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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

Point them out specifically and explain why they are falsehoods.

(Edit)

And don’t call me comrade.

Merely point them out specifically and explain why they are falsehoods.

(Edit - issues not other commenters)

touche James Mc

Is it that judges if elected can be unelected?

Like I said read up on the Canadian experience.