Australia in hot water over 'very serious breach'

[xdrive]

Than stop complaining when the Australian Navy enters your waters to do your job even if they pay you millions in aid to do just that.

Exactly. I thought Indonesia would be interested in stopping criminal people smugglers from operating in their territory, i guess now.

Imagine if Australia allowed drug smugglers to freely depart Australia to Indonesia with their drugs and said "well we don't want them in Australia, so we will just allow them to go on their way to Indonesia"

 

[flamer84]

Exactly. I thought Indonesia would be interested in stopping criminal people smugglers from operating in their territory, i guess now.

Imagine if Australia allowed drug smugglers to freely depart Australia to Indonesia with their drugs and said "well we don't want them in Australia, so we will just allow them to go on their way to Indonesia"

Now imagine if Indonesia would even give you money as aid to stop those smugglers.

 

[xdrive]

That's why they're trying to check it.Or maybe we're talking about controled migration with people legally applying for visas and the proper authorities deciding the outcome while at the same time trying to stop a flow of boats swarming their shores.

Australia has a proper process for claiming asylum in Australia. We take in a quota of 13,000 - 15000 refugees a year from the UNHCR. The reason these people come by boat illegally to Australia is because they want to bypass our refugee intake program and jump the queue.

They are cheats, plain and simple. People like Developereo will desperately try to convince you its some sort of racist media conspiracy, but it isn't. Australians don't like cheats plain and simple. Ours immigration and refugee intake programs will never be allowed to be dictated by criminals.

Now imagine if Indonesia would even give you money as aid to stop those smugglers.

That's the sad part, we give them aid to stop illegal activity that they then aid.

 

[Developereo]

That's why they're trying to check it.Or maybe we're talking about controled migration with people legally applying for visas and the proper authorities deciding the outcome while at the same time trying to stop a flow of boats swarming their shores.

In all cases, the Australian authorities decide the outcome. Just because someone shows up in a boat (or plane) doesn't mean they will get asylum. If rejected, they will be deported.

 

[Vinod2070]

That's the crux of the matter.Ofcourse we can point fingers at white australians not being the real natives but we have to take tis discussion to a modern level.They've built a successful nation,they've allowed others in for ages debunking the racist myth.Even second or more generations non white australians support the policy chhecking migration.What would happen if Australia was to allow 80-100.000 immigrants per year ? This is just a disaster waiting to happen.

Even much larger countries can only take so many immigrants. They have to respect the popular opinion of the countrymen.

I see that the free, open, democratic and secular countries that allow any immigration at all are the only ones that get the criticism. Generally it comes from people who come from places that don't practice any of these at home and never demand that in their home countries (except paying a lip service when others are looking).

There are many countries that will not allow any immigration at all, will never allow anyone to become a citizen despite being born there and living there all your life, will throw people out after some specified number of years, will never give the immigrants equal rights etc. and they never get any censor.

While it is not the claim that these countries should be followed, one has to keep things in perspective.

 

[Developereo]

Australia has a proper process for claiming asylum in Australia. We take in a quota of 13,000 - 15000 refugees a year from the UNHCR. The reason these people come by boat illegally to Australia is because they want to bypass our refugee intake program and jump the queue.

They are cheats, plain and simple. People like Developereo will desperately try to convince you its some sort of racist media conspiracy, but it isn't. Australians don't like cheats plain and simple. Ours immigration and refugee intake programs will never be allowed to be dictated by criminals.

They are complying with UNHCR rules and are not jumping the queue. This is according to the immigration department itself.

Just because you keep repeating this lie won't make it true.

 

[VeeraBahadur]

Rupert Murdoch (founder and principal owner of NewsCorp.) has publicly stated his dislike for Muslims.
.

If Murdoch hates them for obvious reasons then I would say he doesn't believe in symbolism. No one would like to turn his country in mess . Intolerance begets only more intolerance and it's reverse is also true.

 

[Developereo]

Imagine if Australia allowed drug smugglers to freely depart Australia to Indonesia with their drugs and said "well we don't want them in Australia, so we will just allow them to go on their way to Indonesia"

Importing illicit drugs into a country is illegal under any and all laws.

Importing asylum seekers is legal under UNHCR rules.

If Murdoch hates them for obvious reasons then I would say he doesn't believe in symbolism. No one would like to turn his country in mess . Intolerance begets only more intolerance and it's reverse is also true.

Regardless of how he justifies it, the fact remains that the bias is there.

 

[xdrive]

Now imagine if Indonesia would even give you money as aid to stop those smugglers.

In all cases, the Australian authorities decide the outcome. Just because someone shows up in a boat (or plane) doesn't mean they will get asylum. If rejected, they will be deported.

It's very rare that people are rejected because our system is based on a "Genuine, until proven otherwise" system not a "Not genuine until proven otherwise" system. So unless there is very very very obvious evidence that they aren't Genuine they are just accepted and any sob sorry can be told and accepted. It's why there is a 90% approval rate. The system is majorly flawed and there is plenty of evidence for it.

 

[flamer84]

Even much larger countries can only take so many immigrants. They have to respect the popular opinion of the countrymen.

I see that the free, open, democratic and secular countries that allow any immigration at all are the only ones that get the criticism. Generally it comes from people who come from places that don't practice any of these at home and never demand that in their home countries (except paying a lip service when others are looking).

There are many countries that will not allow any immigration at all, will never allow anyone to become a citizen despite being born there and living there all your life, will throw people out after some specified number of years, will never give the immigrants equal rights etc. and they never get any censor.

While it is not the claim that these countries should be followed, one has to keep things in perspective.

Yes,I watched for example the plight of african immigrants coming to Europe.While theirs is a genuine heart breaking story one really needs to put things into perspective.After decades of taking in immigrants we are know at a crossroad with many EU countries having 20%+ native unemployement and many other economic hardships.Despite this,the same countries that did a lot for immigrants and still doing are getting the most heat if they don't completely open their gates.I mean,what's the end game for all of this ? The natives will rebel in the end,this just can't go forever.Saudi Arabia deported many immigrants lately but did somebody even bat an eye lid in the international arena.? NO.But when it comes to Europe,Australia who for decades took in immigrants (with many clearly failing to integrate) the saints start screaming "racists"

Mark my words,if this goes on many would simply stop giving a flying f$$$ and the whole situation would spirall out of control.

 

[xdrive]

Importing asylum seekers is legal under UNHCR rules.

No, people smuggling is not legal whatsoever, even if they are asylum seekers. People smuggling is the transportation of people in exchange for money.

 

[Developereo]

It's very rare that people are rejected because our system is based on a "Genuine, until proven otherwise" system not a "Not genuine until proven otherwise" system. So unless there is very very very obvious evidence that they aren't Genuine they are just accepted and any sob sorry can be told and accepted. It's why there is a 90% approval rate. The system is majorly flawed and there is plenty of evidence for it.

In an earlier post in this thread, I showed the charts of approval rates for air arrivals -- only 60% approval rate, compared to 90% for boat arrivals.

The system is fair and bogus applicants are rejected. The biggest source of bogus applicants are China and India (both by air), yet the media keeps harping about Sri Lankans and Middle Easterners coming by boat.

 

[VeeraBahadur]

Regardless of how he justifies it, the fact remains that the bias is there.

Which are not unfounded.

 

[Developereo]

No, people smuggling is not legal whatsoever, even if they are asylum seekers. People smuggling is the transportation of people in exchange for money.

Airlines also transport people for money.
The transport could be construed as "smuggling" if the intent were to evade Australian border authorities. By all accounts, that is not the intention here; these people intend to declare themselves to the authorities.

Which are not unfounded.

Actually, the fears are unfounded. There is no evidence that asylum seekers include terrorists or criminals.

 

[Vinod2070]

Yes,I watched for example the plight of african immigrants coming to Europe.While theirs is a genuine heart breaking story one really needs to put things into perspective.After decades of taking in immigrants we are know at a crossroad with many EU countries having 20%+ native unemployement and many other economic hardships.Despite this,the same countries that did a lot for immigrants and still doing are getting the most heat if they don't completely open their gates.I mean,what's the end game for all of this ? The natives will rebel in the end,this just can't go forever.Saudi Arabia deported many immigrants lately but did somebody even bat an eye lid in the international arena.? NO.But when it comes to Europe,Australia who for decades took in immigrants (with many clearly failing to integrate) the saints start screaming "racists"

Mark my words,if this goes on many would simply stop giving a flying f$$$ and the whole situation would spirall out of control.

It is a two way street. Some immigrants want to take over the host society or have the society adapt to them completely without making an effort on their part to integrate. That seems to be the implicit desired end game on the part of some here. Though they likely came escaping the same back home.

I have read about the attitude of immigrants from some African countries like Somalia to Netherlands for example. These countries accepted them when the refugees were having a civil war at home and were in terrible condition. The Dutch made a lot of effort to help them and try to give them as much freedom to integrate on their terms as possible.

The outcome was not good to put it mildly. Many of the immigrants had only contempt for the host society, created all kinds of problems for the society including extremism, had high crime rates including crimes and violence against women, didn't want to work but wanted to enjoy welfare and so on.

The story is repeated across many places.

To ignore that would be folly.


PS: What is this bogey about boat and plane! The issue is that the Australian people have issues with some of the potential immigrants and I don't see why that should be an issue. Is it nor their right to decide who comes to their country?