http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/carr-flags-tougher-boat-policy-under-rudd/story-e6frfku9-1226670716464

I'm not sure what Carr was on about here, but in an interview I saw later where someone else tried to explain Cars comment, they said that he was referring mainly to Iranian boat people.

Well, I read the story.

So, where's the "proof"?

Or, are you suggesting that the news.com.au story is the "proof"?

Good to see you on board with Labors view now.

Where's the proof? Where's the proof? The proof is staring you in the face Greggerry the same as the truth has been staring this incompetent Goverment's face at closer quarters.

It is the worst kept secret in the world. Even last Sunday 60 minutes had a great article involving Fred Ambon the King of the Pirates who told exactly how it all went down. Very happy with himself he was too.

How they came in on tourist visas, then ended up at his port, in which he controlled the local Police with handsome handouts.

Then how he commanded a fleet of leaky old tubs and sent them on their merry way, Christmas Island bound minus their huge fares.

These people are illegals, fare paying passengers bound for the land of the handout.

Indonesia is complicit in this arrangement, it beggars belief that the Indonesian Government is not complicit in what is happening.

Indonesia is a corrupt nation and approval is only a bribe away.

red baron wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

These people are illegals, fare paying passengers bound for the land of the handout.

Paying for a boat ride isn't illegal red.

Being a rich asylum seeker isn't illegal red.

red baron wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

Where's the proof? Where's the proof? The proof is staring you in the face Greggerry ...

No red, it isn't.

That story contains no "proof".

If you have some though, I'd like to see it.

So, where is the "proof" red.  Provide something other than your opinion please.

red baron wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

Indonesia is a corrupt nation and approval is only a bribe away.

Yes.  No argument there.

Carr may be correct - there has always been a small number of economic refugees try to get in and the current regulation is to deny them refugee status. If the number has increased they are menat to check and do something about it.

Overall it has no impact on our required treatment of legitimate refugees.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

red baron wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:20am: These people are illegals, fare paying passengers bound for the land of the handout. Paying for a boat ride isn't illegal red. Being a rich asylum seeker isn't illegal red.

Nor is denying their requests and sending them back from whence they came.

It's sad seeing labor backpedal. It just makes them look worse.

bambu wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:25am: red baron wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:20am: These people are illegals, fare paying passengers bound for the land of the handout. Paying for a boat ride isn't illegal red. Being a rich asylum seeker isn't illegal red. Nor is denying their requests and sending them back from whence they came.

Why would you deny an asylum seeker's request to have their claim for refugee status processed?

                           :-/

It's economic to stay alive in the face of tyranny.

It's true because Bob Carr said it?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

It's true because Bob Carr said it?

It seems so.

Red hasn't come up with anything else yet.

Red ... ?

Big Dave wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:38am:

It's sad seeing labor backpedal. It just makes them look worse.

I am more worried that people are going to think Labor has an answer to this problem now. They've had years to do something and they've done nothing. Labor does not have the fortitude to deal with problems like this. They have no qualms about mocking Australians (particularly conservative leaning voters), but they do not have the courage to make these decisions because they may offend foreigners.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:25am: red baron wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:20am: These people are illegals, fare paying passengers bound for the land of the handout. Paying for a boat ride isn't illegal red. Being a rich asylum seeker isn't illegal red. Nor is denying their requests and sending them back from whence they came. Why would you deny an asylum seeker's request to have their claim for refugee status processed?                            :-/

Because the farce has to stop.
Let them wait in UN camps overseas like everyone else has to do.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

It's true because Bob Carr said it?

Really? He's just trying to save Labors ass. That's the truth.

bambu wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:39am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:25am: red baron wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:20am: These people are illegals, fare paying passengers bound for the land of the handout. Paying for a boat ride isn't illegal red. Being a rich asylum seeker isn't illegal red. Nor is denying their requests and sending them back from whence they came. Why would you deny an asylum seeker's request to have their claim for refugee status processed?                            :-/ Because the farce has to stop.

What "farce"?

Seeking asylum, in a boat, is a perfectly legitimate way of applying for refugee status.

Big Dave wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:47am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:42am: It's true because Bob Carr said it? Really? He's just trying to save Labors ass. That's the truth.

It's true...'everyone' knows what's going on, we don't need Bob Carr to tell us.
We're all smarter than he is anyway.

Firing that little cannon of yours Greggerry but the game was up long ago.

The whole world knows that Australia is the softest touch going. For 15K a person you can come here as an illegal then you can sit on your arse for the rest of your life with your hand out.

This is exactly what is happening.

Currently there are 45,000 with the latest figures. Now 85% of those will, in five years time be unemployed with their hands out.

Extrapolate that figure to say a million, just how many of these bludgers are the Labor Government prepared to take on.

How deep is the public purse, just how much more will  China lend us on the never never plan, we are up to 350 billion dollars because with this illegal burden there just isn't enough dough ray me to go around.

bambu wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:49am:

Big Dave wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:42am: It's true because Bob Carr said it? Really? He's just trying to save Labors ass. That's the truth. It's true...'everyone' knows what's going on, we don't need Bob Carr to tell us. We're all smarter than he is anyway.

So, maybe you can provide the "proof" of what's going on then (?)

Care to give it a go?  Nobody else has stepped up to the plate yet.

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

Big Dave wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:38am: It's sad seeing labor backpedal. It just makes them look worse. I am more worried that people are going to think Labor has an answer to this problem now. They've had years to do something and they've done nothing. Labor does not have the fortitude to deal with problems like this. They have no qualms about mocking Australians (particularly conservative leaning voters), but they do not have the courage to make these decisions because they may offend foreigners.

No, people have had enough of Labor . They're gone. That's what you get when you do things your own way and stick your middle finger up to people you feel you are smarter than. They weren't either.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:14am:

Good to see you on board with Labors view now.

Yes, it's good to see Labor has finally realised what we all knew years ago - they're country shoppers, not asylum seekers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:49am:

bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:39am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:25am: red baron wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:20am: These people are illegals, fare paying passengers bound for the land of the handout. Paying for a boat ride isn't illegal red. Being a rich asylum seeker isn't illegal red. Nor is denying their requests and sending them back from whence they came. Why would you deny an asylum seeker's request to have their claim for refugee status processed?                            :-/ Because the farce has to stop. What "farce"? Seeking asylum, in a boat, is a perfectly legitimate way of applying for refugee status.

It should no longer be.
The boats are coming from Indonesia or Sri Lanka...where the so called 'refugees' have safe haven.
Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there or send them back.

Sri Lanka let them leave, so Srin Lanka can have them back.

red baron wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

The whole world knows that Australia is the softest touch going. For 15K a person you can come here as an illegal then you can sit on your arse for the rest of your life with your hand out.

Paying to get on a boat and then claiming asylum isn't illegal red.

Any "proof" of the "economic migrants" claim yet, or is it just your opinion.

Can we expect to see some sort of "proof" in your next post, or will it just be more of the same: opinion and misinformation?

bambu wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ...

Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention?

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

Greggerry...ILLEGALS...ILLEGALS...ILLEGALS...ILLEGALS.

Bludging on the goodwill of the Australian Taxpayer who has already done their job with an orderly program of immigration.

But then word got out we were a soft touch...and they were right ...we are!

And then they started to come and come and come and come...All the bludgers of the world unite; because we know they will not fight.

Big Dave wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:52am:

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:46am: Big Dave wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:38am: It's sad seeing labor backpedal. It just makes them look worse. I am more worried that people are going to think Labor has an answer to this problem now. They've had years to do something and they've done nothing. Labor does not have the fortitude to deal with problems like this. They have no qualms about mocking Australians (particularly conservative leaning voters), but they do not have the courage to make these decisions because they may offend foreigners. No, people have had enough of Labor . They're gone. That's what you get when you do things your own way and stick your middle finger up to people you feel you are smarter than. They weren't either.

Let's hope that is the case.

red baron wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

Greggerry...ILLEGALS...ILLEGALS...ILLEGALS...ILLEGALS. Bludging on the goodwill of the Australian Taxpayer who has already done their job with an orderly program of immigration. But then word got out we were a soft touch...and they were right ...we are! And then they started to come and come and come and come...All the bludgers of the world unite; because we know they will not fight.

So, you admit you have no "proof" then?

Good.

White flag accepted.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:49am: Big Dave wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:42am: It's true because Bob Carr said it? Really? He's just trying to save Labors ass. That's the truth. It's true...'everyone' knows what's going on, we don't need Bob Carr to tell us. We're all smarter than he is anyway. So, maybe you can provide the "proof" of what's going on then (?) Care to give it a go?  Nobody else has stepped up to the plate yet.

Sure.

It's all been exposed and detailed on Sixty Minutes over the years.
Most recently in Sri Lanka, where it was clearly shown that the people leaving on the people-smuggling boats were coming here "for a better life" and "to make money".

The so called 'refugees' arriving here on people-smuggling boats from Indonesia were safe there and should've been made stay there...they were Indonesia's problem.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

Yes.
We're being played for suckers by Indonesia, a non-signatory once again.

Indonesia must be deal with.

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:13am:

I'm not sure what Carr was on about here, but in an interview I saw later where someone else tried to explain Cars comment, they said that he was referring mainly to Iranian boat people.

But you said they all got here without their papers so how do you know they are Iranians?

bambu wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:51am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:49am: Big Dave wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:42am: It's true because Bob Carr said it? Really? He's just trying to save Labors ass. That's the truth. It's true...'everyone' knows what's going on, we don't need Bob Carr to tell us. We're all smarter than he is anyway. So, maybe you can provide the "proof" of what's going on then (?) Care to give it a go?  Nobody else has stepped up to the plate yet. Sure. It's all been exposed and detailed on Sixty Minutes over the years. Most recently in Sri Lanka, where it was clearly shown that the people leaving on the people-smuggling boats were coming here "for a better life" and "to make money". The so called 'refugees' arriving here on people-smuggling boats from Indonesia were safe there and should've been made stay there...they were Indonesia's problem.

LOL   "Sixty Minutes"?

Are you serious?

What about A Current Affair?   ;)

"It must be true, because it was on Sixty Minutes"  You're just as funny as red baron.

Come on, surely you can do better than "it was on Sixty Minutes".

Where is the "proof"?

bambu wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

Don't worry bambu - pecker thinks he understands the UN Convention but he doesn't

Facts are the Convention provides for those who are pursued and crosses over the border of another country to claim asylum

But the fact that these people are country shopping ie they've crossed many many borders half way round the world thinking they can jump the processing queue

So the UN Convention is not relevant. If it was relevant then they could not be returned

Maqqa wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

But the fact that these people are country shopping ie they've crossed many many borders half way round the world thinking they can jump the processing queue

One doesn't join a queue to become an asylum seeker Maqqa.

::)

You might get it right one day.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 10:04am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:51am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:49am: Big Dave wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:42am: It's true because Bob Carr said it? Really? He's just trying to save Labors ass. That's the truth. It's true...'everyone' knows what's going on, we don't need Bob Carr to tell us. We're all smarter than he is anyway. So, maybe you can provide the "proof" of what's going on then (?) Care to give it a go?  Nobody else has stepped up to the plate yet. Sure. It's all been exposed and detailed on Sixty Minutes over the years. Most recently in Sri Lanka, where it was clearly shown that the people leaving on the people-smuggling boats were coming here "for a better life" and "to make money". The so called 'refugees' arriving here on people-smuggling boats from Indonesia were safe there and should've been made stay there...they were Indonesia's problem. LOL   "Sixty Minutes"? Are you serious? What about A Current Affair?   ;) "It must be true, because it was on Sixty Minutes"  You're just as funny as red baron. Come on, surely you can do better than "it was on Sixty Minutes". Where is the "proof"?

The passengers on the people-smugglings boats said it.

Refugees my ass.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 10:12am: But the fact that these people are country shopping ie they've crossed many many borders half way round the world thinking they can jump the processing queue One doesn't join a queue to become an asylum seeker Maqqa. ::) You might get it right one day.

You might learn to read one day pecker

Economic migrants get sent back - hence not illegal. Legitimate refugees are accepted - hence not illegal.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Economic migrants get sent back - hence not illegal. Legitimate refugees are accepted - hence not illegal. SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

No, hardly anybody got sent back. Some got sent back because they were wanted for murder or were terror suspects. The Australian government payed thousands to get some to go home because they were for Tammils and of questionable charactor. Basically there isn't a policy of sending back. You make it , you stay!!!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Economic migrants get sent back - hence not illegal. Legitimate refugees are accepted - hence not illegal. SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Isn't the issue here though, that due to shortcomings in the determination process, some?/many? are accepted who are NOT legitimate refugees vide the UN Convention definition???? 

Big Dave wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 10:23am: Economic migrants get sent back - hence not illegal. Legitimate refugees are accepted - hence not illegal. SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg No, hardly anybody got sent back. Some got sent back because they were wanted for murder or were terror suspects. The Australian government payed thousands to get some to go home because they were for Tammils and of questionable charactor. Basically there isn't a policy of sending back. You make it , you stay!!!

Then that just shows that they are genuine refugees.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Maqqa wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 10:15am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 10:12am: But the fact that these people are country shopping ie they've crossed many many borders half way round the world thinking they can jump the processing queue One doesn't join a queue to become an asylum seeker Maqqa. ::) You might get it right one day. You might learn to read one day pecker

Doubtful... very doubtful.

Genuine refugees would stop at the first safe place they come to. These people - economic refugees - pass through more than one safe place intent on reaching Australia because this incompetent government not only lays out the welcome mat, but give them freebies to the tune of thousands of dollars. Five years after arriving, most are still on welfare.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Genuine refugees would stop at the first safe place they come to. .

Why didnt the Jews stop at England?

skippy. wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:16pm: Genuine refugees would stop at the first safe place they come to. . Why didnt the Jews stop at England?

Moron alert!!!  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:16pm: Genuine refugees would stop at the first safe place they come to. . Why didnt the Jews stop at England? Moron alert!!!  ::)

There's no need to announce your entrance into a thread.

But, if that's what you wish.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

Indonesia isnt signatory to this convention. Paying to get on a boat to cross into foreign waters from Indonesia is illegal in Indonesia..

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf Indonesia isnt signatory to this convention. Paying to get on a boat to cross into foreign waters from Indonesia is illegal in Indonesia..

really? So if I went for a holiday into Indo and I wanted to charter a fishing boat for a few days to take me into international waters for some deep sea fishing, the Indo's won't let me?

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf Indonesia isnt signatory to this convention. Paying to get on a boat to cross into foreign waters from Indonesia is illegal in Indonesia..

Well done ian!

It appears that you do know something afterall.

That is correct, Indonesia is not a signatory.

Now you just need to tell that to your mates red baron and bambu: they think that Indonesia should be processing their claims.

" ...  Indonesia should process them ... "

::)

Carr was on the news again this morning and repeated the same thing, or it was a replay, either way he stated that they are mostly economic migrants who are NOT seeking asylum. They are therefore illegals and should not be allowed to come into this country, or are we going to give them benefits the Australians who have recently been put out of work paid taxes all their working lives for, seems somewhat arse over tit to me?

Immigration at the airports returns untruthful travellers who have not got permission to enter this country and therefore have not legally acquired the appropriate documents of approval. They are also banned from re-entering for two years in most cases, others are banned for life.

Socrates wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

Carr was on the news again this morning and repeated the same thing, or it was a replay, either way he stated that they are mostly economic migrants who are NOT seeking asylum.

What evidence did he produce this time?

                          :-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Carr was on the news again this morning and repeated the same thing, or it was a replay, either way he stated that they are mostly economic migrants who are NOT seeking asylum. What evidence did he produce this time?                           :-/

Well Gillard appointed him Minister for Foreign Affairs, and KRudd hasn't changed that, so I would think, now I'm stretching a bit now, that he has some evidence which confirms his statement.......Your Honour!  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Well done ian! It appears that you do know something afterall. That is correct, Indonesia is not a signatory. Now you just need to tell that to your mates red baron and bambu: they think that Indonesia should be processing their claims. " ...  Indonesia should process them ... " ::)

Im more interested in your claim that they are not doing anything illegal, That is obviously incorrect. Indonesia has on a number of occasions arrested and detained these alleged asylum seekers before they left Indonesion waters because of thier illegal intent.

Socrates wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:46pm: Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Carr was on the news again this morning and repeated the same thing, or it was a replay, either way he stated that they are mostly economic migrants who are NOT seeking asylum. What evidence did he produce this time?                           :-/ Well Gillard appointed him Minister for Foreign Affairs, and KRudd hasn't changed that, so I would think, now I'm stretching a bit now, that he has some evidence which confirms his statement.......Your Honour!  ;D

You "would think" he has some evidence?

OK.

So we're just taking Bob's word for it?

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Well done ian! It appears that you do know something afterall. That is correct, Indonesia is not a signatory. Now you just need to tell that to your mates red baron and bambu: they think that Indonesia should be processing their claims. " ...  Indonesia should process them ... " ::) Im more interested in your claim that they are not doing anything illegal, That is obviously incorrect. Indonesia has on a number of occasions arrested and detained these alleged asylum seekers before they left Indonesion waters because of thier illegal intent.

They've done nothing illegal under Australian law.

I'm not talking about the rest of the world.

Australia.

As I said, I'm stretching a bit, but you are the labor supporter, and he's the Labor government's Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I guess he must be speaking honestly..........or maybe he's talking rubbish like the rest of the leftards, however on this occasions it is my humble opinion that he's nearer the mark than he probably realises..........who knows, I do not vote Labor?   

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:46pm: Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:42pm: Carr was on the news again this morning and repeated the same thing, or it was a replay, either way he stated that they are mostly economic migrants who are NOT seeking asylum. What evidence did he produce this time?                           :-/ Well Gillard appointed him Minister for Foreign Affairs, and KRudd hasn't changed that, so I would think, now I'm stretching a bit now, that he has some evidence which confirms his statement.......Your Honour!  ;D You "would think" he has some evidence? OK. So we're just taking Bob's word for it?

I was privvy to some of the evidence when working in the Intell division of a relevant C'wlth agency........I can only assume in the last 12 months that Intell holdings reveal further persuasive evidence of the problem........he ain't just making it up...of that I am sure....

Socrates wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:08pm:

As I said, I'm stretching a bit, but you are the labor supporter, and he's the Labor government's Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I guess he must be speaking honestly..........or maybe he's talking rubbish like the rest of the leftards, however on this occasions it is my humble opinion that he's nearer the mark than he probably realises..........who knows, I do not vote Labor?

When you say "Labor supporter", you are correct in that I would much rather see a Labor Government after the next election.

However, that doesn't mean that I think every member of the ALP is honest.  Far from it.

In the next few months we will be seeing a lot of dishonesty coming from all political parties.

In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

[ They've done nothing illegal under Australian law. I'm not talking about the rest of the world. Australia.

So you are all for taking in criminals? Because under Indonesion law they are criminals. BTW, if they did the same in Australia, i.e. paid to get on a boat for the express purpose of crossing into another nations sovereign territory without a valid visa they would also be liable to prosecution also.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:08pm: As I said, I'm stretching a bit, but you are the labor supporter, and he's the Labor government's Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I guess he must be speaking honestly..........or maybe he's talking rubbish like the rest of the leftards, however on this occasions it is my humble opinion that he's nearer the mark than he probably realises..........who knows, I do not vote Labor?    When you say "Labor supporter", you are correct in that I would much rather see a Labor Government after the next election. However, that doesn't mean that I think every member of the ALP is honest.  Far from it. In the next few months we will be seeing a lot of dishonesty coming from all political parties. In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters.

Now you're just desperately changing the subject...........I object Your Honour!

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:03pm: [ They've done nothing illegal under Australian law. I'm not talking about the rest of the world. Australia. So you are all for taking in criminals?

No, I'm not "all for" taking in criminals.  Far from it.

However, I am in favour of letting people claim asylum and having those claims assessed.

If, after the processing, they are found to be non-genuine they should be sent home.  No questions asked.

If they are found to be genuine refugees but have convictions (or pending charges) for serious crimes - murder, rape, etc. - then we should definitely think twice about letting them stay in the country.  We have enough home grown murderers and rapists: we don't need to import them. 

If the only crime they've committed is unlawfully crossing a border in order to claim asylum in another country, and they are ultimately found to be genuine refugees, I have no problem with them being allowed to stay in this country.

Socrates wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:15pm: Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:08pm: As I said, I'm stretching a bit, but you are the labor supporter, and he's the Labor government's Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I guess he must be speaking honestly..........or maybe he's talking rubbish like the rest of the leftards, however on this occasions it is my humble opinion that he's nearer the mark than he probably realises..........who knows, I do not vote Labor?    When you say "Labor supporter", you are correct in that I would much rather see a Labor Government after the next election. However, that doesn't mean that I think every member of the ALP is honest.  Far from it. In the next few months we will be seeing a lot of dishonesty coming from all political parties. In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters. Now you're just desperately changing the subject...........I object Your Honour!

No, I'm staying right on topic.

Bob has presented no evidence to support his claim about economic migrants.

"In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters."

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Genuine refugees would stop at the first safe place they come to. These people - economic refugees - pass through more than one safe place intent on reaching Australia because this incompetent government not only lays out the welcome mat, but give them freebies to the tune of thousands of dollars. Five years after arriving, most are still on welfare.

How many times does it have to be explained to you? Also how many times do we have to ask 'what safe countries' for you to realise there arent any?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:21pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:15pm: Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:08pm: As I said, I'm stretching a bit, but you are the labor supporter, and he's the Labor government's Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I guess he must be speaking honestly..........or maybe he's talking rubbish like the rest of the leftards, however on this occasions it is my humble opinion that he's nearer the mark than he probably realises..........who knows, I do not vote Labor?    When you say "Labor supporter", you are correct in that I would much rather see a Labor Government after the next election. However, that doesn't mean that I think every member of the ALP is honest.  Far from it. In the next few months we will be seeing a lot of dishonesty coming from all political parties. In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters. Now you're just desperately changing the subject...........I object Your Honour! No, I'm staying right on topic. Bob has presented no evidence to support his claim about economic migrants. "In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters."

I tend to agree.........but is your issue that Carr is making an untrue statement in respect of fraudulent claims by asylum seekers???? ......or that he has not (at this stage anyway) publically substantiated his statement with "evidence"?   

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

No, I'm not "all for" taking in criminals.  Far from it. However, I am in favour of letting people claim asylum and having those claims assessed. If, after the processing, they are found to be non-genuine they should be sent home.  No questions asked. If they are found to be genuine refugees but have convictions (or pending charges) for serious crimes - murder, rape, etc. - then we should definitely think twice about letting them stay in the country.  We have enough home grown murderers and rapists: we don't need to import them.  If the only crime they've committed is unlawfully crossing a border in order to claim asylum in another country, and they are ultimately found to be genuine refugees, I have no problem with them being allowed to stay in this country.

Thank you, I rest my case. They are illegal immigrants.

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:27pm: No, I'm not "all for" taking in criminals.  Far from it. However, I am in favour of letting people claim asylum and having those claims assessed. If, after the processing, they are found to be non-genuine they should be sent home.  No questions asked. If they are found to be genuine refugees but have convictions (or pending charges) for serious crimes - murder, rape, etc. - then we should definitely think twice about letting them stay in the country.  We have enough home grown murderers and rapists: we don't need to import them.  If the only crime they've committed is unlawfully crossing a border in order to claim asylum in another country, and they are ultimately found to be genuine refugees, I have no problem with them being allowed to stay in this country. Thank you, I rest my case. They are illegal immigrants.

They arent even immigrants - they are asylum seekers

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

I’ve come around on this issue. Two Sri Lankans I know agree: most of the ones coming here are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

Everyone deserves to have their claim assessed, but there needs to be some burden of proof placed on the asylum seekers. I don’t know how much fact checking Immigration officials are able to do, but I would have thought that calling contacts back in Iran or Sri Lanka for proof would be a big part of the job.

And there needs to be exactly the same burden of proof - and proceedures - for plane arrivals. I have no idea why these are two separate categories. Still, surely if you’re able to get a passport, get on a plane and leave a country, it shows - on the face of it - a lack of official government persecution, unless they’re supporting emmigration/exile.

I have no idea what the criteria for seeking asylum is, or how it’s measured. Does anyone know?

Karnal wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

I’ve come around on this issue. Two Sri Lankans I know agree: most of the ones coming here are economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Everyone deserves to have their claim assessed, but there needs to be some burden of proof placed on the asylum seekers. I don’t know how much fact checking Immigration officials are able to do, but I would have thought that calling contacts back in Iran or Sri Lanka for proof would be a big part of the job. And there needs to be exactly the same burden of proof - and proceedures - for plane arrivals. I have no idea why these are two separate categories. Still, surely if you’re able to get a passport, get on a plane and leave a country, it shows - on the face of it - a lack of official government persecution, unless they’re supporting emmigration/exile. I have no idea what the criteria for seeking asylum is, or how it’s measured. Does anyone know?

I've asked the same question here Karnal.......seems the answer is no. Neither has my significant research elsewhere shed much light.

I know from my days working in Intell that there are identified problems with the refugee determination process.........and that fraudulent refugee claims circumvent the system and are granted status.

Now that Carr has made his statement, I'm guessing more info will be put into the public arena during campaign debate.

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:27pm: No, I'm not "all for" taking in criminals.  Far from it. However, I am in favour of letting people claim asylum and having those claims assessed. If, after the processing, they are found to be non-genuine they should be sent home.  No questions asked. If they are found to be genuine refugees but have convictions (or pending charges) for serious crimes - murder, rape, etc. - then we should definitely think twice about letting them stay in the country.  We have enough home grown murderers and rapists: we don't need to import them.  If the only crime they've committed is unlawfully crossing a border in order to claim asylum in another country, and they are ultimately found to be genuine refugees, I have no problem with them being allowed to stay in this country. Thank you, I rest my case. They are illegal immigrants.

No, it doesn't make them "illegal immigrants".

You really are confusing yourself.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:16pm: Genuine refugees would stop at the first safe place they come to. These people - economic refugees - pass through more than one safe place intent on reaching Australia because this incompetent government not only lays out the welcome mat, but give them freebies to the tune of thousands of dollars. Five years after arriving, most are still on welfare. How many times does it have to be explained to you? Also how many times do we have to ask 'what safe countries' for you to realise there arent any? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Last time I looked, we weren't seeing boat loads of Indonesians fleeing from persecution by Indon authorities! That would seem to suggest that Indonesia is fairly safe.

Alinta wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 2:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm: I’ve come around on this issue. Two Sri Lankans I know agree: most of the ones coming here are economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Everyone deserves to have their claim assessed, but there needs to be some burden of proof placed on the asylum seekers. I don’t know how much fact checking Immigration officials are able to do, but I would have thought that calling contacts back in Iran or Sri Lanka for proof would be a big part of the job. And there needs to be exactly the same burden of proof - and proceedures - for plane arrivals. I have no idea why these are two separate categories. Still, surely if you’re able to get a passport, get on a plane and leave a country, it shows - on the face of it - a lack of official government persecution, unless they’re supporting emmigration/exile. I have no idea what the criteria for seeking asylum is, or how it’s measured. Does anyone know? I've asked the same question here Karnal.......seems the answer is no. Neither has my significant research elsewhere shed much light. I know from my days working in Intell that there are identified problems with the refugee determination process.........and that fraudulent refugee claims circumvent the system and are granted status. Now that Carr has made his statement, I'm guessing more info will be put into the public arena during campaign debate.

At its most basic level, the claiming of asylum requires that the applicant should have a legitimate fear for their life if they were to return to their homeland. That's pretty much the gist of it.

Alinta wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:29pm: Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:21pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:15pm: Socrates wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 1:08pm: As I said, I'm stretching a bit, but you are the labor supporter, and he's the Labor government's Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I guess he must be speaking honestly..........or maybe he's talking rubbish like the rest of the leftards, however on this occasions it is my humble opinion that he's nearer the mark than he probably realises..........who knows, I do not vote Labor?    When you say "Labor supporter", you are correct in that I would much rather see a Labor Government after the next election. However, that doesn't mean that I think every member of the ALP is honest.  Far from it. In the next few months we will be seeing a lot of dishonesty coming from all political parties. In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters. Now you're just desperately changing the subject...........I object Your Honour! No, I'm staying right on topic. Bob has presented no evidence to support his claim about economic migrants. "In this case, I think Bob is trying to get support from the more conservative swinging voters." I tend to agree.........but is your issue that Carr is making an untrue statement in respect of fraudulent claims by asylum seekers???? ......or that he has not (at this stage anyway) publically substantiated his statement with "evidence"?

I want to see some evidence.

I'm not saying he's definitely wrong, but at this stage he hasn't backed it up with anything.

And, if it is shown that people on the boats are not fleeing persecution - send them home.

Simple.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

Alinta wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:57pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm: I’ve come around on this issue. Two Sri Lankans I know agree: most of the ones coming here are economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Everyone deserves to have their claim assessed, but there needs to be some burden of proof placed on the asylum seekers. I don’t know how much fact checking Immigration officials are able to do, but I would have thought that calling contacts back in Iran or Sri Lanka for proof would be a big part of the job. And there needs to be exactly the same burden of proof - and proceedures - for plane arrivals. I have no idea why these are two separate categories. Still, surely if you’re able to get a passport, get on a plane and leave a country, it shows - on the face of it - a lack of official government persecution, unless they’re supporting emmigration/exile. I have no idea what the criteria for seeking asylum is, or how it’s measured. Does anyone know? I've asked the same question here Karnal.......seems the answer is no. Neither has my significant research elsewhere shed much light. I know from my days working in Intell that there are identified problems with the refugee determination process.........and that fraudulent refugee claims circumvent the system and are granted status. Now that Carr has made his statement, I'm guessing more info will be put into the public arena during campaign debate. At its most basic level, the claiming of asylum requires that the applicant should have a legitimate fear for their life if they were to return to their homeland. That's pretty much the gist of it.

Liar. If that were the case none of the WW2 Jews would have come here AFTER the war had finished. Wow, some people are are so ignorant, you've made  a career of it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

Alinta wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:57pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm: I’ve come around on this issue. Two Sri Lankans I know agree: most of the ones coming here are economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Everyone deserves to have their claim assessed, but there needs to be some burden of proof placed on the asylum seekers. I don’t know how much fact checking Immigration officials are able to do, but I would have thought that calling contacts back in Iran or Sri Lanka for proof would be a big part of the job. And there needs to be exactly the same burden of proof - and proceedures - for plane arrivals. I have no idea why these are two separate categories. Still, surely if you’re able to get a passport, get on a plane and leave a country, it shows - on the face of it - a lack of official government persecution, unless they’re supporting emmigration/exile. I have no idea what the criteria for seeking asylum is, or how it’s measured. Does anyone know? I've asked the same question here Karnal.......seems the answer is no. Neither has my significant research elsewhere shed much light. I know from my days working in Intell that there are identified problems with the refugee determination process.........and that fraudulent refugee claims circumvent the system and are granted status. Now that Carr has made his statement, I'm guessing more info will be put into the public arena during campaign debate. At its most basic level, the claiming of asylum requires that the applicant should have a legitimate fear for their life if they were to return to their homeland. That's pretty much the gist of it.

I should have been more precise in my post.............I have not been able to find info on the assessment process of asylum claims...

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/report/c06.htm

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

ian wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf Indonesia isnt signatory to this convention. Paying to get on a boat to cross into foreign waters from Indonesia is illegal in Indonesia.. really? So if I went for a holiday into Indo and I wanted to charter a fishing boat for a few days to take me into international waters for some deep sea fishing, the Indo's won't let me?

Bump for Ian

I am curious for you to explain your earlier statement. Answer the question please.

Alinta wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 3:09pm: Alinta wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:57pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm: I’ve come around on this issue. Two Sri Lankans I know agree: most of the ones coming here are economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Everyone deserves to have their claim assessed, but there needs to be some burden of proof placed on the asylum seekers. I don’t know how much fact checking Immigration officials are able to do, but I would have thought that calling contacts back in Iran or Sri Lanka for proof would be a big part of the job. And there needs to be exactly the same burden of proof - and proceedures - for plane arrivals. I have no idea why these are two separate categories. Still, surely if you’re able to get a passport, get on a plane and leave a country, it shows - on the face of it - a lack of official government persecution, unless they’re supporting emmigration/exile. I have no idea what the criteria for seeking asylum is, or how it’s measured. Does anyone know? I've asked the same question here Karnal.......seems the answer is no. Neither has my significant research elsewhere shed much light. I know from my days working in Intell that there are identified problems with the refugee determination process.........and that fraudulent refugee claims circumvent the system and are granted status. Now that Carr has made his statement, I'm guessing more info will be put into the public arena during campaign debate. At its most basic level, the claiming of asylum requires that the applicant should have a legitimate fear for their life if they were to return to their homeland. That's pretty much the gist of it. I should have been more precise in my post.............I have not been able to find info on the assessment process of asylum claims...

Well, that's easy under this government. Because they've laid out the welcome mat and our immigration staff are being flooded with applications from these people, the ALP has a policy of "eeny meenie miney moe!"...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Alinta wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 3:16pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 3:09pm: Alinta wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:57pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm: I’ve come around on this issue. Two Sri Lankans I know agree: most of the ones coming here are economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Everyone deserves to have their claim assessed, but there needs to be some burden of proof placed on the asylum seekers. I don’t know how much fact checking Immigration officials are able to do, but I would have thought that calling contacts back in Iran or Sri Lanka for proof would be a big part of the job. And there needs to be exactly the same burden of proof - and proceedures - for plane arrivals. I have no idea why these are two separate categories. Still, surely if you’re able to get a passport, get on a plane and leave a country, it shows - on the face of it - a lack of official government persecution, unless they’re supporting emmigration/exile. I have no idea what the criteria for seeking asylum is, or how it’s measured. Does anyone know? I've asked the same question here Karnal.......seems the answer is no. Neither has my significant research elsewhere shed much light. I know from my days working in Intell that there are identified problems with the refugee determination process.........and that fraudulent refugee claims circumvent the system and are granted status. Now that Carr has made his statement, I'm guessing more info will be put into the public arena during campaign debate. At its most basic level, the claiming of asylum requires that the applicant should have a legitimate fear for their life if they were to return to their homeland. That's pretty much the gist of it. I should have been more precise in my post.............I have not been able to find info on the assessment process of asylum claims... Well, that's easy under this government. Because they've laid out the welcome mat and our immigration staff are being flooded with applications from these people, the ALP has a policy of "eeny meenie miney moe!"...

do you ever have anything remotely intelligent to say?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/report/c06.htm

thanks........most useful to those of us who want some context in advance of hearing what aspects, and how, Labor plans to tighten up the determination process in respect of fraudulent asylum claims.

Alinta wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 3:21pm: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/report/c06.htm thanks........most useful to those of us who want some context in advance of hearing what aspects, and how, Labor plans to tighten up the determination process in respect of fraudulent asylum claims.

So... Labor plans to close the barn door after the horse has bolted? Good one!!! :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: ian wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf Indonesia isnt signatory to this convention. Paying to get on a boat to cross into foreign waters from Indonesia is illegal in Indonesia.. really? So if I went for a holiday into Indo and I wanted to charter a fishing boat for a few days to take me into international waters for some deep sea fishing, the Indo's won't let me? Bump for Ian I am curious for you to explain your earlier statement. Answer the question please.

territory is the appropriate word, not waters.  History is full of people being shot as spies after crossing into foreign territory without the appropriate documents.

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 3:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: ian wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: bambu wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:54am: Indonesia let them in, so Indonesia should process them, and let them stay there ... Are you familiar with the 1951 UN Convention? http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf Indonesia isnt signatory to this convention. Paying to get on a boat to cross into foreign waters from Indonesia is illegal in Indonesia.. really? So if I went for a holiday into Indo and I wanted to charter a fishing boat for a few days to take me into international waters for some deep sea fishing, the Indo's won't let me? Bump for Ian I am curious for you to explain your earlier statement. Answer the question please. territory is the appropriate word, not waters.  History is full of people being shot as spies after crossing into foreign territory without the appropriate documents.

hardly relevant ... not when you are talking about aquatic territory. Most governments give you a chance to get to port to provide the documents,  .... and if you are heading away from their territory, you are hardly at risk of spying on them. We aren't talking about cold war USSR here.

Ian,


Quote:

territory is the appropriate word, not waters.  History is full of people being shot as spies after crossing into foreign territory without the appropriate documents.

Aren't you getting a tad mixed up here.  Indonesia could not care less if a vessell sails over the horizon.  Where is the relevance of 'spies' entering their territory, when the subject under discussion is people leaving their territory?

:D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Alinta wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 3:54pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 3:21pm: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=immigration_detention_ctte/immigration_detention/report/c06.htm thanks........most useful to those of us who want some context in advance of hearing what aspects, and how, Labor plans to tighten up the determination process in respect of fraudulent asylum claims. So... Labor plans to close the barn door after the horse has bolted? Good one!!! :D :D :D

I'm not sure of details on how either party plans to address the issue..........but I AM sure I want to be in the best position to assess the policy of both parties.....

Greggerry, just dropped in to keep the good old Aussie flag flying high, by saying that when Tony Abbott gets in and he will get in; because this 'everyone is in love with Rudd' will, in a few week's time, be about as popular as a pork chop in Jerusalem.

What we have here, just as I predicted, is a false dawn and a false pretender to the throne. The only thing that is missing from KRudd is the little white pony under him, for he surely is a show pony with about as much substance as a meat pie.

So....when Abbott gets in, he will kick the sorry arses of the Indonesian people smugglers and send those sh..ty boats with their illegals in them right back where they came from sh..ty,  corrupt Indonesia.

Still whinging like a baby for proof Gregg, if it looks like a  turd and smells like a turd chances are it's a ....

red baron wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Greggerry, just dropped in to keep the good old Aussie flag flying high, by saying that when Tony Abbott gets in and he will get in; because this 'everyone is in love with Rudd' will, in a few week's time, be about as popular as a pork chop in Jerusalem. What we have here, just as I predicted, is a false dawn and a false pretender to the throne. The only thing that is missing from KRudd is the little white pony under him, for he surely is a show pony with about as much substance as a meat pie. So....when Abbott gets in, he will kick the sorry arses of the Indonesian people smugglers and send those sh..ty boats with their illegals in them right back where they came from sh..ty,  corrupt Indonesia. Still whinging like a baby for proof Gregg, if it looks like a  turd and smells like a turd chances are it's a ....

about as much substance as a meat pie.

How could you attack Rudds substance and then support Abbott who has made a career out of lacking substance.

if it looks like a  turd and smells like a turd chances are it's Something that followed Tony out of the sewer ?

Still whinging like a baby for proof Gregg Obviously they have none.

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Ian, Quote: territory is the appropriate word, not waters.  History is full of people being shot as spies after crossing into foreign territory without the appropriate documents. Aren't you getting a tad mixed up here.  Indonesia could not care less if a vessell sails over the horizon.  Where is the relevance of 'spies' entering their territory, when the subject under discussion is people leaving their territory? :D

Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa.

red baron wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Still whinging like a baby for proof Gregg, if it looks like a  turd and smells like a turd chances are it's a ....

I know you have a very limited understanding of things red, but just listen for a minute.

The title of this thread is "Proof they are economic migrants".

Agreed?

The story referred to does not provide any proof that they are economic migrants.  It's just an opinion from Bob, backed up with absolutely nothing.

Now, considering the title of the thread, and the lack of proof in the link provided, don't you think it's reasonable to ask where this "proof" actually is?

Or are you just so stupid that you believe everything a politician, talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you?

Oh, hang on ...

Quote:

Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa.

I'm willing to be educated.  Can you provide some links, please?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

red baron wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 5:43pm: Still whinging like a baby for proof Gregg, if it looks like a  turd and smells like a turd chances are it's a .... I know you have a very limited understanding of things red, but just listen for a minute. The title of this thread is "Proof they are economic migrants". Agreed? The story referred to does not provide any proof that they are economic migrants.  It's just an opinion from Bob, backed up with absolutely nothing. Now, considering the title of the thread, and the lack of proof in the link provided, don't you think it's reasonable to ask where this "proof" actually is? Or are you just so stupid that you believe everything a politician, talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you? Oh, hang on ...

Or are you just so stupid that you believe everything a politician, talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you?

Bingo!

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. I'm willing to be educated.  Can you provide some links, please?

http://images.persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jon-stewart-popcorn11.gif

Peccahead, it is Labor's Minister for Foreign Affairs who made the statement. Now you say he made this flippant statement off his own bat......seems strange that a government minister, particularly one who deals on a daily basis with various countries and their immigration departments should throw these "off the cuff" statements about with what seems to be very little thought, if we are to value your take on matters. If anybody is to provide YOU with "evidence" surely it should be good old Bob........now I'm sure if you ask him nicely he'll jump to attention and provide you with what you demand from everybody on this forum.

You may need more popcorn whilst you're waiting for a reply from old Bobby.     ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 7:24pm: red baron wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 5:43pm: Still whinging like a baby for proof Gregg, if it looks like a  turd and smells like a turd chances are it's a .... I know you have a very limited understanding of things red, but just listen for a minute. The title of this thread is "Proof they are economic migrants". Agreed? The story referred to does not provide any proof that they are economic migrants.  It's just an opinion from Bob, backed up with absolutely nothing. Now, considering the title of the thread, and the lack of proof in the link provided, don't you think it's reasonable to ask where this "proof" actually is? Or are you just so stupid that you believe everything a politician, talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you? Oh, hang on ... Or are you just so stupid that you believe everything a politician, talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you? Bingo!

It would be foolish to believe everything a politician, talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you, no doubt.

But even the most perfunctory sniff test would tell you something is up, that they are not all fleeing persecution, especially those that return once they become citizens, or those that opt to return when confronted with a delay in processing.

Nothing in life is ever certain that's why tests of beyond a reasonable doubt or burden of probability exist.

Or you may be right, Carr has no clue, making poo up and is just spouting bullshit, in which case he should be sacked. 

Or, is it more likely that there are economic self selecting immigrants?  You reckon no? 

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. I'm willing to be educated.  Can you provide some links, please?

Sure

http://hazaraasylumseekers.wordpress.com/category/asylum-seekers-in-indonesia-2/

Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten

boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said.

P

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/356702/report-says-child-asylum-seekers-abused-in-indonesia-detention
Indonesia is locking up hundreds of child asylum-seekers and migrants in squalid detention centres where they are sometimes assaulted, Human Rights Watch said on Monday.


Indonesia isnt treating these people as "asylum seekers", they are treating them as people committing a crime.

ian wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 7:28pm: Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. I'm willing to be educated.  Can you provide some links, please? Sure\ http://hazaraasylumseekers.wordpress.com/category/asylum-seekers-in-indonesia-2/ Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. P http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/356702/report-says-child-asylum-seekers-abused-in-indonesia-detention Indonesia is locking up hundreds of child asylum-seekers and migrants in squalid detention centres where they are sometimes assaulted, Human Rights Watch said on Monday.

The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia.

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:

ian wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:30pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 7:28pm: Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. I'm willing to be educated.  Can you provide some links, please? Sure\ http://hazaraasylumseekers.wordpress.com/category/asylum-seekers-in-indonesia-2/ Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. P http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/356702/report-says-child-asylum-seekers-abused-in-indonesia-detention Indonesia is locking up hundreds of child asylum-seekers and migrants in squalid detention centres where they are sometimes assaulted, Human Rights Watch said on Monday. The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia.

errr, no. The clue is the words "bound for Christmas Island".

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:

The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia.

Agreed, it was a bit confusing, especially this bit,


Quote:

boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said.

LOL.  ::)

I note in another post you are a solicitor.  Any chance of a name?  I would hate to accidentally employ you if that's what you understood from from viewing two easily understandable links, one containing in large font, "Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten".

Hate to hit you with anything complex, like say a parking ticket.   ;D

Bound for Botany Bay.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 2:00pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 12:16pm: Genuine refugees would stop at the first safe place they come to. These people - economic refugees - pass through more than one safe place intent on reaching Australia because this incompetent government not only lays out the welcome mat, but give them freebies to the tune of thousands of dollars. Five years after arriving, most are still on welfare. How many times does it have to be explained to you? Also how many times do we have to ask 'what safe countries' for you to realise there arent any? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg Last time I looked, we weren't seeing boat loads of Indonesians fleeing from persecution by Indon authorities! That would seem to suggest that Indonesia is fairly safe.

What do they do to refugees? You call that "safe"?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 6:24am:

What do they do to refugees? You call that "safe"? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

They are treating criminals as criminals. The Indos arent stupid enough to think they are refugees, only us.

ian wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 7:14am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 6:24am: What do they do to refugees? You call that "safe"? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg They are treating criminals as criminals. The Indos arent stupid enough to think they are refugees, only us.

Indonesia does not recognise Asylum Status so refugees have no choice but to flee to a signatory country to gain freedom.....Australia needs to mature and accept we are a target because we have offered asylum to anyone who can reach our borders.....We offered a hand of freedom only to take it away again if anyone accepts us for our word.....Australia has nothing to be proud of when it comes to asylum seekers!!!

>:( >:( >:(

Datalife wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:35pm: The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia. Agreed, it was a bit confusing, especially this bit, Quote: boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. LOL.  ::) I note in another post you are a solicitor.  Any chance of a name?  I would hate to accidentally employ you if that's what you understood from from viewing two easily understandable links, one containing in large font, "Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten". Hate to hit you with anything complex, like say a parking ticket.   ;D

The leftards aren't known for being bright...

Socrates wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Peccahead, it is Labor's Minister for Foreign Affairs who made the statement. Now you say he made this flippant statement off his own bat......seems strange that a government minister, particularly one who deals on a daily basis with various countries and their immigration departments should throw these "off the cuff" statements about with what seems to be very little thought, if we are to value your take on matters. If anybody is to provide YOU with "evidence" surely it should be good old Bob........now I'm sure if you ask him nicely he'll jump to attention and provide you with what you demand from everybody on this forum.

And yet he hasn't.

The title of this thread is "Proof they are economic migrants".

So, where is the "proof"?

Surely you're not so stupid that you believe everything a politician (before an election), talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you?

Datalife wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

Or you may be right, Carr has no clue, making poo up and is just spouting bullshit, in which case he should be sacked.

I'm not saying that at all.

All I'm doing is asking for the "proof".

It might exist, and if it does I have no problem accepting it.

If the people on the boats are not genuine refugees, send them home.

I've said this many, many times.

I'm not calling Bob a liar: I'm just asking for more than his word. Give us some specific numbers (percentages).

I make no apologies for being cynical of politicians in the last few months before an election.

Datalife wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

It would be foolish to believe everything a politician, talk-back radio host, or newspaper article tells you, no doubt.

And yet here we are, still debating wether or not asylum seekers are illegal, when its been established several times they aren't and the only people calling them illegal are either politicians (they aren't allowed to call them illegal anymore in parliament so they have to do all their crappy dogwhistling in doorstop interviews), radio shock jocks and the media.

So who are you listening to? Why do you keep calling them illegal?


Quote:

But even the most perfunctory sniff test would tell you something is up, that they are not all fleeing persecution, especially those that return once they become citizens, or those that opt to return when confronted with a delay in processing.

(1) Can you show how many asylum seekers become citizens? Its a fairly involved process, and means giving up being a citizen of their home country, a decision not made lightly.
(2) By "delay in processing" you mean "years in offshore detention" yeah?
(3) Why do you think they are not all fleeing persecution? Surely if you are desperate enough to jump on a leaky boat and make the dangerous journey, that says something. Surely they were truely economic migrants, they would have some money behind them and could jump on a plane and claim asylum. Much less risk of drowning if you do that.


Quote:

Nothing in life is ever certain that's why tests of beyond a reasonable doubt or burden of probability exist.

I dunno, the idiocy and selfishness of the right is a fairly good constant.


Quote:

Or you may be right, Carr has no clue, making poo up and is just spouting bullshit, in which case he should be sacked.

Just like Abbott and his bunch of clowns? They make poo up all the time.


Quote:

Or, is it more likely that there are economic self selecting immigrants?  You reckon no?

I have no doubt there are economic migrants coming to Australia. I am willing to bet large sums of money that (1) They arent coming here on leaky boats and (2) They are the acceptable type of economic migrants, so you dont give a poo about them.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/migrants-from-nz-head-here-in-droves-20120821-24l0k.html


Quote:

Australia is facing a flood of economic refugees. But the big numbers aren't from the north, they are from the across the Tasman, where Statistics New Zealand yesterday announced the biggest exodus to Australia on record. An extraordinary 53,900 New Zealanders moved to Australia in the year to July - around the entire population of New Plymouth, New Zealand's 11th biggest city. The number dwarfs the 9607 asylum seekers who arrived in Australian waters by boat. The record emigration of 53,900 is a big increase from the same period a year before when 46,450 New Zealanders moved to Australia - itself a record at the time. Advertisement ''These are economic refugees,'' New Zealand Council of Trade Unions secretary Peter Conway told Fairfax. New Zealand's unemployment rate is 6.8 per cent, little changed since the economic crisis. Australia's is 5.2 per cent, well down on the peak of 5.9 per cent reached during the crisis. ''New Zealand was hit much harder than Australia,'' Mr Conway said. ''We didn't have the big boost in government spending you had that pushed unemployment back down. Before the crisis, our unemployment rate was briefly the best in the OECD. It is now mid-range, much worse than yours.'' New Zealand wages are around 20 per cent lower than Australia's when measured in terms of purchasing power. The Closer Economic Relations agreement with New Zealand means Australia is unable to control its trans-Tasman border. It is required to accept as permanent or long-term residents as many of New Zealand's 4.4 million residents as want to move here. If trends continue, Australia's annual intake from New Zealand will exceed 100,000 within five years. The statistician says New Zealand has had no net arrivals over the past year. It has taken in 14,000 migrants from the United Kingdom, its biggest source of arrivals, and 14,000 from Australia, almost all of them returning New Zealanders.

Where is your outrage now? Where are the numerous threads dedicated to this flood of economic migrants taking our jobs, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the loss of control of our boarders?

Where is your consistency? Oh wait. Conservative. Right. Gotcha.

donincognito wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 10:48am:

Why do you keep calling them illegal?

Bigotry.

Ignorance.

Irrational fear.

Demonisation.

ian wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 7:14am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 6:24am: What do they do to refugees? You call that "safe"? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg They are treating criminals as criminals. The Indos arent stupid enough to think they are refugees, only us.

Really? They dont accept refugees - we do. What is their crime?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 11:31am:

donincognito wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 10:48am: Why do you keep calling them illegal? Bigotry. Ignorance. Irrational fear. Demonisation.

Votes

Dnarnever, Greggarry and all the other pathetic Left  Wing bleeding hearts who would see our Country be turned over to the flood of Muslims pouring illegally into our Country.

The plug will be back in the bottle as soon as Tony Abbott takes power.

The Muslim flag will not fly over Canberra as the Mufti wants it to.  Because eventually, most probably in the next few weeks the Australian Public will be released from the spell this snake oil salesman KRudd is.

I strongly predicted that show pony Kevin would get in.

I also strongly predicted the Halo Effect which is happening right now.

I also predicted it would not last.

Kevin obliged me by making his first huge blunder after one day in office when he came out with his 'conflict with Indonesia' statement. So irresponsible, so dangerous, so Kevin.

red baron wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Dnarnever, Greggarry and all the other pathetic Left  Wing bleeding hearts who would see our Country be turned over to the flood of Muslims pouring illegally into our Country. The plug will be back in the bottle as soon as Tony Abbott takes power. The Muslim flag will not fly over Canberra as the Mufti wants it to.  Because eventually most probably in the next few weeks the Australian Public will be released from the spell this snake oil salesman KRudd is. I strongly predicted that show pony Kevin would get in. I also strongly predicted the Halo Effect which is happening right now. I also predicted it would not last. Kevin obliged me by making his first huge blunder after one day in office when he cam out with his 'conflict with Indonesia' statement. So irresponsible, so dangerous, so Kevin.

Heres some math for you red baron. Assuming ALL the refugees are muslim (which they arent) and theres about 20k a year - how long until they "flood" us? Remember "we" are breeding too and start off over 20million.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

When the flow of illegal arrivals in our north started after Labor abolished John Howard's policies in 2008, all the wiseacres said it was silly to get exercised about the relatively small numbers who initially arrived.
But as anyone who had studied these flows for a moment knew, once an illegal entry flow is established, it will grow and grow and grow.
With this week's boats, the total number of refugees who have come since Labor softened the policy is 43,660. But the rate keeps on accelerating and as long as people keep arriving in Australia and don't get sent back, there is really no natural limit to the level it might reach. If you convert the past three months to an annual rate, illegal arrivals are now coming at 40,000 a year. Even without counting the inevitable family reunion chain migration that will follow, you only need that rate for a few years and you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of low-skilled, mainly Muslim immigrants, predominantly with poor English. This is a devastating crisis building up for Australia.
...
The key concept to understanding what is going on is to recognise that we are dealing with determined immigration rather than a classic refugee situation. This is true even if you accept that the majority of people coming to Australia could qualify as refugees. They make their decisions about where to seek permanent residence on the basis of which nation is the softest touch and which offers the most extensive welfare.
The refugee convention envisages people fleeing across borders to avoid persecution. Consider Sri Lankan Tamils. There are tens of millions of Tamils living next door to Sri Lanka in India. They are certainly not persecuted. But India is poorer than Sri Lanka. Australia is much richer. So they choose Australia, not India. That is an immigration decision, not a refugee decision.
Consider Iranians, now the biggest source of illegal arrivals in Australia. Iran has a horrible government but it does not persecute big minority populations internally. Everyone deals with the same horrible political system.
For a middle-class Iranian to fly to Malaysia, where they get visa-free entry, to then take a small illegal boat to Indonesia and then get on a boat to Australia indicates a huge desire to live in Australia. It also indicates a belief that once here they won't be sent back. But it says nothing about a real refugee situation.
Part of the problem is the moral and political intimidation that comes the way of anyone who tries to speak about this honestly.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1371366966/1#1

red baron wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 12:24pm:

The plug will be back in the bottle as soon as Tony Abbott takes power.

When will the boats stop, red?

Don't run away like you have every single time this question is asked.

Don't change the subject, like you do every single time this question is asked.

Answer the question.

You say "The plug will be back in the bottle as soon as Tony Abbott takes power."  Good!  Bring it on.

But please elaborate: what does "as soon" mean?

The day after the election?  One month after?  One year?

Give a precise answer for once in your life red.

I'm still waiting for the big revelation he couldn't tell us about last week. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 12:44pm:

When the flow of illegal arrivals in our north started after Labor abolished John Howard's policies in 2008,

Asylum seekers still came under John Howards rule. There were less, yes, but there was less conflict around the world generating those asylum seekers.


Quote:

all the wiseacres said it was silly to get exercised about the relatively small numbers who initially arrived.

And it still is. By any way you measure it, only a small amount of people jump on a boat and make it to our shores.


Quote:

But as anyone who had studied these flows for a moment knew, once an illegal entry flow is established, it will grow and grow and grow.

The entries arent illegal, the numbers fluctuate depending on conflicts going on around the world, and you arent even trying to tell anything remotely approaching the truth.


Quote:

With this week's boats, the total number of refugees who have come since Labor softened the policy is 43,660.

Still less than the amount of economic migrants who come here from New Zealand. In one year.


Quote:

But the rate keeps on accelerating

No it doesnt.

Quote:

and as long as people keep arriving in Australia and don't get sent back, there is really no natural limit to the level it might reach.

Yes there is. 20k per year.

Quote:

If you convert the past three months to an annual rate, illegal arrivals are now coming at 40,000 a year.

Dodgy bullshit math that ignores reality.


Quote:

Even without counting the inevitable family reunion chain migration that will follow,

Family reunions arent inevitable and I doubt you have proof that they happen in the majority of cases.


Quote:

you only need that rate for a few years and you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of low-skilled, mainly Muslim immigrants, predominantly with poor English. This is a devastating crisis building up for Australia.

This is just bullshit racism. Maybe you didnt hear but we have migrants with degrees driving cabs. Thats just a waste. Immigrants are not always low skilled. Nor are most immigrant muslim. If we supported them when they got hear, and helped them learn english so they can contribute to our society, then its most definitely a good thing. I would take 10 refugees over one of you.
...

Quote:

The key concept to understanding what is going on is to recognise that we are dealing with determined immigration rather than a classic refugee situation.

This is bollocks and you have no proof of anything other than the feverish delusions in your head.


Quote:

This is true even if you accept that the majority of people coming to Australia could qualify as refugees. They make their decisions about where to seek permanent residence on the basis of which nation is the softest touch and which offers the most extensive welfare.

This is also bullshit. Bet you a large sum of money that all they want is the same chance that we get. Thats it. Also, for runs and giggles, look and see the path asylum seekers might take to get to Australia, and see what countries have signed and ratified the UNHCR protocol.


Quote:

The refugee convention envisages people fleeing across borders to avoid persecution. Consider Sri Lankan Tamils. There are tens of millions of Tamils living next door to Sri Lanka in India. They are certainly not persecuted.

Thats a big claim. Care to back it up?


Quote:

But India is poorer than Sri Lanka. Australia is much richer. So they choose Australia, not India. That is an immigration decision, not a refugee decision.

In your mind it is.

Quote:

Consider Iranians, now the biggest source of illegal arrivals in Australia. Iran has a horrible government but it does not persecute big minority populations internally. Everyone deals with the same horrible political system.

What the bugger is this poo?

Quote:

For a middle-class Iranian to fly to Malaysia, where they get visa-free entry, to then take a small illegal boat to Indonesia and then get on a boat to Australia indicates a huge desire to live in Australia.

Or a huge desire not to be persecuted.

Quote:

It also indicates a belief that once here they won't be sent back.

Bullshit, it does nothing of the sort.


Quote:

But it says nothing about a real refugee situation. Part of the problem is the moral and political intimidation that comes the way of anyone who tries to speak about this honestly.

You are not speaking about this honestly.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 1:11pm:

I'm still waiting for the big revelation he couldn't tell us about last week. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't hold your breath.

Red is completely full of poo.

This is a man who thinks Tracy Grimshaw and ACA can replace Scotland Yard.

He'll never answer a question directly, never provide evidence to support his claims, and never admit that he may have been wrong.

He's almost as bad as ian.  Almost.

donincognito wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 1:11pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 12:44pm: But the rate keeps on accelerating No it doesnt.

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-apr2013.pdf

See page 4 for graph. It's a picture so even you should be able to understand it.

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 1:21pm:

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-apr2013.pdf See page 4 for graph. It's a picture so even you should be able to understand it.

Why would you post a graph of the amount of people in mandatory detention in order to prove a point about the amount of people seeking asylum?

I can see how you think they are sort of related, but its pretty smacking stupid to point to that and say "Look, more people are coming" right after we stopped processing applications. Of course there is going to be an increase.

Which is besides the point anyway, because the graph shows distinct periods of less people in detention. For example, in the period around 2000-2001, the line went up, and then afterwards it went down. So you are wrong. On the only point you bothered to try and defend.

Good work.

donincognito wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 1:21pm: http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-apr2013.pdf See page 4 for graph. It's a picture so even you should be able to understand it. Why would you post a graph of the amount of people in mandatory detention in order to prove a point about the amount of people seeking asylum? I can see how you think they are sort of related, but its pretty smacking stupid to point to that and say "Look, more people are coming" right after we stopped processing applications. Of course there is going to be an increase. Which is besides the point anyway, because the graph shows distinct periods of less people in detention. For example, in the period around 2000-2001, the line went up, and then afterwards it went down. So you are wrong. On the only point you bothered to try and defend. Good work.

Why would you post a graph of the amount of people in mandatory detention in order to prove a point about the amount of people seeking asylum? - because it is deeply relevant.


The numbers went up very steeply after Rudd changed the policy.
Have a look, it is obvious. Look at tyhe 2007 - present numbers.Entirely Labor's work, with a little help from their friends, the Reds, I  mean, The Greens.


What new major conflict (other than Labor's internal one) occurred then and since?? Nothing. Arab Spring, elections, group-hugs all round.


But you are groping around 2000-2001 - a few years before Howard stopped them.

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 1:29pm:

donincognito wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 1:26pm: Soren wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 1:21pm: http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-apr2013.pdf See page 4 for graph. It's a picture so even you should be able to understand it. Why would you post a graph of the amount of people in mandatory detention in order to prove a point about the amount of people seeking asylum? I can see how you think they are sort of related, but its pretty smacking stupid to point to that and say "Look, more people are coming" right after we stopped processing applications. Of course there is going to be an increase. Which is besides the point anyway, because the graph shows distinct periods of less people in detention. For example, in the period around 2000-2001, the line went up, and then afterwards it went down. So you are wrong. On the only point you bothered to try and defend. Good work. Why would you post a graph of the amount of people in mandatory detention in order to prove a point about the amount of people seeking asylum? - because it is deeply relevant.

This would be a good time to point out how it is deeply relevant, and why you would use those figures over the actual number of asylum seekers arriving. Could you not find those?


Quote:

The numbers went up very steeply after Rudd changed the policy. Have a look, it is obvious. Look at tyhe 2007 - present numbers.Entirely Labor's work, with a little help from their friends, the Reds, I  mean, The Greens.

And still the numbers of people are insignificant.



Quote:

What new major conflict (other than Labor's internal one) occurred then and since?? Nothing. Arab Spring, elections, group-hugs all round.

Oh wow. How ethnocentric are you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts

Try actually reading something before you spout stupid poo like that.


Quote:

But you are groping around 2000-2001 - a few years before Howard stopped them.

Howard didnt stop the boats.

Thank you, SOB, as you were.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 1:11pm:

I'm still waiting for the big revelation he couldn't tell us about last week. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

so is he !!!

John Smith wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 1:11pm: I'm still waiting for the big revelation he couldn't tell us about last week. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D so is he !!!

He's just waiting to see if it's aired on ACA.

If Tracy gives it the OK, he'll let us all know.

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 2:04pm:

Thank you, SOB, as you were.

What is your problem now troll? You want to do the math i set for red?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Datalife wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:35pm: The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia. Agreed, it was a bit confusing, especially this bit, Quote: boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. LOL.  ::) I note in another post you are a solicitor.  Any chance of a name?  I would hate to accidentally employ you if that's what you understood from from viewing two easily understandable links, one containing in large font, "Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten". Hate to hit you with anything complex, like say a parking ticket.   ;D

Well geography was never a strong point but it seems Banten is NORTH of the main Indonesian Islands, so my guess seems correct that these people were still inbound, not outbound Indonesia.

;)

Suddenly, even refugee advocates are talking about stemming the tide by making Malaysia and Indonesia act responsibly.
On Your ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/refugee-advocate-indonesian-solution-required/4793468

He is explaining the difference between obligations to refugees and providing immigration settlement and family reunion, ie primary and secondary refugee movements. (Which is what I have been trying to explain to the thick 'n murkies on here - Greg, Don, SOB, Freeman et al.)

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

Suddenly, even refugee advocates are talking about stemming the tide by making Malaysia and Indonesia act responsibly. On Your ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/refugee-advocate-indonesian-solution-required/4793468 He is explaining the difference between obligations to refugees and providing immigration settlement and family reunion, ie primary and secondary refugee movements. (Which is what I have been trying to explain to the thick 'n murkies on here - Greg, Don, SOB, Freeman et al.)

Actually what he was saying is exactly what ive been saying: setup proper protection in indonesia and then as necessary send people back.  Good to see you missed his main point.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Actually what he was saying is exactly what ive been saying: setup proper protection in indonesia and then as necessary send people back.  Good to see you missed his main point.

Let me guess, you want the Australian tax payer to fund the whole thing?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:17pm: Suddenly, even refugee advocates are talking about stemming the tide by making Malaysia and Indonesia act responsibly. On Your ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/refugee-advocate-indonesian-solution-required/4793468 He is explaining the difference between obligations to refugees and providing immigration settlement and family reunion, ie primary and secondary refugee movements. (Which is what I have been trying to explain to the thick 'n murkies on here - Greg, Don, SOB, Freeman et al.) Actually what he was saying is exactly what ive been saying: setup proper protection in indonesia and then as necessary send people back.  Good to see you missed his main point.

Listen again. Primary and secondary refugee movements. Get back when you've got your head around that.

Aussie wrote on Jul 1^st, 2013 at 4:05pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:48pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:35pm: The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia. Agreed, it was a bit confusing, especially this bit, Quote: boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. LOL.  ::) I note in another post you are a solicitor.  Any chance of a name?  I would hate to accidentally employ you if that's what you understood from from viewing two easily understandable links, one containing in large font, "Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten". Hate to hit you with anything complex, like say a parking ticket.   ;D Well geography was never a strong point but it seems Banten is NORTH of the main Indonesian Islands, so my guess seems correct that these people were still inbound, not outbound Indonesia. ;)

Oi, Datalife...........where are you?

::)

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 4:05pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:48pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:35pm: The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia. Agreed, it was a bit confusing, especially this bit, Quote: boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. LOL.  ::) I note in another post you are a solicitor.  Any chance of a name?  I would hate to accidentally employ you if that's what you understood from from viewing two easily understandable links, one containing in large font, "Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten". Hate to hit you with anything complex, like say a parking ticket.   ;D Well geography was never a strong point but it seems Banten is NORTH of the main Indonesian Islands, so my guess seems correct that these people were still inbound, not outbound Indonesia. ;) Oi, Datalife...........where are you? ::)

Right here Aussie.  If you want to crow about not understanding some perfectly clear links feel free.  Or is the story false and police did not detain 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island? 

Datalife wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 9:43pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 1st, 2013 at 4:05pm: Datalife wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:48pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:35pm: The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia. Agreed, it was a bit confusing, especially this bit, Quote: boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. LOL.  ::) I note in another post you are a solicitor.  Any chance of a name?  I would hate to accidentally employ you if that's what you understood from from viewing two easily understandable links, one containing in large font, "Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten". Hate to hit you with anything complex, like say a parking ticket.   ;D Well geography was never a strong point but it seems Banten is NORTH of the main Indonesian Islands, so my guess seems correct that these people were still inbound, not outbound Indonesia. ;) Oi, Datalife...........where are you? ::) Right here Aussie.  If you want to crow about not understanding some perfectly clear links feel free.  Or is the story false and police did not detain 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island?

details in stories are often false .. I can speak from first hand experience. A close relative had a write up about him in a newspaper once because of something I won't get into, and I can tell you they got EVERY SINGLE detail wrong ... from name, age suburb, EVERYTHING .... the only thing they got right ( by fluke ) was the heading of the story ..... I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it myself.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

Suddenly, even refugee advocates are talking about stemming the tide by making Malaysia and Indonesia act responsibly. On Your ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/refugee-advocate-indonesian-solution-required/4793468 He is explaining the difference between obligations to refugees and providing immigration settlement and family reunion, ie primary and secondary refugee movements. (Which is what I have been trying to explain to the thick 'n murkies on here - Greg, Don, SOB, Freeman et al.)

With Carr and Rudd making noises about economic refugees I can sniff a change in the air.  It would be a face saving distinction for Rudd as well, he can play softly softly with asylum seekers but by playing with the definition and proof side they can do a run around.

Quote:

Right here Aussie.  If you want to crow about not understanding some perfectly clear links feel free.  Or is the story false and police did not detain 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island?

Aah there you are. 

Was I in error in saying the people under discussion (while their planned and final destination was 'Botany Bay') were arrested when they were landing first in Indonesia....inbound?  (Silly beggars obviously had not paid the appropriate 'local' tax to the local Indonesian coppers.)

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:04pm:

Quote: Right here Aussie.  If you want to crow about not understanding some perfectly clear links feel free.  Or is the story false and police did not detain 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island?  Aah there you are.  Was I in error in saying the people under discussion (while their planned and final destination was 'Botany Bay') were arrested when they were landing first in Indonesia....inbound?  (Silly beggars obviously had not paid the appropriate 'local' tax to the local Indonesian coppers.)

Here is the article in full Aussie.  I suggest that if you are trying to build a case that the asylum seekers were not detained, or that detention was illegal because of where they were detained you make yourself clear.

What are you attempting to say?  What is your argument?   


Quote:

Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten June 28, 2013 A boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. Police arrested the boat’s captain, a man identified as Darwis, and the crew of the Kian Santang boat after spotting the vessel in the waters west of Laki Island, off the coast of Mauk, Tangerang, Jakarta Police spokesman Sr. Comr. Rikwanto said on Thursday. The 56 asylum seekers found on-board were transferred to the Tangerang Immigration Office for processing. “The Tangerang and Jakarta maritime police stopped the boat and its captain, Darwis, as well as two crew members in waters west of Laki island near Mauk in Tangerang,” Rikwanto said. “There were 56 illegal immigrants on board — 41 men, 11 women and four children. The ship was transporting them to Christmas Island.” Rikwanto said that the boat, the captain, the crew and the asylum seekers were taken to the Jakarta headquarters of the maritime police. “Yesterday, at around 5:30 p.m. all immigrants had been handed over to the Tangerang Immigration Office,” Rikwanto said. Indonesia is a common transit point for Australia-bound asylum seekers, where thousands of potential refugees risk their lives aboard leaky boats operated by people smuggling syndicates.

Datalife wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2013 at 9:35pm: The link was sort of hard to follow, but, doing the best I can with it................it seems those referred to were inbound to Indonesia, not leaving Indonesia. Agreed, it was a bit confusing, especially this bit, Quote: boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. LOL.  ::) I note in another post you are a solicitor.  Any chance of a name?  I would hate to accidentally employ you if that's what you understood from from viewing two easily understandable links, one containing in large font, "Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten". Hate to hit you with anything complex, like say a parking ticket.   ;D

My comments flow from those by you, and what preceded it.  The suggestion was that it was illegal for a boat to leave Indonesia by boat, and I joined the chorus who cried, 'rubbish.' 

Ian then  produced the article about a boat load arrested at Banten.

I was correct in pointing out that said boat, while probably having 'Botany Bay' as its final destination was then, at point of arrest, inbound into Indonesia, not outbound out of Indonesia.

No, you arent correct. read the article again.

ian wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:34pm:

No, you arent correct. read the article again.

I have already done my research.  Get a map, Ian.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:32pm:

My comments flow from those by you, and what preceded it.  The suggestion was that it was illegal for a boat to leave Indonesia by boat, and I joined the chorus who cried, 'rubbish.'  Ian then  produced the article about a boat load arrested at Banten. I was correct in pointing out that said boat, while probably having 'Botany Bay' as its final destination was then, at point of arrest, inbound into Indonesia, not outbound out of Indonesia.

LOL, so what? Who cared?  That was your own strawman, here is what was asked for and it was replied.


Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. I'm willing to be educated.  Can you provide some links, please?

The links you requested were provided, easily understandable links, I even reposted one for you because you found them hard to follow.

I have no clue why you decided to build a strawman and quibble about where they were arrested.  Not saying you are not free to do so, just don't expect anyone to follow you. 

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 9:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:17pm: Suddenly, even refugee advocates are talking about stemming the tide by making Malaysia and Indonesia act responsibly. On Your ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/refugee-advocate-indonesian-solution-required/4793468 He is explaining the difference between obligations to refugees and providing immigration settlement and family reunion, ie primary and secondary refugee movements. (Which is what I have been trying to explain to the thick 'n murkies on here - Greg, Don, SOB, Freeman et al.) Actually what he was saying is exactly what ive been saying: setup proper protection in indonesia and then as necessary send people back.  Good to see you missed his main point. Listen again. Primary and secondary refugee movements. Get back when you've got your head around that.

i got my head around it a long time ago, thanks. What was said was that it is important to understand  the difference between those refugees who are in flight and those who aren't, and to ensure that the solution  resulted in adequate protection in Indonesia, working with the UNHCR, in order to be able to send people back and give them PROPER protection. Because as it stands, we can't send people back to Indonesia given just like Malayasia they aren't a refugee convention signatory, and as such don't afford refugees the same protection as those we are bound to.  In essence, it is quite understandable by refugees leave Indonesia for Australia, given their lack of recognition and instead treatment of refugees as illegal migrants. And with this being the case, you can't call a refugee a country shopper when they come from Indonesia to Australia, and likewise you can't send them back.  So, if we were to atually work out a proper solution whereby the refugees are afford protection while they were being processed for resettlement in Indonesia, or what had you, then we'd actually be able to create this fictionary queue, and as such send people to the back of it when they come by boat Makes sense, and is something I have been saying for a very long time.

Not to mention that it meets our internationa obligations as well as our own human rights valus and doesn't just clean our hands of a problem.

Datalife, let's start again and see if the white noise does not drown it out.  You said:


Quote:

Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa.

Now, let's have a link about Indonesian Authorities arresting boats leaving Indonesia.....no matter where they are heading to.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:39pm:

ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:34pm: No, you arent correct. read the article again. I have already done my research.  Get a map, Ian.

You cant be so stupid, really. I know where Tanggerang is, Ive been there. There is no point to be made, these boats commonly leave from points near Jakarta. the crews are recruited and picked up from remote Indonesion villages, the boat sails to a predetermined destination near Jakarta because that is where the illegal imigrants are all living and can be easily transported to, picks up the illegals and then takes off. i cant tell you any more but you dont have to be a rocket scientist, really.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:56pm:

Datalife, let's start again and see if the white noise does not drown it out.  You said: Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. Now, let's have a link about Indonesian Authorities arresting boats leaving Indonesia.....no matter where they are heading to.

I gave you one. you are rapidly heading to my idiot list.

ian wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:56pm: Datalife, let's start again and see if the white noise does not drown it out.  You said: Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. Now, let's have a link about Indonesian Authorities arresting boats leaving Indonesia.....no matter where they are heading to. I gave you one. you are rapidly heading to my idiot list.

Good.

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:56pm:

Datalife, let's start again and see if the white noise does not drown it out.  You said: Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. Now, let's have a link about Indonesian Authorities arresting boats leaving Indonesia.....no matter where they are heading to.

Actually I didn't say that.  And I refer you to my previous post.  Seems to me you are upset not that asylum seekers were detained as indicated in the provided links, but upset because of where they were detained.

If that is your issue it may be that you need to take it up with the Indons and point out to them that where they are detaining people is according to your opinion procedurally incorrect. 

Unlike yourself, I am not equipped to inform the Indon authorities where and where they may or may not detain asylum seekers. 

Datalife wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:56pm: Datalife, let's start again and see if the white noise does not drown it out.  You said: Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. Now, let's have a link about Indonesian Authorities arresting boats leaving Indonesia.....no matter where they are heading to. Actually I didn't say that.  And I refer you to my previous post.  Seems to me you are upset not that asylum seekers were detained as indicated in the provided links, but upset because of where they were detained. If that is your issue it may be that you need to take it up with the Indons and point out to them that where they are detaining people is according to your opinion procedurally incorrect.  Unlike yourself, I am not equipped to inform the Indon authorities where and where they may or may not detain asylum seekers.

I thought you (or another) said that Indonesian Authorities arrested boat people leaving Indonesia....ie heading south of the main Indonesian Islands, bound for 'Botany Bay.'

Did I get that wrong?

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:15pm:

I thought you (or another) said that Indonesian Authorities arrested boat people leaving Indonesia....ie heading south of the main Indonesian Islands, bound for 'Botany Bay.' Did I get that wrong?

Judge for yourself, this is what was posted and your request


Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

Quote: Not at all, as I stated previously, there have been a number of occasions when boats full of alleged asylum seekers have been preparing to leave from Indonesia and these peopel have been arrested and detained by the Indonsion authorities becausae their intent was to commit a crime, i.e cross into Australia without a visa. I'm willing to be educated.  Can you provide some links, please?

And in response, this link was provided


Quote:

Indonesian Police Detain 56 Asylum Seekers Off Coast of Banten June 28, 2013 A boat carrying 56 asylum seekers bound for Australia’s Christmas Island were detained by Maritime Police off the coast of Tangerang, Banten, on Wednesday, police said. Police arrested the boat’s captain, a man identified as Darwis, and the crew of the Kian Santang boat after spotting the vessel in the waters west of Laki Island, off the coast of Mauk, Tangerang, Jakarta Police spokesman Sr. Comr. Rikwanto said on Thursday. The 56 asylum seekers found on-board were transferred to the Tangerang Immigration Office for processing. “The Tangerang and Jakarta maritime police stopped the boat and its captain, Darwis, as well as two crew members in waters west of Laki island near Mauk in Tangerang,” Rikwanto said. “There were 56 illegal immigrants on board — 41 men, 11 women and four children. The ship was transporting them to Christmas Island.” Rikwanto said that the boat, the captain, the crew and the asylum seekers were taken to the Jakarta headquarters of the maritime police. “Yesterday, at around 5:30 p.m. all immigrants had been handed over to the Tangerang Immigration Office,” Rikwanto said. Indonesia is a common transit point for Australia-bound asylum seekers, where thousands of potential refugees risk their lives aboard leaky boats operated by people smuggling syndicates.

Once more Aussie, your issue about where they were intercepted and detained  is a strawman injected by yourself.