Jumping the queue
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which illegal immigrant policy is the least worst? |
| Abbott's |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Howard's |
|
16% |
[ 3 ] |
| Gillard's |
|
38% |
[ 7 ] |
| Rudd's |
|
11% |
[ 2 ] |
| Brown's |
|
33% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Pied Piper 
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | None of the boat people arriving here are "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened". They get to a country such as Indonesia, and sign on with the people smugglers there. In other words, all that UNHCR stuff you quote does not apply in the majority of cases. But the witless bleeding hearts pretend it does. And in doing so, they create a new reduction in our ability to help people in genuine need. |
Incorrect. Most of the current boat arrivals are coming from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. The first is one of the most dangerous countries on earth; the security situation there has barely improved by any rational measure. See http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/four-tampa-refugees-let-in-after-second-journey-20090328-9efj.html. In the case of Sri Lanka, the victory over the Tamil Tigers has seen large numbers of a persecuted ethnic minority flee the country. (Incidentally, the recent freezing of Afghan and Sri Lankan claims is illegal, infringing as it does the principle of non-discrimination under Article 3 of the Refugee Convention cited above.)
As far as Indonesia goes, that country is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Therefore there is no "queue" to jump there either. Further, the Australian government has refused since 2007 to accept any asylum seekers assessed as refugees by the UNHRC from Indonesia.
| Tannin wrote: | | So why does Australia discriminate against the poor and the honest people who do not hire a people smuggler and arrive illegally, in favour of the rich and devious? Why do we deny asylum to people who did not arrive here illegally in favour of those who do? |
It discriminates in no such way, except by locking up people who have committed no crime under either Australian or international law in detention for years at a time. You will have to justify/provide evidence in support of your statement that "we deny asylum to those who did not arrive here illegally in favour of those who do".
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen
Last edited by Pied Piper on Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: |
So, just to clarify, you believe there are three categories of contentious arrivals under discussion:
1. queue jumpers
2. asylum seekers who didn't fill out the paper work
3. asylum seekers who did fill out the paper work
Is this correct? |
No.
1 and 2 are the same thing. 3 is not contentious. |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: |
So, just to clarify, you believe there are three categories of contentious arrivals under discussion:
1. queue jumpers
2. asylum seekers who didn't fill out the paper work
3. asylum seekers who did fill out the paper work
Is this correct? |
No.
1 and 2 are the same thing. 3 is not contentious. |
Simply incorrect, and using emotive language that doesn't make it any more persuasive. Re-read my post above, if you're not too tired. There is no queue, and often no paperwork to be filled out, unless you want to fill it out while having your fingernails removed (to use some emotive language of my own) 
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | None of the boat people arriving here are "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened" |
| Pied Piper wrote: | | Most of the current boat arrivals are coming from Afghanistan ..... |
Nice beaches in Afghanistan, are there? What do they do, build the boat on a mountain top and carry it down to the water, crossing Pakistan along the way? |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | None of the boat people arriving here are "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened" |
| Pied Piper wrote: | | Most of the current boat arrivals are coming from Afghanistan ..... |
Nice beaches in Afghanistan, are there? What do they do, build the boat on a mountain top and carry it down to the water, crossing Pakistan along the way? |
That's not an argument mate (and I mean that sincerely, not in the way Defender uses it ... oh that's right, he'd refer to you as "pal") 
Probably time for bed, and we can revisit this when we're less tired and emotional
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| They do whatever they want, I suppose. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Mate, I don't know anything worth mentioning about how the two relevant departments go about selecting legitimate refugees, nor what steps they take to try to help the most needy. But that is not the point. If the D of I isn't trying hard enough, by all means stick a rocket up some shiny-bums, but let us please move on from this endless debate over the illegals (you can call them something else if you wish, I certainly won't). Only when the bleeding-heart brigade start to recognise the reality that the majority of people in Australia will never sanction open-slather boat arrivals, only then can we start to think about practical, realistic ways to do our best for people in very grave trouble. If the bleeding heart brigade spent one tenth as much effort on lobbying for a higher refugee quota and (if needed) for more proactive government assistance to genuine refugees in or near their own country as they spend on this endless, doomed-to-failure campaign on behalf of the unwanted illegals, there would be many more lives saved. Thousands more.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No no, how can it be "not an argument"? The rules say "direct from", and in the case of Afganistan, direct is impossible. It's landlocked.
PS: I'm not emotional about this one - it's not one of my close-to-the-heart issues, and in any case it doesn't do to get emotional about an Internet forum with a massive readership of 5 people. (Well, 5 interested enough to vote.) I'm just being hard-nosed rational (call it cold-blooded if you wish) - and along the way, probably astonishing one or two people like you who are generally political fellow travellers, and raising an eyebrow or three amongst those I usually disagree with on the Tory side.
(Do we have as many as three Tories?)
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Nice beaches in Afghanistan, are there? What do they do, build the boat on a mountain top and carry it down to the water, crossing Pakistan along the way? |
Do you have the data on how many Afghan asylum seekers are in detention and the manner in which they arrived? Are you sure your interpretation of the law is correct?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Mate, I don't know anything worth mentioning about how the two relevant departments go about selecting legitimate refugees, nor what steps they take to try to help the most needy. But that is not the point. If the D of I isn't trying hard enough, by all means stick a rocket up some shiny-bums, but let us please move on from this endless debate over the illegals (you can call them something else if you wish, I certainly won't). Only when the bleeding-heart brigade start to recognise the reality that the majority of people in Australia will never sanction open-slather boat arrivals, only then can we start to think about practical, realistic ways to do our best for people in very grave trouble. If the bleeding heart brigade spent one tenth as much effort on lobbying for a higher refugee quota and (if needed) for more proactive government assistance to genuine refugees in or near their own country as they spend on this endless, doomed-to-failure campaign on behalf of the unwanted illegals, there would be many more lives saved. Thousands more. |
Tannin, you are sounding more like jack_spain here, not just in your language but in that you're not really making a lot of sense now. Move on from this bleeding-heart nonsense. No one that I've ever heard of is advocating open slather on boat arrivals, and no one could be reasonably expected to embrace such a policy. I am merely trying to argue some facts, and put those facts into clearer perspective.
You can call refugees and asylum seekers "illegals" all you want, but calling them that does not make them so under an international law to which Australia is a signatory. And as they are therefore not illegal immigrants, they have the right to see their claims processed in as expeditious as manner as possible.
The fact is that Australia accepts a tiny number of refugees relative to the rest of both the developed and developing world. The problem of displaced persons is increasing, and can be expected to continue increasing - exponentially so if climate forecasts prove correct.
I'm neither arguing for a soft-headed approach nor a hard-hearted one. I'm arguing that the government (and the opposition) in particular has the moral and legal responsibility to use facts, not myths, to persuade the community to embrace a humanitarian policy that is in accordance to our international obligations. That is NOT the same as "open slather".
Instead we have had successive governments use this issue to divide communities with emotive language that has resulted in widespread and unjustified fear and misapprehension. That also does nothing to help displaced and traumatised people.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Are you sure your interpretation of the law is correct? |
It is according the the UNHCR text Pied Piper quoted. If the UNHCR is wrong, feel free to say how. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
PP, Jack is an intelligent, articulate man with a great sense of humour and some very worthy points of view, which he expresses clearly and forecfully. (And also many views that I couldn't disassociate myself from fast enough. But that's OK.) I don't mind being likened to Jack at all.
If they enter the country illegally, they are illegals, End of story. I will not let the bleeding hearts browbeat me on this one. Illegal immigration is illegal immigration. Even if you just consider the very small number of direct arrivals, the manner of their arrival is near enough to illegal as makes no difference, and their choice of a far-distant country that just happens to be moderately wealthy over much closer countries that are not is, to say the least, suspicious.
Notice that we are still not talking about the much more needy people in the camps - the ones who can't afford to hire a people smuggler.
Instead of all this lawyer-talk about "international obligations" to the richest refugees, why not discuss what can be done for the most deserving and the most needy ones instead?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | PP, Jack is an intelligent, articulate man with a great sense of humour and some very worthy points of view, which he expresses clearly and forecfully. (And also many views that I couldn't disassociate myself from fast enough. But that's OK.) I don't mind being likened to Jack at all.
If they enter the country illegally, they are illegals, End of story. I will not let the bleeding hearts browbeat me on this one. Illegal immigration is illegal immigration. Even if you just consider the very small number of direct arrivals, the manner of their arrival is near enough to illegal as makes no difference, and their choice of a far-distant country that just happens to be moderately wealthy over much closer countries that are not is, to say the least, suspicious.
Notice that we are still not talking about the much more needy people in the camps - the ones who can't afford to hire a people smuggler.
Instead of all this lawyer-talk about "international obligations" to the richest refugees, why not discuss what can be done for the most deserving and the most needy ones instead? |
Well, it's hard to get anywhere while we are trapped in a circular argument. You are refusing to recognise a legal fact: those who apply for refugee status are not entering the country illegally, whether they get here by boat, plane, hovercraft or by flapping their arms. They are within their rights under international law. You may not want to be browbeaten, and I have no wish to browbeat you, but that is the simple truth, whether you like it or not.
In regard to the question of who is "most deserving", as far as I am concerned there is no such thing - if someone qualifies as a refugee under international law (and that is no easy thing to prove), then they qualify. I will return to this question in greater detail later.
As for the so-called "lawyer speak", let me make the same point in plainer English: political parties should not spread deliberate misinformation about vulnerable people to seek political advantage. That was actually my point in the original post you quoted on page one. I doubt you would seriously disagree with that principle.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen
Last edited by Pied Piper on Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Are you sure your interpretation of the law is correct? |
It is according the the UNHCR text Pied Piper quoted. If the UNHCR is wrong, feel free to say how. |
Just making sure we have the facts here.
I'm not sure if this document is still valid, but it seems widely quoted:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3c2b3f844.pdf
"4. The expression “coming directly” in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept “coming directly” and each case must be judged on its merits. Similarly, given the special situation of asylum-seekers, in particular the effects of trauma, language problems, lack of information, previous experiences which often result in a suspicion of those in authority, feelings of insecurity, and the fact that these and other circumstances may vary enormously from one asylum-seeker to another, there is no time limit which can be mechanically applied or associated with the expression “without delay”. The expression “good cause”, requires a consideration of the circumstances under which the asylum-seeker fled. The term “asylum-seeker” in these guidelines applies to those whose claims are being considered under an admissibility or pre-screening procedure as well as those who are being considered under refugee status determination procedures. It also includes those exercising their right to seek judicial and/or administrative review of their asylum request."
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Thank you. Furthermore in relation to Tannin's quote about Pakistan, i.e. why don't the refugees just stay there since it's next door to Afghanistan: first, Pakistan was flooded by 1.8 million asylum seekers last year from the Afghan conflict, while Syria took in 1.1 million, mostly from Iraq. (Kind of puts our miniscule numbers in the shade, doesn't it?) However, since neither country is a signatory to the 1951 convention, neither is obliged to afford those refugees any protection whatsoever. Even were that not the case, Pakistan in particular hardly represents a viable migration destination in its current state.
Australia is, in fact, one of the only countries in the Asia Pacific to be a signatory to the 1951 convention. New Zealand, China, the Phillippines, Papua New Guinea and Cambodia are among the handful of others, and none of the last four are either well equipped or inclined to deal with the problem. See the map at http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/3%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%20media%202010.pdf (this document also contains straightforward answers to many of Tannin's other objections).
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
