It's a simple question.

The Greens will deny they know it because admitting it will destroy their self righteous pontification

The left will tell you.......chances they don't know

I was under the impression it was to stop people coming in the backdoor..

remember they were landing in far north WA..and no one knew they were there.. so thats when they got the navy to protect our borders which I thought was supposed to stop the boats turn them round or whatever.. anyway now they just guide them into the dock..

what bugs me about this whole thing is.. there are many many voices that complain about our detention methods..more fires up in Darwin today...yet these people in some cases have come from a lot worse.. and as we have been told those in Malaysia have been there longer and in worse conditions than these people will ever be..

I think the word has gone out Australia is a soft touch..and with all these refugee advocates..putting Australia down all the time.. those that have to wait are now throwing their weight around..

now the High Court has thrown this deal out.. we will be sitting ducks..I bet we break all records for boat arrivals befor Xmas... they are holding a loaded gun.

Correct cods - but what does this back door look like?

ie what is the loophole they are jumping through?

"The detention center on the South Pacific island nation of Nauru was based on a Statement of Principles, signed on 10 September 2001"

"Federal elections were held in Australia on 10 November 2001".

"In July 2007, an unauthorised biography of John Howard claimed that he had received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that refusing the asylum seekers entry into Australia would breach international law, but that he did so to gain public support in the then upcoming election"


It seems that the correct answer is to help win the November 2001 federal election 2 months later.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 31^st, 2011 at 10:36pm:

"The detention center on the South Pacific island nation of Nauru was based on a Statement of Principles, signed on 10 September 2001" "Federal elections were held in Australia on 10 November 2001". "In July 2007, an unauthorised biography of John Howard claimed that he had received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that refusing the asylum seekers entry into Australia would breach international law, but that he did so to gain public support in the then upcoming election" It seems that the correct answer is to help win the November 2001 federal election 2 months later.

Yes but why did the offshore processing start?

Maqqa wrote on Aug 31^st, 2011 at 10:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 10:36pm: "The detention center on the South Pacific island nation of Nauru was based on a Statement of Principles, signed on 10 September 2001" "Federal elections were held in Australia on 10 November 2001". "In July 2007, an unauthorised biography of John Howard claimed that he had received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that refusing the asylum seekers entry into Australia would breach international law, but that he did so to gain public support in the then upcoming election" It seems that the correct answer is to help win the November 2001 federal election 2 months later. Yes but why did the offshore processing start?

Baxter. Hippies surrounded it and tore it down and the refugees escaped. It was to keep tree-huggers / media / population away from detainees in a focus of protests.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 31^st, 2011 at 9:30pm:

It's a simple question. The Greens will deny they know it because admitting it will destroy their self righteous pontification The left will tell you.......chances they don't know

The Greens opposed the Pacific Solution as they oppose the current Malaysian solution regardless of the multiple reasons for stopping the boat people.

I don't agree with the Greens that no deterrant should be put in place, but the solutions both the Coalition and the government have proposed have been too harsh and the end result has been extremely costly. We're still forking out millions to those refugees who suffered under the Pacific solution.

Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status

So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status

Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here.

The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media.

The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon

Maqqa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 7:33am:

Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon

Almost but with that typical subjective view you use.

Yes off shore processing was introduced to prevent asylum seekers that used the boat method to get here from accessing our legal system and gaining the civil and human rights considerations in their assessment that we consider not negotiable for ourselves but not so important to anyone else that might be politically expendable. Don't forget that definitions were changed to prevent them officially landing in Australia if the hit Christmas Island first.

This was disposed of when the high court found that these people did have the right to use our legal system back in 08 i think. It didn't matter then because Kevin was changing things without thinking first at that time so the with the latest decision, reopening Nairu would not have the same effect that it had the first time. Actually i still doubt it had all that bigger effect anyway, to me the important bit is the temporary protection visa's. I don't get why they were such a big deal, maybe this could be explained to me as they make perfect sense really. We will protect you while your country gets back on its feet after all that is why these people are fleeing. I still prefer community absorption after a processing for health and security.

Yep this would probably see an increase in boats but the real answer is still regional not local to this problem and it is our superiority complex and xenophobia that stops use reaching the lasting solutions needed to remedy these issues.

I think Keating started it,but who cares now, this is the beginning of the end of this barbaric practice. Australia will once again be able to hold our heads high in the international community without the bigoted xenophobes like maqqa being able to manipulate policy. 8-)
I SAY THANKYOU TO OUR HIGH COURT.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 7:33am:

Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon

we could end up like Malaysia with 90.000... if they could just walk in...

many groups were found wandering around the back hills of WA..some in dire straights...

maybe we should just hire the QE2 and have it anchored in Java and go from there... bugger the queue jumpers...oopps/..there isnt one is there I keep forgetting..pity about those 90.000 though

skippy. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:19am:

I think Keating started it,but who cares now, this is the beginning of the end of this barbaric practice. Australia will once again be able to hold our heads high in the international community without the bigoted xenophobes like maqqa being able to manipulate policy. 8-) I SAY THANKYOU TO OUR HIGH COURT.

so where do you put your name down to take in the next boat load that arrives and take full responsibility..

shouldnt we all be putting our hands up to do our share?

cods wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:26am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:19am: I think Keating started it,but who cares now, this is the beginning of the end of this barbaric practice. Australia will once again be able to hold our heads high in the international community without the bigoted xenophobes like maqqa being able to manipulate policy. 8-) I SAY THANKYOU TO OUR HIGH COURT. so where do you put your name down to take in the next boat load that arrives and take full responsibility.. shouldnt we all be putting our hands up to do our share?

Put my name next to all these ex PMS
Menzies, Holt,Gorton,McMahon,Whitlam,Fraser,Hawke. 8-)

e: Does anyone know why offshore processing started?
I know why it ended, its illegal,yay.Suck it up you bigoted xenophobes. ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 7:33am:

Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon

Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned.

There was no loophole to grant refugee status.

In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about.

Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:52am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt.

5 External links


BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3]

Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4]

Facilities [5]

HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT     ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:34am:

cods wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:26am: skippy. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:19am: I think Keating started it,but who cares now, this is the beginning of the end of this barbaric practice. Australia will once again be able to hold our heads high in the international community without the bigoted xenophobes like maqqa being able to manipulate policy. 8-) I SAY THANKYOU TO OUR HIGH COURT. so where do you put your name down to take in the next boat load that arrives and take full responsibility.. shouldnt we all be putting our hands up to do our share? Put my name next to all these ex PMS Menzies, Holt,Gorton,McMahon,Whitlam,Fraser,Hawke. 8-)

where though..I know we dont want all those bigots and racists... so that just leave a few on here..but I am sure you will be one of the first along with buzz and nem.. I would like a copy of the commitment when you can put it up... btw the first 4 on your list are dead so dont expect much from them

FRED. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:52am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt. 5 External links BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3] Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4] Facilities [5] HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT     ;D ;D

dunno about you Fred.. but I like the idea WE WILL DECIDE WHO COMES HERE...

cods wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:59am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:34am: cods wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:26am: skippy. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:19am: I think Keating started it,but who cares now, this is the beginning of the end of this barbaric practice. Australia will once again be able to hold our heads high in the international community without the bigoted xenophobes like maqqa being able to manipulate policy. 8-) I SAY THANKYOU TO OUR HIGH COURT. so where do you put your name down to take in the next boat load that arrives and take full responsibility.. shouldnt we all be putting our hands up to do our share? Put my name next to all these ex PMS Menzies, Holt,Gorton,McMahon,Whitlam,Fraser,Hawke. 8-) where though..I know we dont want all those bigots and racists... so that just leave a few on here..but I am sure you will be one of the first along with buzz and nem.. I would like a copy of the commitment when you can put it up... btw the first 4 on your list are dead so dont expect much from them

If YOU dont like the laws in this country, which btw have bugger all to do with the gov, they were handed down by the high court, piss off back to pommy land,we wont miss you or your whinging.

FRED. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:52am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt. 5 External links BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3] Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4] Facilities [5] HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT     ;D ;D

Hey fwedo ,when you read this thread for THE FIRST TI ME you'll see I said it was Keating in post #9,simpleton.

skippy. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 9:20am:

FRED. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:55am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:52am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt. 5 External links BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3] Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4] Facilities [5] HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT     ;D ;D Hey fwedo ,when you read this thread for THE FIRST TI ME you'll see I said it was Keating in post #9,simpleton.

SO WHAT  I dont read 90% of your looser SHYTE     YOU smacking MORON      ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 9:26am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 9:20am: FRED. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:55am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:52am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt. 5 External links BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3] Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4] Facilities [5] HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT     ;D ;D Hey fwedo ,when you read this thread for THE FIRST TI ME you'll see I said it was Keating in post #9,simpleton. SO WHAT  I dont read 90% of your looser SHYTE     YOU smacking MORON      ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D You hate when I prove you wrong ALL THE TIME hey fwed? ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 9:27am:

FRED. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 9:26am: skippy. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 9:20am: FRED. wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:55am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:52am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt. 5 External links BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3] Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4] Facilities [5] HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT     ;D ;D Hey fwedo ,when you read this thread for THE FIRST TI ME you'll see I said it was Keating in post #9,simpleton. SO WHAT  I dont read 90% of your looser SHYTE     YOU smacking MORON      ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You hate when I prove you wrong ALL THE TIME hey fwed? ;D ;D ;D

IN YOU DREAMS   WANKER    ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes I remember why.
It was to stop the ongoing endless and costly court appeals initiated  by refugees who did not like the Immigration departments decision not to grant them refugee status.
But despite initiating these appeals which lengthened their stay behind bars and then refused to return home, would then riot, sew their lips together whilst on hunger strikes and wail at the left wing media because of the length of time they had to wait.
Howard stopped that rot, and Labor brought it all back via their incompetence.

Kindly stop the spamming, Macca...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Macca_has_4_Asylum_Seeker_threads_on_front_page_of_Politicians_Suck_board.JPG

FRED. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:52am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt. 5 External links BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3] Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4] Facilities [5] HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT     ;D ;D

Dnerever is right. Offshore processing was Ruddock and Howard's response to the Tampa crisis in 2001. A Norwegian container ship picked up a shipwrecked boat near Christmas Island and was refused entry to Australian ports.

The solution: the tiny Island of Nairu offered to take them for 10 million dollars and a purpose built facility. Subsequent facilities were built on Christmas Island and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. The "Pacific Solution" was born.

It wasn't planned policy, it was a crisis-driven response to an international crisis. Indonesia refused them, Australia refused them. There was no time for maritime law to be argued in the courts.

All but 2 of the 1229 refugees detained in Nairu were eventually taken into Australia as refugees, but the "Pacific Solution" saw a drop in the number of refugee boats coming to Australia. Hence, Ruddock was able to claim that the policy broke the business model of the people smugglers.

Maybe. When Rudd got in and abandoned the Pacific Solution, the boats started coming again. Labor addressed "push factors", diplomacy and an Australian Federal police task force to work with the Indonesians to catch people smugglers. The civil war in Sri Lanka ended. But the numbers continued to rise.

As the numbers rose, it became increasingly hard to argue that offshore processing hadn't worked. The shock jocks went wild. When Rudd was deposed, Gillard was tasked with solving the boat problem. Talk returned to breaking the people smuggler business model and the Pacific Solution was reborn: first East Timor, then the Malaysian Solution.

Mandatory detention is an entirely separate policy, begun by the Keating government in 1992. A detention limit of 273 days applied to all cases, and the policy had bipartisan support.

Ah, quite obviously it was started to please the bogans and bigots and obtain their votes. Derr.

FRED. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 8:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:52am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 7:33am: Offshore processing started because Australian lawyers used a loophole in Australian laws to get asylum-seekers their refugee status So as long as the asylum-seekers landed on the mainland - they are assured of refugee status Even if security checks turns out against the asylum-seeker the Australian lawyers will use this loophole to keep them here. The legal challenges are often costly and involve the media. The Greens generally will jump on the bandwagon Rubbish - all it did was to give them access to the Australian judicial system which meant that their rights including with refugee claims had to be handled properly or take the risk of being overturned. There was no loophole to grant refugee status. In reality off shore processing started because Mr Howard wanted to be able to say that We will deciede who comes to this country in his 2001 election campaign. That is literally all it was about. Howards 10 Billion dollar election stunt. 5 External links BackgroundThe policy "Migration Act 1958 " was discretionary prior to 1992 but since the 1990s when the Paul Keating ALP government enforced a policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals, non-citizens arriving by boat without a valid visa were detained until they were either granted a visa, or deported. [3] Towards the end of the 1990s, a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals exceeded the capacity of the existing Immigration Reception and Processing Centres at Port Hedland and Curtin.[4] Facilities [5] HARD FOR YOU buggers to ADMIT

Well what is there to admit, You have stated what we already know and totally opposed Macca's theory in the process but fail to give any logical connection between Keatings action, the onshore detention centres and the offshore option.

Your time window shows the arrivals becoming a problem 2 years before the rather strange and un Australian solution being implimented on the cusp of an election and at a time when additional mainland facilities were already being put in place.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 11:40am:

Yes I remember why. It was to stop the ongoing endless and costly court appeals initiated  by refugees who did not like the Immigration departments decision not to grant them refugee status. But despite initiating these appeals which lengthened their stay behind bars and then refused to return home, would then riot, sew their lips together whilst on hunger strikes and wail at the left wing media because of the length of time they had to wait. Howard stopped that rot, and Labor brought it all back via their incompetence.

CORRECT on all accounts

The solution: the tiny Island of Nairu offered to take them for 10 million dollars and a purpose built facility. Subsequent facilities were built on Christmas Island and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. The "Pacific Solution" was born.



$10mil seems a pittance compared to what we are paying now.. dont you think??,.. with no end in sight.

seems to me the people smugglers know more about what we can and cant do than this govt will ever know..

they have got to be laughing themselves stupid..and a s for the Indonesian govt how much are we paying them to put a stop to the smugglers.?? another waste of space that idea is..but its only money who cares..

cods wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 10:42pm:

The solution: the tiny Island of Nairu offered to take them for 10 million dollars and a purpose built facility. Subsequent facilities were built on Christmas Island and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. The "Pacific Solution" was born. $10mil seems a pittance compared to what we are paying now.. dont you think??,.. with no end in sight. seems to me the people smugglers know more about what we can and cant do than this govt will ever know.. they have got to be laughing themselves stupid..and a s for the Indonesian govt how much are we paying them to put a stop to the smugglers.?? another waste of space that idea is..but its only money who cares..

Cost of 3 weeks of High Court challenge - $20M

The look on Gillard's face on Wednesday when they handed down their verdict - PRICELESS  ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 10:22pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 11:40am: Yes I remember why. It was to stop the ongoing endless and costly court appeals initiated  by refugees who did not like the Immigration departments decision not to grant them refugee status. But despite initiating these appeals which lengthened their stay behind bars and then refused to return home, would then riot, sew their lips together whilst on hunger strikes and wail at the left wing media because of the length of time they had to wait. Howard stopped that rot, and Labor brought it all back via their incompetence. CORRECT on all accounts

So the obvious conclusion is that your previous answer was incorrect if you now agree with this.

But still this was the position in place for years prior to the 2001 November election.

It was also interesting that for the 1998 election the Liberals staged the water front intervention and for the 2001 election there was a building industry enquiry due to present its findings about building industry unions prior to the election - along comes the Tampa and all of a sudden the building enquiry results are deferred till the following year.

The libs had a better minority group to exploit for votes.

Quote:

Does anyone know why offshore processing started?

We ALL do
It was a way of DENYING human beings human ( ... and legal) RIGHTS - a GIVEN, under Australian, mainland LAW

cods wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 10:42pm:

The solution: the tiny Island of Nairu offered to take them for 10 million dollars and a purpose built facility. Subsequent facilities were built on Christmas Island and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. The "PACIFIC FINAL SOLUTION" was born.

What KIND of society hands such DESPARATE people - in search of humanitarian compassion -  a "purpose built facility" ?


I thought we'd moved on - since AUSCHWITZ ?  

Quote:

Does anyone know why offshore processing started?

because it was effective, efficient and protected us..

Dnarever wrote on Sep 1^st, 2011 at 11:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 10:22pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 11:40am: Yes I remember why. It was to stop the ongoing endless and costly court appeals initiated  by refugees who did not like the Immigration departments decision not to grant them refugee status. But despite initiating these appeals which lengthened their stay behind bars and then refused to return home, would then riot, sew their lips together whilst on hunger strikes and wail at the left wing media because of the length of time they had to wait. Howard stopped that rot, and Labor brought it all back via their incompetence. CORRECT on all accounts So the obvious conclusion is that your previous answer was incorrect if you now agree with this. But still this was the position in place for years prior to the 2001 November election. It was also interesting that for the 1998 election the Liberals staged the water front intervention and for the 2001 election there was a building industry enquiry due to present its findings about building industry unions prior to the election - along comes the Tampa and all of a sudden the building enquiry results are deferred till the following year. The libs had a better minority group to exploit for votes.

No, the Libs had a problem and they fixed it.

Our constitution gives anyone the right to challenge any decision made against them by an officer of the Commonwealth.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or even be living in Australia to be afforded this right....All that is required is the right forms and procedures to be followed.....Asylum seekers are innocent and are deemed as such by Australian law.....This bullshit about the back door and loopholes is pure right wing rhetoric.....The law supports the innocent not those trying to persecute them for political gain!!!

Offshore processing started because Howard was part of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which created a wave of refugees seeking asylum from rape, torture, domestic terrorism and persecution which occured with the destabilisation of those countries due to the Howard, Bush and Blair invasions. The offshore processing started to deflect the political resonsibility away from Australia and to create a political whipping boy for up coming elections.

Its quite simple really   :)

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 7:34am:

Our constitution gives anyone the right to challenge any decision made against them by an officer of the Commonwealth.....You do not have to be an Australian citizen or even be living in Australia to be afforded this right....All that is required is the right forms and procedures to be followed.....Asylum seekers are innocent and are deemed as such by Australian law.....This bullshit about the back door and loopholes is pure right wing rhetoric.....The law supports the innocent not those trying to persecute them for political gain!!!

It's OUR Constitution - not THEIRS

So offshore solution was correct

And the Pacific Solution was the right action

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 7:13am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 11:54pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 10:22pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 11:40am: Yes I remember why. It was to stop the ongoing endless and costly court appeals initiated  by refugees who did not like the Immigration departments decision not to grant them refugee status. But despite initiating these appeals which lengthened their stay behind bars and then refused to return home, would then riot, sew their lips together whilst on hunger strikes and wail at the left wing media because of the length of time they had to wait. Howard stopped that rot, and Labor brought it all back via their incompetence. CORRECT on all accounts So the obvious conclusion is that your previous answer was incorrect if you now agree with this. But still this was the position in place for years prior to the 2001 November election. It was also interesting that for the 1998 election the Liberals staged the water front intervention and for the 2001 election there was a building industry enquiry due to present its findings about building industry unions prior to the election - along comes the Tampa and all of a sudden the building enquiry results are deferred till the following year. The libs had a better minority group to exploit for votes. No, the Libs had a problem and they fixed it.

A problem came up and they fixed it

Unlike Gillard where she created the problem and now CAN'T fix it

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 12:09am:

Quote: Does anyone know why offshore processing started? We ALL do It was a way of DENYING human beings human ( ... and legal) RIGHTS - a GIVEN, under Australian, mainland LAW

They do have HUMAN rights - that's why no one has successfully challenged the Pacific Solution on human rights grounds

How many Iraq and Afghan asylum seekers were coming here each year before we invaded their counties?

adelcrow wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 7:50am:

How many Iraq and Afghan asylum seekers were coming here each year before we invaded their counties?

by definition it should be less

before we "invaded" them there is a genuine reason to claim refugee status

but now they are liberated - there is no reason to leave

Maqqa and the rest of the tea baggers want Malaysia and Indonesia to carry the bulk of the responsibility of the refugee wave even though they had nothing to do with the creation of the asylum seekers, unlike Australia which dived into the invasions boots and all.
Howard helped create the asylum seekers and he didnt stop them from felling those war zones, he just pushed the problem onto our neighbours.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 7:54am:

Maqqa and the rest of the tea baggers want Malaysia and Indonesia to carry the bulk of the responsibility of the refugee wave even though they had nothing to do with the creation of the asylum seekers, unlike Australia which dived into the invasions boots and all. Howard helped create the asylum seekers and he didnt stop them from felling those war zones, he just pushed the problem onto our neighbours.

how did we create that problem?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 7:50am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 12:09am: [quote]Does anyone know why offshore processing started? We ALL do It was a way of DENYING human beings human ( ... and legal) RIGHTS - a GIVEN, under Australian, mainland LAW[/size]

They do have HUMAN rights - that's why no one has successfully challenged the "PACIFIC FINAL SOLUTION"  

Looks like we are all coming on-shore again

On-shore processing was the preferred outcome for the Greens

Once again it seems Australian policies under a weak Gillard government is being dictated by the Greens who only represents 12% of the voters at best

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/Home/Home?OpenDocument

Look up the facts

and  :-?