem to have updated their electoral information. I got two letters today marked "IMPORTANT Postal vote information for the 2010 Federal Election", one for me, one for the former owners.

I'll just pop the letter into their letterbox at their new address as I usually do on the rare occasion when I get mail addressed to them (they still live locally), but now I'm wondering if the outdated address on the electoral roll affects their ability to vote.

The letter contained a postal voting application form and a letter from our local MP telling us, among other things, that...

Russel Broadbent MP said:
Now Labor's hidden powerbrokers have created more uncertainty by by removing a Prime Minister so quickly and easily, ignoring Australian voters. Labor thinks they can deceive us - that changing the leader will make a difference. But it is the same government with the same problems creating the same mess.

How is changing the party leader shortly before calling an election ignoring the Australian voters? To my mind, that gives Australian voters a chance to voice their opinion by changing their votes, if they want to. Is he implying that if Labor wanted to change party leaders, they should have waited until after the next election? Or that Labor shouldn't be allowed to change leaders at all?
 
If people are paying third parties to come to Australia, how about instead they pay the Australian Government money to come to Australia? That means
1. The Australian Government gets money from people who would otherwise be refugees
2. Fewer boat people
3. Less money spent on detention camps in Australia.
4. Australia gets the benefit of people with money, who could earn even more money for themselves and Australia.
5. All checks done before they get to Australia.
 
If people are paying third parties to come to Australia, how about instead they pay the Australian Government money to come to Australia? That means
1. The Australian Government gets money from people who would otherwise be refugees
2. Fewer boat people
3. Less money spent on detention camps in Australia.
4. Australia gets the benefit of people with money, who could earn even more money for themselves and Australia.
5. All checks done before they get to Australia.
I understand where you are coming from, but that is no basis for an immigration policy as it applies to refugees.

The large majority of immigrants come here to fill skill shortages. It's a very costly process for these people.
 
Appeal to emotion noted. Do you dispute that boat people are taking the place of those already processed waiting for settlement here? And that they are using up most of the refugee quota? Does this not concern you?

You make it sound like our refugee quota is an immutable, fixed law of nature or something. If the government can't lift the quota in times of need, such as when we have a regional crisis like the recent problems in Sri Lanka, to accommodate the small numbers of people who come here by boat to exercise their legal right to seek asylum, then that is on them. If these people arrived by plane, which they do in far greater numbers than they do boats, then you'd hear nothing about it, just like you do the thousands who already seek asylum every year at our airports. But, because certain elements within society are able to exploit the deep-seated fear of the 'yellow peril' that persists in this country, boat arrivals have become political footballs to be kicked around in a cynical game of political opportunism. It's this sick game of exploiting the weakest and most vulnerable of people to score a few political points that really concerns me.

As both parties are committed to stopping boat people in much the same way, what's your solution? Let people smugglers continue to dictate our immigration policy?

Save your glib partisan talking points for someone else, thanks. 'People smugglers' (another confected bogey-man for the masses, I wonder whether Oskar Schindler would be prosecuted under Australian law today?) never have and never will dictate our immigration policy, that's populist rhetoric designed to distract from the fact that our current attitudes and policies towards asylum seekers are failing.

As for what I'd do, well, both major parties are spineless wretches who put short term political gain ahead of any sort o ethical considerations, so it is little surprise that you can barely differentiate between the two policies. I'd say a complete overhaul of how we approach the issue of asylum seekers. If people smugglers really are such a concern then the obvious solution is to take the tried and true method of how states deal with unregulated markets, muscle in on their patch and monopolise the market. Set up a floating scale on or refugee quota to accommodate regional influxes of people who are seeking asylum, start working with or regional partners to get people out of camps and into processing, intercept people as they enter the region and get them on-shore and into processing. In other words, start doing our fair share of dealing with the regional problem of displaced people, no letting people rot in camps in non-UNHCR countries like Indonesia and completely overhauling our woefully inadequate system of dealing with our regional refugee problem.
 
Last edited:
There is no orderly queue, which is all the more reason that people with the money and connections to get processed by people smugglers shouldn't get preferential treatment.

A recent case in Australia was an Iraqi who claimed it was not safe to return to Iraq because he sold DVDs on the street that Islamists did not like and threaten him with death. So he did what every person does in such a situation - purchased a plane ticket to SE Asia and then got in contact with people smugglers to take a trip to Christmas Island.

Why not instead fly him back to a processing center in Jordan and in exchange take a family sitting there?

Why didn't he just fly to Australia? Anyone arriving at an Australian airport can seek asylum you know? Also, the statistics tell a very different story to your one off anecdote, with something in the order of 85%-98% of boat arrivals being found to be genuine refugees, compared to just 45% for plane arrivals. For someone with money, it makes far more sense, not to mention a much safer and comfortable journey, to just get on a plane. It stands to reason that, aside from these sorts of anecdotal examples, the vast majority of people willing to get aboard a leaky boat and make a dangerous ocean crossing are the ones in greatest need. Certainly there is no evidence that the recent influx of Tamil refugees are leisurely flying into Indonesia then paying thousands of dollars, money that could otherwise have been spent on a business-class airline ticket, to a people smuggler to spend days in a cramped, leaking boat on the chance that it might make it to Australia. Doesn't sound very plausible to me, I'm not buying that narrative for a second.
 
Last edited:
Anyone arriving at an Australian airport can seek asylum you know? .
Yes, and they can and do get turned around immediately when they can't give a legitimate reason for being here. Oh and they need papers to arrive by plane, which are somehow lost when they get on a boat.

But I have raised this as an election issue, which is the point of this thread, and not Australia's immigration policy.
 
Yes, and they can and do get turned around immediately when they can't give a legitimate reason for being here.

No, anyone making a claim for asylum will have their claim heard and a decision made based on its merit, as per the UNHCR conventions on refugees, and regardless of their mode of transport.

Oh and they need papers to arrive by plane, which are somehow lost when they get on a boat.

Yet only a very small percentage of boat arrivals are found not to have legitimate claims, the vast majority are processed and resettled, which tells us that the actual facts don't support the anecdotal claims of people slipping through the net by destroying their papers, if anyone is doing this then they are going to be caught out by the processing system and have their claims denied regardless of whether they are processed in East Timor or Villawood. And, judging by the actual statistics, I'd say that these examples like you mention of people arriving without papers for apparently nefarious purposes are one-off instances, at best, that have been beaten up in sensationalist medial reports then regurgitated through the right-wingecho chamber ad nauseum.

But I have raised this as an election issue, which is the point of this thread, and not Australia's immigration policy.

Yeah, and you made a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions about the election issue, just like in your Julia Gillard thread where you did the same thing and then backed away when your assertions were challenged, now your doing the same thing here but trying to say that you should be able to "raise an issue" by making loaded assertions and expect they can't be challenged. That's not very sportsman-like.
 
Yeah, and you made a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions about the election issue, just like in your Julia Gillard thread where you did the same thing and then backed away when your assertions were challenged, now your doing the same thing here but trying to say that you should be able to "raise an issue" by making loaded assertions and expect they can't be challenged. That's not very sportsman-like.

You have to be joking. When you stop using a debating style which uses words like "absolute codswallop" and misrepresenting what I post (and flat out making things up) I may be bothered continuing to respond to you. "Backing away" from you???? Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

ETA, just one of the things you make up - "one off" instances of no ID papers:

Of 742 Sri Lankan asylum seekers arriving in Australia last year, only 147 could produce legitimate identity documentation.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/to...passports-dumped/story-e6frf7jo-1225888261681
 
Last edited:
You have to be joking. When you stop using a debating style which uses words like "absolute codswallop"

You made the extraordinary claim that somehow immigration officials are going soft on boat arrivals and that IS a load of absolute, unmitigated, and unsubstantiated load of codswallop. It is codswallop of the highest order. There is no dodging that fact and until you provide evidence to the contrary, I'm calling you out for talking codswallop.

and misrepresenting what I post (and flat out making things up)

Really? How so?

I may be bothered continuing to respond to you. "Backing away" from you???? Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

OK, let me put that in less confrontational terms. You aren't addressing any of the substantial points raised, instead focusing on petty things like the tone of the delivery and avoiding supporting outrageous assertions made previously and trying to make and issue when challenged on those outrageous assertions, which leads me to think that you are just concoting scenarios off the top of your head that are constructed from tabloid nes reporting and are not substantiated by any factual evidence.

ETA, just one of the things you make up - "one off" instances of no ID papers:



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/to...passports-dumped/story-e6frf7jo-1225888261681
[/QUOTE]

And how many of those 742 were found not to be genuine refugee's, rather than rouges trying to sneak into the country by destroying their papers? Not having a passport isn't evidence of anything in itself, there are any number of reasons why person seeking asylum might not have documentation, what is important is how many are trying to dupe the system by destroying their papers to enter the country on false premises, not how many arrive without passports.
 
Last edited:
How often would a well known politician like him be booed when put in front of an audience that they do not control? A popular one might not be, but as for the rest of them, I do not know.

Its pretty common in Australia - I thimk we boo not cause he is a bad politican but the fact he is a polititcan full stop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom