First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Boat people: driven by Rudd or war?
|
Is our “surge” in asylum seekers push or pull? Has the Rudd Government’s bleeding heart softness encouraged refugees to head to our shores? Or are external factors at play? First, some context. According to the UNHCR, at the end of 2008 there were 15.2m refugees, and one-third were in our own region. The end of the civil war in Sri Lanka and Pakistan’s drive against the Taliban will only have increased the number of refugees in the Asia-Pacific region further this year. Even so, Europe is the biggest destination for asylum seekers: 333,000 claims for asylum were made in Europe 2008, including 35,000 in France and 30,0000 in the United Kingdom. The United States received just under 50,000 claims and Canada 35,000. South Africa received 207 000 claims from asylum seekers. In Australia in 2008, 4750 people sought asylum. They formed part of an overall humanitarian program of 13,500 places. This year, there’ll be an increase in the humanitarian program, to 13,750. In the year to March, net migration to Australia was 278,000 people. Our program accounts for less than a tenth of one percent of the world’s refugees. Our population is 0.3% of that of the world. Our GDP is 1.6% of the world’s. If we accepted as many refugees per person as the conservative Government of Canada, we’d take over 20,000 a year. Of asylum claims made within Australia by people who have arrived by aircraft, 55% are rejected. The rejection rate of claims made by people who arrive by boat varies between 2-15%. Of the current “surge” in arrivals, 48% are Afghans, and 36% are Sri Lankan. In short, events in Pakistan and Sri Lanka account for nearly 85% of the current increase. Why do asylum seekers head to Australia? Well, as the figures above show, they don’t. Australia attracts disproportionately few asylum seekers, because you can’t get here in a truck, or walk here. But most asylum seekers head to neighbouring countries or countries in their own region, which means that, with about 5m in our own region, including 2-3m Afghans, Australia is on the menu of likely destinations, like it or not. Evidence from the United Kingdom suggests family connections are also important in refugees’ choice of destination, and refugees from Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries tend to head toward other Commonwealth countries because of historic ties and, possibly, language. But the other driver is that they don’t have a lot of choice, and this applies regardless of how tough or loose Australia’s refugee assessment process is. Which countries in our region that have signed the UN Refugee Convention? The only ones are Australia, Cambodia, PNG and New Zealand. None of the ASEAN countries have. Neither Cambodia nor PNG are in any state to take large numbers of refugees, and you can only get to New Zealand via Australia. Which leaves us. Malaysia is not merely not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, but is known for high levels of corruption, with asylum seekers fruitful sources of bribes and extortion under threat of deportation. Australia under both sides of politics has been extraordinarily successful at taking a relatively small number of the world’s vast number of refugees. We have minimal control over the factors driving the current increase in boat arrivals, but they constitute a trivial component of our own immigration program, let alone the wider regional problem of refugees. |
|
|
76 Comments
Excellent work, Bernard. The clearest exposition I’ve ever seen of what the numbers really show.
So if there are 15 million refugees, and UNHCR can handle 14 thousand of them per year, the question is not why are boat people “jumping the queue”, so much as where is this queue, this safe place with a “Queue Here for UNHCR” sign where you can wait your turn?
And if you were in a burning building, and you stood quietly in a queue for the exit door, would you really need rescuing as much as those who take their chances jumping out the window?
“with about 5m in our own region, including 2-3m Afghans”
Afghanistan is in our region? That seems like more than a bit of a stretch. Google Earth tells me it’s over 10,000 kilometres from Kabul to Canberra. Afghanistan is much closer to the UK than it is to Australia.
Not all Afghan refugees reside in Afghanistan.
Correction to my post, I misread (while saying it was clear — not Bernard’s fault).
13,750 is the total to be processed in Australia only. The global total of people assisted by UNHCR at the end of 2008 was 4,598,433. The point still stands.
It will always be possible to show a small percentage of refugees to Australia as compared to other countries or the total of world refugees as it is to show a similar percentage for GDP, population or so many other topics. Is that the point? To my mind the point is that it is abundantly clear that Labour’s changes to the visa process and availability has encouraged refugees and people smugglers to come to our shores. We have a refugee policy and the boat people are queue jumpers. If I was a refugee applying and waiting through the correct channels I would find it hard to justify to my family that we should wait, and not get in a boat. The other issue is Kevin Rudd’s truthfulness on the issue. We all have sympathy for refugees, and there is nothing wrong with the public’s expectation that Australia’s intake will be properly managed with some sense of control. Kevin Rudd is getting a free ride from the press and sooner or later this continual lying will catch up with him. For the rest of us, we can do no more than call a spade a spade when we see one.
Stephen: “abundantly clear that Labour’s changes to the visa process and availability has encouraged refugees and people smugglers to come to our shores”
How do you get that from reading the article? “Of the current ‘surge’ in arrivals, 48% are Afghans, and 36% are Sri Lankan. In short, events in Pakistan and Sri Lanka account for nearly 85% of the current increase.”
Who is responsible for the refugees from SriLanka. Answer is Western Countries and India. Why? SriLanka had an Ethnic Conflict since independance and the majority with power obtained in democracy with numbers so0ught to systematically suppress the minority. In the 60s it was the burghers who left and went to safer countries. In the 80s it is the Tamils who left and settled in safe countries. In the mean time the ethnic conflict moved from passive democratic resisstance to armed ressistance. Still the west did not ask govt of srilanbka to sought out insted sold arms and funded them. Post 9/11 west designated theliberation movement as a terrorist group even though they did not carry out any terrorist act outside Srilankan soil except once in India. Sriulankan Govt capitalised on the sentiment iof “War on Terror” with the aid of India and prosecuted successfully. Told the entirte world taht they are “Liberating the Tamil Civilians” from the clutches of Terror when the truth was they continued their subjugation of Tamils. Four moonths after the completion of the “war on terror” still 300000 tamils are kept in internment camps and west and india who assited cannot ask and demand srilankan govt to act to resolve the fundermental issue of Tamils. Until West realises tahyt they have been “hoodwinked” again the refugee issue will continue.
A nipple cripple for the next person who says, ‘queue jumper’.
James, I don’t have to get that statement from the article, the article is discussing the situation at large, I can review the situation at large to form an opinion. I understand that you and Kevin Rudd are seeking to attribute those two trouble spots as the cause of the problem. But peoples from those countries be coming to Australia if Kevin Rudd hadn’t changed the law. REasonably I think that you would have to say No. If you say Yes, then you will agree with anything Labour feeds you and it is pointless trying to persuade you otherwise.
Perambalam, I don’t know enough about the history of the conflict nor who is the closest to being right. You are clearly a Tamil or a Tamil supporter. Because I don’t know enough about the conflict I cannot agree or oppose your view. My point is that we should have control of our borders. I think that generally that position is undeniable. The only exception is when a boat load of refugees arrive. We all will have different points of view about the appropriate responses. In my view, if the former Government’s policy was in place, we would not be having the current surge. So to my mind, it is straight out lying for Kevin Rudd and the Labour Party to say otherwise. When those on the side of the refugees admit that, then I think that the Australian public will be able to better deal with the issue, and I for one would like to see a humanitarian response. But I would like the issue to be clear, not confused by Labour politics and Kevin Rudd’s future plans to be a somebody in the UN.
Correction “But would peoples…” Line 3
Right, a nipple cripple for Stephen, and please people don’t feed the trolls if they can’t even be bothered reading the article.
James, your comment is not right. Then resorting to abuse…predictable, pathetic.
Hi Perambalam, we’ve read elsewhere (from Ari Ben-Menashe) that in the elements in Israel’s Likud party in the 80s dealt arms to both sides at the same time and even helped organise a World Bank loan for a phony dam to raise more arms money.
Can you tell us anything about the situation there now and how it’s changed since the end of the civil war?.
“…If we accepted as many refugees per person as the conservative Government of Canada, we’d take over 20,000 a year…”
And if we had a maple leaf on our flag…by crikey we could BE Canada.
What is the point of such a spurious statement, Bernard?
Are you seriously trying to draw Fugee capacity parallels between Canada and Australia?
The obvious and glaring differences are too numerous to mention.
@Bernard
Any comment about the deliberate sabotage and threatened sabotage of recent ‘asylum’ SIEVs?
Or does “the plight” of these “poor souls” mitigate any “desperate attempt” they resort in trying “for a better life” and should be tolerated without question.
The problem is if the First World offered a ‘solution’ to the civil unrest in Sri Lanka that meant there would be no need to flee the country you would be screaming blue bloody murder.
And to follow up, we’ve now had five or six articles in Crikey over the last two days about this topic. We’ve had a copule of articles (one today) about what’s going on in Afghanistan and the difficulty of getting info about what our own armed forces are doing but I’ve got no idea what’s going on in Sri Lanka and particularly what’s happening with Tamils.
It may be useful to the refugee debate to get some kind of independant news about how post-war Sri Lanka is dealing with its deep divisions.
Stephen, In your mind you’ve spelt ‘labor’ wrong but that’s easy enough. Why do you keep talking about a queue when there isn’t one? The ‘queue’ was developed by a lying cynical government to make you afraid of people who you don’t need to fear. Show them you’re not such an easy target.
following up James Mc not MPM
Yes if your’re gonna start telling everyone how it is, at least learn to spell.
This is a highly complex debate and I doubt very many people are across all the issues.
you can cut and paste the numbers as much as you like Bernard, and I agree, the numbers DO paint a different picture. It will be hard to convince the Australian public given 70% want touger Border Control measures regardless of the true picture. Even today, I saw a gentleman in Pitt Street wearing an inappropriate tank top that said “we are full - f**k off!”
The Liberals kicked off their “Where the bloody hell are you?” campaign for refugees last year, taking to the airwaves to shout about Rudd going soft on immigration when no laws had actually been changed. The people smugglers are probably cutting out their recent soundbites and sticking them into promotional material to drum up business. With every boat that arrives, the Libs cheer and up the volume of their campaign, thus propagating a cycle.
“Bah humbug!”, cries Ebenezer Ruddock. “The ghosts of elections past may be in their watery graves, but those of the present will be the key to my electoral future!”
Duke can you atribute that stat or did you just make it up?
5 articles too many SBH!
A point made in the Crikey email yesterday was that the Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009 hasn’t actually become law yet. If that is the case, then it is hard to see how it is making it easier for asylum seekers to gain entry to Australia.
We would also have to assume that the refugees are getting accurate information on Australian legislation. We have enough trouble getting accurate unbiased reports of legislation in Australia, and it is hard to imagine better information getting to refugees in war torn areas.
What is a lot easier to picture is that some media representations of the Rudd government being soft on refugees has created a perception in the minds of people who want to believe it that any increase to the stream of boat people is as a result of government policy. That is an opinion based on assumption not fact.
What Bernard has presented above are a few statistics on refugees, which suggest that we are not being inundated - less than 5000 asylum seekers per year is a small fraction of the total immigration number. They are a few facts that allow a bit of a reality check.
yeah but back to the point Duke, where does your figure of 70% come from?
apologies, I sent my previous post without noting your question. ‘The Australian’ had been running a poll over the past couple of days which was overwhelmingly in favor of a tougher stance on Border Control / Asylum Seekers et al.. whilst it was only a yes/no poll, I can’t ever recall seeing something which suggests that boat people are welcomed with open arms?
I think politically the most significant point right now is that most of the surge is Afghans coming from Pakistan which according to its own president is fighting for its life; and Sri Lanka, from where we have a confusion of reports which seem to indicate a post-defeat route of the Tamil population and a government not offering much quarter.
SBH, I think Duke may have been referring to the Lowy Poll in which 71 per cent of respondents felt “Large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into Australia” was a Critical or Important threat.
For a bit of perspective on that figure, the sample showed even higher concern about the development of China as a world power (87%), AIDS, avian flu and other potential epidemics (88%) instability and conflict on the Korean peninsula (88%) and dusruption in energy supply (92%).
Sorry Duke, just saw your reply. Is it a readers’ poll? Those aren’t very random samples.
Not saying they are but a poll ‘Australian’ readers doesn’t represent the views of the Australian people. A better indicator and much used in this broad discussion, would be the results of the 2001 federal election which goes as follows Forces of Darkness (Lib NP, Hanson and CLP) 5,432,985 to parties that propsed a more humane solution (ALP, Dem, Green) 5,530,742. (http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2001/results/index.html)
Some way short of 70%. According to Roy Morgan the Oz has a readership in the order of 450k of which over half earn more than 80,000 and 63 % are male and half are over fifty. So maybe what you could say is 70% of middle class white blokes don’t like refugees but it’s just plain not representative.
Just what makes a refugee an illegal entrant?
As far as I understand, it doesn’t matter how you get to a country - when you cross the border, you claim refugee status and then have your claim processed.
If that’s right (and someone please correct me if it’s not) then isn’t the problem that we don’t process people’s claims fast enough?
Surely the right thing to do - both morally and legally - is to process the claims and let the chips fall where they may.
If someone is a legitimate refugee, welcome them to Australia. If you live in this country and you’re not a blackfella, you (or your ancestors) were immigrants too.
If someone isn’t, send them back. And if they want to appeal the ruling, then let them appeal. It’s not immoral or illegal to exercise one’s legal rights.
It seems that there’s far too much emotion in all this. That’s partly because the media can run a good scary headline and partly because politicians can use it as a way to attack each other. Neither does us credit. Just let the legal system deal with it (of course, it needs to be funded and staffed properly for that to happen - which is perhaps a question for another day …).
no probs James, yes it was a readers poll so it wasn’t very targeted but nonetheless, I suspect there is a bit of truth in the result and consistent with the Lowy Poll.
And I meant rout not route. Spelling police, don’t shoot!
Well, if the Rudd Government is encouraging people smugglers, is there any evidence that there is a mechanism through which this could work? Or actual evidence of the mechanism; eg promotional material from another country, or interviews with detainees?
It’s my main problem with the argument that news of changing facets of Australian law will arrive at disadvantaged people in 3rd world countries and encourage them to come here. Okay, maybe educated people with access to the internet, but I just find it difficult to imagine that this sort of detailed information would penetrate overseas. There may be a general consensus; like ‘go to Australia they signed XX international treaty’, but less likely…
Now that I think about it, what laws have been changed?
SBH - could you find a more broader sample to use?!? I realise that one of the big items in the 2001 election was largely based on Border Control blah blah blah but to use those numbers to justify the electorates view on Border Control in 2001 let alone 2009 is ridiculous!!
Stephen you insist Kevin Rudd “has future plans to be a somebody in the UN”. Perhaps you would enlighten me. What form will the somebody take? How do you know? Where can I read what you do know? as obviously Mr Rudd hasn’t told you personally.
Thanks.
If the foreign powers had not meddled with my country I would have never become a refugee. There must be some reason we do not have influx of people from…Malaysia.
It is outrageous to blame the victims of international banditry for trying to escape from the predators.
And the way I see it the whole refugee ‘industry’ deals more with politics than humanity. Australia accepts ten times more other migrants every year. Many of them are not necessary educated or English speakers.
The current ‘refugee’ issue somehow coincides with the possibility of double dissolution. Another ‘Tampa’ attempt?
Just asking.
Guys we all have our own views, based on varying information, backgrounds etc. Because I assume that we all vote, in the end, to be useful, we have to take a position. Assume Australia is a house, with limited rooms. It is okay to take in 1, 2, 3 or 4 people to share the house, but sooner or later you have to say no to others. I don’t think that it is seriously thought that the house should over flow. Look around in Sydney at the moment, traffic is terrible, renting is worse etc. The government is not planning for the people we have not to take into account more. What I am saying is that there are rules, plans, for the future benefit of us all. By using the word “queue” it is a concept for the pending refugee applications made through the proper sources. Without being pedantic, boat people are queue jumpers. They force themselves on the government now. They are in our face. We should be able to plan for the number of refugees that we take. You can argue to increase that number, I have no problem, but it is planned. I think we should have control of our borders.
Raymond, in relation to Rudd’s future plans..watch him…he is not here for the long run. Everything he has done, is supposedly acting on advice of others. He passes the buck. No original thought. I am telling you…you and I are a stepping stone for his ego.
Duke, No I don’t think I could. What I did find was a set of figures that is accurate and gives a realistic insight into the view of ‘Australian public’. What’s ridiculous is using some readers’ poll as if it is representative of the ‘Australian public’. It’s not. Your 70% is without foundation yet you want to build an argument on it. It’s, by definition, irrational.
It’s this kind of slipping and sliding around the truth and the facts that seems to accompany so much of the anti-refugee side of this debate. Here’s some other examples of things that are just plain not true:
- refugees threw their children in the water in 2001
- people who come here by boat are a) rich and b) illegal
- Australia is being flooded with boat loads of refugees
- somewhere there is a queue which is being ‘jumped
Stephen isn’t saying ‘they force themselves on us’ analogous to saying people who ring 000 force themselves on our emergency services? Maybe it’s a question of need?
Stephen I didnt ask you or me to watch him. I asked you after you insisted Kevin Rudd “has future plans to be a somebody in the UN”. Perhaps you would enlighten me. What form will the somebody take? How do you know? Where can I read what you do know? as obviously Mr Rudd hasn’t told you personally.
If you are merely imparting an opinion that is yours personally, why not say so instead of giving the impression it is fact. I have heard that rumour previously, nothing factual, just gossip. Probably from the dwarf, Milne who excells in tittle tattle. I presume you do also, however if you are in possession of facts, how about sharing them.
@Stephen you can’t reasonably link any overcrowding type issues in Australia with aslyum seekers arriving by boat. As Bernards article points out clearly (and the number can be found elsewhere as well) the much maligned ‘boat people’ arriving in much much smaller numbers than the annual intake of non-refugee migration. It is simply incredulous to talk about non existant ‘queues’ and ‘proper sources’ for starving, persecuted and desperate people who have the audacity to flee imminent death at a time of their choosing, rather than when it suits us!
Hi Stephen, you may be right about Rudd. Regarding refugees, I’d like to refer to Bernard’s article at the top of the page which we’re discussing. A few figure jump out at me.
13,750 the number of places allocated for humanitarian migration
4,750 the number of refugee applications to Australia last year
278,000 net total migration into Australia in the year to March
55% the rejection rate of refugee claims by applicants by plane
2-15% the rejection rate of refugee claims by “queue jumpers” who arrive unauthorized by boat
If you’re concerned about capacity in Australia, which of the above rows would you target first?
I also used a house analogy earlier today — a burning house, with some people queueing patiently for the exit door and others jumping hazardously out the window, and if you were a rescue worker which would you target first?
I’d like to reprint what I thought was a very interesting post in today’s letters blog of the Australian:
Dog in the Manger Thu 15 Oct 09 (10:49am)
“Personally, David, I have a feeling that those who make an effort to save themselves rather than sitting around waiting for years and years and years for someone to do something, are more likely to make first class citizens. The large number of immigrants who have put this country on the intellectual science/medicine and music map who floated here on rafts are testimony to their high level of survival skills. And being credits to the country rather than bleating and moaning.”
I am about to go home..not a good point to make I guess as we are talking about the homeless, but I would like to add a couple of things. Raymond..lighten up. You’ll go crazy. Rudd hasn’t been scrutinised either before or after the election. That is a fact. He was a career diplomat who arrived on the scene when Beazley couldn’t make an impression. He agreed with everything John Howard said to get himself elected and since then has done almost the opposite to what he said he would do. He has no economic sense and his greatest luck was to have the financial crisis so that he could throw money at everything. I thought being the PM might be hard..read books, think…no..you just have to give people money. They will love you forever. Your and my children will have to pay it back. What is that about every parents wish to leave the world a better place for their children. Australians at the moment are leaving their children debt. 30% of people now…ie voters..think Rudd should give them another load of money. Yeap, that is who people we walk past in the street, fellow voters. Those are facts. Rudd is smart enough to know that the dollar stops somewhere, and he will be long gone. Raymond ..just an opinion..don’t bet the ranch on it..lighten up. Bogdanovist, if that was true about the refugees being starving your point would be stronger. I don’t for one minute say that there are not many starving and deserving cases. But are these the boat people? I know that if I was born in Afganistan or Sri Lanka, I may be dead, or a boat person. I would have got myself in trouble. But I would expect the issues to be discussed honestly and correctly. That is all I am saying.
James, at this point in time, I cannot say that Australia is bursting at the seams, and I have admitted to a sympathy to increase the refugee intake. I am just arguing for a plan, and yes, boat people by general definition could be called refugees. That is reflected in the 2-15% rejection rate. But the adoption of the UN Conventions are internationally recognised as subject to the abilities of the individual countries. It is not right to argue that we should take everyone who knocks on the door. The rejection rate by plane is much higher and I would say rightfully so.
Your point about initiative, motivation and the will to survive and prosper is generally valid but we would need to know how many are lying on their backs taking Centrelink before that is confirmed.
Your analogy about the burning house is good. You may prefer the queue jumper. I would take the person who has been patiently and co-operatively waiting in line.
Stephen, read this bit slowly so it sinks in
There is no line
What there is is a sea of human misery which as a rich country we are better placed then many to help alleviate. To your credit you want your country to do its bit.
Carping about the numbers we take by, whether they come by air or sea is mean-spirited at best. The fact that the walking dead are seeking to scare people, voters, people we pass in the street is rebarbative and contemptible.
Don’t let the liars and sneaks that ran this country for eleven years drag us down to there level.
yep, it’s a piss in a lake as I was saying yesterday and to extend the metaphor, the lake is probably Michigan, or Eyre after a big big rain.
Australia accepts roughly 13000 UNHCR defined refugees/asylum seekers per year. When 5,000 or more come by sea or air before seeking asylum as a UNHCR refugee then they effectively queue-jump the others who have lawfully declared themselves in a UNHCR camp or office elsewhere and seek asylum asking particularly for Australia.
Part of Australia’s immigration program does effectively the same work through acceptance for immigration here but not specifically on the grounds of refugee status.
Should we increase our immigration (almost I think an extraordinary 300,000 over the last year) or increase the proportion of dispossessed /or suffering peoples who settle in Australia or indeed both?
If so how should we do it?
Surely not by turning a blind eye to a horrible trade and people who put their children at risk to ensure asylum specifically in this country by gaming the rules in order to avoid other countries equally as safe?
These illegal arrivals are people who queue-jump others as unfortunate but who are merely poorer or perhaps better morally grounded?
Especially if we do it merely as a pathetic salve to show all that “we care” so very typical of leftists? That’s the salve merely for the truly self-centred ego….all care no responsibility.
Global. Population. Control.
We can blah blah about the refugee issue all we like, but until we start dealing with the real problem - there’s too many of us - this is all just tinkering.
I agree with Michael Butler’s post:
“… isn’t the problem that we don’t process people’s claims fast enough? Surely the right thing to do - both morally and legally - is to process the claims and let the chips fall where they may.”
We can fight this battle this time and conceivably even win it, and it will come up again and again, every time some political party needs a boogeyman.
But if we achieve a successful referendum for a bill of rights — if it’s fundamental and general enough and not just a grab-bag of someone’s pet issues of the day — then a whole lot of issues of the day will become matters of law:
- suspension of antidiscrimination laws (NT)
- extrajudicial detention of nonoffending witnesses (for terrorist or industrial relations enquiries)
- punishment of nonoffending persons as a deterrent for others (boat people)
- use of or collaboration in cruel and unusual treatment (eg torture in war on terror, tolerating violence and se-xual abuse in prisons as an implicit component of state punishment)
… and whatever other issues may come along tomorrow. The US bill of rights is over 200 years old and simple enough that very little of it has gone out of date (the right to bear arms the main exception).
Gef05 you are spot on
Jamse K ‘effectively’ is just weasel words illegal on the other hand is technically, leagally wrong and defamatory
But hey, your right. Us in the left don’t care about others just our own ability to sleep at night. So why don’t you who appear so much more willing to do some actual work, agitate within ‘the Right’ to stop the disgraceful use of refugees as a political tactic and stop dancing around with inaccurate, pejorative terms like ‘queue jumper’?
As if leftist politicians were not enough, now James McDonald wants leftist judges to determine the nature of the society I live in.
Canada is the comparable example and I urge everyone to examine the results.
Over my dead body James………
Is that supposed to be an argument SBH?
Over my dead body James………
if only
JamesK actually I did a little letter addressing that argument which even the Oz saw fit to print today. I suggested it’s not a case of handing power to an institution outside parliament, but of exercising long-term control over short-term overreactions to media panics and the like.
What I didn’t say (because I thought it was obvious, but it seems to have escaped people who blogged on it) is that judges are appointed by the elected government — i.e. appointed by the people, two steps removed, whereas ministers are one step removed — and subject to appeal before other judges also appointed by the elected government. No one is suggesting handing over the keys to the judges.
And for you to blithely write off one of the cornerstones of the rule of law as “leftist judges” shows a lack of understanding of the reasons you can say what you like in this blog and still walk home safely at night.
(Edit - issues please, not other commenters)
I’m not sure I can argue with you James as I have no clue what you just said.
Is it that judges if elected can be unelected?
Like I said read up on the Canadian experience.
no JamesK, is constantly repeating falsehoods an argument? Have you sorted out your mob yet or ar they still using desperate human beings as political tools and quibbling over which lie to spin about them next?
touche James Mc
Well if there are falsehoods in what I’ve said, SBH, then your task in making an argument is easy:
Merely point them out specifically and explain why they are falsehoods.
(Edit - issues not other commenters)
JamseK, 20 posts up comrade
maybe i am stupid,
but i am a human being .
then i am a male .
i am also a father,
i am a husband,
oh yeah .. and my most proudest part of my life is that .. i am an australian !
and when i last defined an australian we were a compassionate race of humans that were at one time in our history humans that landed here on boats,
i have no answers only that this is a very sad situation ……..
marty
I ask you again SBH. What falsehoods have I made?
Point them out specifically and explain why they are falsehoods.
(Edit)
And don’t call me comrade.
I don’t think the left or right argument has any currency because neither has been able to get it right. Keating introduced detention centres, Howard tightened the screws and Rudd is still to work out which road leads to empyrean.
Labor has held office 30% of the time since WW2 and the Liberal party 70%, perhaps the electorate has been more inclined to favor immigration et al policies of the right?
Boat people: driven by Rudd or War? War hmmmm.. most likely although I am still mystified why the Lankans and Afghans would choose Australia given the distance, Europe has a higher number of asylum seekers which makes sense. Rudd hmmmm, I’d suggest people smugglers know which countries are easier to penetrate, so maybe although it appears that Rudd’s stance differs little from Howards.
I see Martin Hoare correctly identifies this as a sad situation.
As citizen Australian, Martin and everyone of us has a responsibility to engage.
Firstly that will entail becoming informed rather than accepting being spoon-fed self-righteous claptrap by pollies and media who work this issue for political gain or too reflect how humane and intelligent they are in contrast to anybody who happens to disagree with them whatever the motive (Bernard Keane’s essay on this topic 2 days ago was particularly reprehensible and was the worst I’ve seen from him in 3 years and that takes some doing).
Hi Duke, we keep coming back to this left vs right thing and who rules in Oz, don’t we.
For all those readers who are satisfied with a left-right scale for explaining politics and people’s belief systems, that’s fine and far be it from me to disturb this paradigm.
For those who’ve always found it a bit limited, I’d like to raise this question: do you think John Stuart Mill was a leftist or a rightist?
It doesn’t have to be J.S Mill, we could use lots of others. I chose Mill because he makes the theory of liberalism about as clear as it’s ever been. A formula for governing a society that requires a great of complexity in its implementation (indeed, the work of balancing and refining it can never really be completed), but whose underlying principles are so simple that you can explain it to your five year old children and they will probably understand it.
QUESTION: Was John Stuart Mill a Left-wing or a Right-wing thinker?
It’s easy to google John Stuart Mill, there’s a wikipedia page on him, his most famous book can be browsed at http://www.bartleby.com/130/ (no need to read the whole thing, a few pages of the intro and you’ll get the idea).
Well I’ve just checked again on how you join the ‘queue’ if you are a Tamil in Sri Lanka seeking refugee status with the UNHCR.
First you go to the office in Colombo which is open from 8.30 to 4.30 monday to friday. Tricky if you’re locked up in a concentration camp like 250,000 Tamils are, but you can always write. Field officers cannot accept applications so you must contact the office directly.
Of course you must be outside your country of origin to be recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR so that rules out Tamils in Sri Lanka, locked up or not (and for Afghanis in Afghanistan). In that case you are an Internally Displaced Person and the objectives for the UNHCR are to protect you in your own country and resettle you in your country. It is not a pathway to refugee status.
In short, if you are a Tamil and feel a genuine concern that the Sri Lankan Government or people will persecute you or your family you need to flee the country to be considered a refugee. As movements of Tamil’s in post-war Sri Lanka is still restricted, particularly if you are in a concentration camp, this is problematic.
So if you’re a Tamil in Sri Lanka (or an Afghan in Afghanistan) there is no queue to jump, no line to go to back of. I hope this clears the ‘queue jumping’ issue up.
Duke in this situation most people don’t get a lot of what you and I would know as choice. They get a chance to go, not go somewher just go anywhere and they take it. They have become so desperate and terrified of the prospects for them and their family that they take extra-ordinary risks and some of them, a very small proportion, end up here.
If you ask someone if they think refugees are a global problem, most will agree. If you then ask if Australia should take its fair share of refugees, no more, then most will agree. When it’s pointed out that we’re not taking our fair share and that other countries, in particular in Europe, are carrying much of our load people back off.
I’ve never yet heard a politician proclaim that Australia is being hard done by in this area and that “we’ll accept our fair share, no more”.
Australians in the main are decent people but they’re being fed this notion that we have a major problem with asylum seekers and that the numbers are getting out of control. We need more commentators such as Bernard Keane pointing out some realities to enable people to put our situation in perspective.
And those who mention the high price of the people-smuggler ticket exceeding a first-class airfare, it’s a pretty risky way to travel. It’s uncommon for first class air passengers to end up lying at the bottom of the ocean but I believe it’s a common fate for refugee boat-people .
SBH, your last post is so good and so informative, I really urge you to send it in as a letter in the comments section, or as a feature article, so it gets a wider audience.
Is it impolite to point out the inconsistency of people on the far left of the political spectrum, such as the Greens on this issue?
On one hand they are anti-immigration because of the issues of population pressures on Australia’s fragile environment, as evidenced by the continuing drought in the Eastern states, plus the worsening conditions in our capital cities due to population growth.
On the other hand they demand that we open our borders and take vastly larger refugee intakes, many from communities that are particularly different culturally and socially form our own.
For example the issues with female circumcision and honour killings that have emerged in migrant communities in the UK, which are at extreme variance with those of the wider community.
A little clarity and consistency from the far-Left would be appreciated.
JamesK your personal attacks on Bernard Keane are out of order. Were you to make similar on some of your right wing mates blogs you would be banned immediately. Suggest you control your personal hate which becomes more evident by the day.
But then my secret identity might be revealed………………………..
Michael James, as I’ve said to others, it would save a lot of wasted time if you read the story that the blog is about before blogging about it.
Here are a few of the figures Bernard discusses:
13,750 ……………. the number of places allocated for humanitarian migration in Australia this year
4,750 ……………… the number of refugee applications to Australia last year
278,000 …………. net total migration into Australia in the year to March
55% ………………… the rejection rate of refugee claims by applicants who come by plane
2-15% ……………… the rejection rate of refugee claims by “queue jumpers” who arrive unauthorized by boat
I could not give a toss what the Greens think about this issue, or, I confess, on any other issue.
If you think Australia is overcrowded, tell me which of the above lines should be addressed.
Now you have a right to own your own property, and to go to work and make money. You have a right to work harder or smarter than the next man, and to make more money than he does. You have a right to join a union or not join a union. You have a right not to embrace every politically-correct slogan that becomes all the rage this summer with the Greens or any other would-be proletariat dictatorship telling you how to live. And lots of other rights I’m sure you’re aware of.
Those rights have their basis in a larger principle of human rights. This country has been following a practice in recent years of locking up people in disgraceful conditions, not because they committed any crime, but because they made a choice under entitlements they have under UN conventions, and the choices they made are a bit inconvenient for some of us. So, although they are entitled to come here by boat and seek asylum, we would prefer if they didn’t, or if they waited in a queue.
Please read SBH’s post above, about that queue, before making any comment that includes the word “queue” or “queue-jumper”.
Now the problem is that we don’t treat people this way because they breached any law. We treat people this way because we want word to filter back to the countries they came from that coming to Australia is a bad idea. And the problem is that advertising is not really a legitimate reason for playing fast and loose with human rights.
So if you are willing to jettison the rights of others, don’t be too indignant if they one day decide to jettison yours.
The simple fact of the matter is that in order to qualify as a refugee you need to be out of your country of origin and present yourself to a signatory nation. As the High Court of Australia said in point 62 in the case of Al Masri;
“The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.”
In the end, not only is NOT illegal to come here there is no queue. But if there is any doubt by the hate squad I think point 31 by the High Court in the case of Hamdan destroys it completely;
“Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as “unlawful” serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a “valid permission to enter and remain in Australia”. The use of the term “unlawful” does not as such refer to abreach of a law.”
So I fully agree, next person to use either “queue jumper” or “illegal immigrant” gets a nipple twister.
Learning a new word from Masri J in the above judgement, we can say the concept of queue-jumping is nugatory.
As is the opposition’s position on the matter, natory that is.
nugatory that is, doh!
Just watched ABC Lateline and was spitting chips, so I have designed and sent a t-shirt to Leigh Sales, if you want to take a look at it you can using the following link;
Leigh Sales - t-shirt
I have provided her with this information before and she told me she would use the material I provided her should she ever discuss with guests the topic of seeking asylum, still she allowed that horrid ex-John Howard advisor to use both the “queue jumper” and “illegal boat people” term over and over again. Well, I reckon his head is illegal, am I right people?
Here is hoping that when she gets the t-shirt she won’t forget that it isn’t ILLEGAL to seek asylum in Australia as clearly spelt out by the High Court of Australia.
Oh, and sorry about the typos earlier, darn wireless keyboard has gone to hell.
That’s the kind of t-shirt that gets me in trouble when a woman is wearing it. I read the darned things.
Ain’t that the truth, James McDonald @ 2 am!