A belated topic that would have been better on ANZAC DAY...

[Johnno]

Hi pauper - I think this is what you are after... http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video

 

[ndcj]

While Johnno might be a little less tactful than others, I don't totally disagree with him. In the US illegal immigration...and yes, it is ILLEGAL (they are BREAKING the LAW) is a massive concern. I'm not sure about the exact numbers in Australia, nor do I think the exact numbers matter, but in the US it's in the Millions.

You are wrong. Undocumented arrivals who arrive in a country that is a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees seeking asylum do not arrive illegally. Their arrival is specifically permitted under international law.

The term "illegal immigrant" in terms of the people that Johnno refers to is not only inflammatory, but wholly incorrect.

Stop for a moment and think. If your family was being murdered, raped, bombed, tortured or arbitrarily detained, maybe just by virtue of your religious beliefs, sexual identity, gender or that you happen to be in the same country that is a good source of oil or might be hiding bin Laden, wouldn't you do everything within your power to find refuge?

Remember, that for most asylum seekers reaching Australia, Australia is the first country that they arrive in that is a Convention country. Australia owes them a well established legal duty of protection if they are found to be refugees.

By far the largest number of people unlawfully present in Australia are tourist and working holiday visa overstayers from western Europe. Your irrational and xenophobic fears aren't bourne out by the real numbers. In 2008-2009, net overseas migration was nearly 300,000, nearly 50,000 visa overstayers, and only 4916 arrivals by boat.

But hey, you're alright, screw anyone else, eh?

 

[Moxon]

the then NORMAL standard of ''terra nullius'' that was applied by ALL European nations in their empire building and the establishment of colonies

This is a complete fabrication.

these illegals

You are referring to asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia. They are not illegals, on arrival their status has to be determined according to the international protocols governing refugees that Australia is signatory to.

for the stupid old taxpayer (i.e. ME)

Agreed, with the qualification that I am obviously unable to verify neither your age nor your tax status.

filled with aliens who have never and will never assimilate and whose beliefs, ideology and culture is utterly incompatible with the Australian way of life...

And thus arose the question about what the first inhabitants must have thought about another alien culture which also arrived in boats.

The numbers of the illegals coming in can always be debated

Not really, what you are referring to are arrivals by boat seeking asylum. Seeking asylum is not illegal under Australian law or international law. Australia being an island with an arid and inhospitable north, the only 'illegals coming in' one could really speak of would be (hypothetically) undetected passport or visa forgeries arriving through official points of entry. Contrast this with somewhere with land borders like the US where it is estimated there are half a million or more undocumented arrivals per year.

There was NEVER a referendum on this

It is an article of international law. Please see the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the 1967 protocol both of which Australia is signatory to. They might also be useful for helping you to understand and differentiate terms like refugee, asylum seeker and illegal immigrant which you are clearly having trouble with.

- neither side of government would have been dumb enough to hold one over the last 40 years because if they had the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the Australian public would have voted almost unanimously for these criminals to be put back in their boats and sent back to where they came from...

Sounds like it would attract a lot of voters to run on the ticket 'giving you the opportunity to rescind the international conventions which Australia is a signatory to through referenda' Perhaps you should start your own campaign for the next elections, you could throw the entire Geneva Conventions in.

As for the argument about Australia engaging in illegal wars etc - am I disagreeing? No - but are we engaging in these ON OUR OWN or because we are pressured by the BIG BOYS who are the *real* warmongers to ''be part of the team'' and ''do our bit'' ? I don't think I need to name who the REAL players are here - EVERYBODY knows

There are plenty of comparable and even smaller nations that aren't so easily pressured or duped into being the bitch of the big boys.

what I think is the only real solution to the middle east - that ALL western nations STAY OUT of it and let the buggers do what they want to do anyway - wipe each other out - they have been doing it for thousands of years and its a way of life over there

I'm fairly sure, whether you went back 50, 100, 200, 500 or 1000 years the body count from European/Western initiated conflicts and colonial 'adventures' would dwarf those of your Muslim brethren; WWII 60 odd million, Stalin 30 odd million, OK lets not even include the Atlantic Slave trade (25 odd million), WWI (15 odd million), Conquest of the Americas, 30 Years' War, Fall of Rome, 100 Years' War, the European colonisation of Asia and Africa, The Crusades...

Truly - in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king - I may not know it all but I'm happy to stick with having one eye that works

I think you may have overestimated on your tally there, in a similar way that halfwit would be a gross exaggeration of your sagacity. If it was a matter of any importance I would demand a recount.

 

[French jurist]

Speaking in such terms of migrotary status/"illegals" on this forum is burlesque imho.

"Immigration", "Muslim", "terrorist" (and see how "Islam" and "terrorism" is easily associated), "foreigner" = opened door to excess, fears (sometimes manipulated), fantasmagoria, phobias, etc.

Tricky subject, why not talk about abortion ?

 

[ndcj]

Lets also not be so quick to forget the "migratory status" of the vast majority of posters to this board. ;-)

Johnno, I trust your migration status is in order in Argentina?

 

[Johnno]

My my my - this topic has taken some interesting turns and twists Yes NDCJ - I came into Argentina LEGALLY... lol As for most of the above re: Australia its interesting to note that the only thing not being considered here is the facts... The people smugglers involved in attempting to smuggle these illegal immigrants into Australia have, on a few occasions, been caught and prosecuted - prosecuted because (surprise surprise) they broke the law - which in my book means an action which is - wait for it - ILLEGAL... lol

Yes - Australia is a signatory for a lot international treaties and conventions - and yes we take genuine refugees - but there is a LEGAL process/official channels to go through - and anyone can apply for refugee status if they meet the criteria - the *illegals* coming in on these people smugglers' boats have *not* gone through official channels, are *not* your ''typical'' refugees - in many cases they are paying $10,000 US or more to the people smugglers in Indonesia/elsewhere who are bringing them in and whilst a few have suggested that the numbers are not that significant I think we were looking at about 300 boats that were detected/stopped last year alone - and yet again, we've ended up in Australia having to build special off-shore and on-shore facilities to house/feed/look after these people as each one in turn is processed to verify if any of them are actually able to be considered legitimate refugees...

The cost to the country and the individual taxpayer is ENORMOUS - and I guess if certain individuals feel uncomfortable with someone speaking his mind (and even more shocking, backing up his opinion with verifiable facts) and addressing a problem that is *real* I would humbly suggest the problem is not with the person speaking his mind - its with those individuals who have a problem with, and are threatened by, someone expressing a view that is incompatible with their own world view - sad really lol

It reminds me of an amusing anecdote of a senior prosecutor giving advice to the young up and coming prosecutor he was mentoring - it went something like this:

Q. What do you do if you are weak on the facts?
A. Then fall back on motive/alibi/etc.
Q. What do you do if you are weak on facts and motive/alibi?
A. Then bang on the bench loudly and make more noise... lol

In this case you could combine banging on the bench loudly with perhaps a few insults and the use of a few hackneyed/cliched to death politically correct buzzword type personal insults that are bandied about quite often when someone expresses opinions incompatible with those of the sheeple majority - and hey, presto - you have a ''response''...

Of course the beauty of this approach is that it enables the person responding to avoid doing what he knows he can't actually do successfully - address the real problem - in this case illegal immigration...

Damn - I'm on a roll tonight - but having said that its probably time for me to get back to my bottle of red and the movie I am watching...

I have to admit it though - I think French Jurist has an interesting idea there - we could hit abortion as the next topic on the list and just to see the usual suspects swoop in moral outrage I could take a 100% anti-abortion stance lol) I just love these social experiments... (and NO, I'm not saying I am 100% anti-abortion - just that I could take that position to see who bites first...)

Then again - that rather cool assassin movie is back on Fox tonight - the special effects/action is pretty impressive and I'm thinking movie and red wine is more the go...

Hey - maybe everyone could hit Israel/Palestine as a topic first and in a couple of hours I could hop back in as it gets to abortion ?

 

[sesamosinsal]

So, what are your solutions to this "problem?" Do you have any beyond the usual "Just Deport 'Em"? Illegal immigrant witch hunts haven't been great publicity in the United States. They haven't worked very well either, not to mention deportation is quite expensive. What do you propose to the Government of Australia? These are living, feeling, thinking beings, you know.

I've never understood this viewpoint of putting up walls and barriers, separating peoples as if one group is worth more than the other. It's so destructive. People will support multi-trillion dollar wars. But when it comes to helping other people get on their feet and contribute to society, that's a no-no. You may be from Australia, Canada, Australia, Argentina, or whichever man-made regional construction, but before that you're just a person on this planet... like everyone else. It would behoove all of us if we were made aware of that.

 

[ndcj]

My my my - this topic has taken some interesting turns and twists Yes NDCJ - I came into Argentina LEGALLY... lol

So I take it you're not here on a tourist visa and working here (even for a foreign company working from home), contrary to your post earlier about needing to take calls for work.

Or do your opinions only apply if you can be picked out in a crowd?

As for most of the above re: Australia its interesting to note that the only thing not being considered here is the facts... The people smugglers involved in attempting to smuggle these illegal immigrants into Australia have, on a few occasions, been caught and prosecuted - prosecuted because (surprise surprise) they broke the law - which in my book means an action which is - wait for it - ILLEGAL... lol

Yes, assisting asylum seekers to reach Australia is an offense under Australian law. This has nothing to do with whether those asylum seekers enter Australia illegally or not -- their entry is entirely legal and justified.

Yes - Australia is a signatory for a lot international treaties and conventions - and yes we take genuine refugees - but there is a LEGAL process/official channels to go through - and anyone can apply for refugee status if they meet the criteria - the *illegals* coming in on these people smugglers' boats have *not* gone through official channels, are *not* your ''typical'' refugees - in many cases they are paying $10,000 US or more to the people smugglers in Indonesia/elsewhere who are bringing them in and whilst a few have suggested that the numbers are not that significant I think we were looking at about 300 boats that were detected/stopped last year alone - and yet again, we've ended up in Australia having to build special off-shore and on-shore facilities to house/feed/look after these people as each one in turn is processed to verify if any of them are actually able to be considered legitimate refugees...

Lets dispel a bit more of your rubbish.

Firstly, there are no queues to jump. There are basically no countries between the middle east and Australia which are Convention countries, so they have to travel from country to country seeking formal protection. Which Australian embassy or consulate would you have them "queue up" at?

Secondly, asylum seekers entering a Convention country are never, ever illegal. Nunca. Both the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which are part of the Australian legal framework, give asylum seekers the legal right to enter Australia and seek asylum. If you want to continue ignorantly claiming they are "illegals", tell us which law they violate.

Thirdly, we're talking less than 5,000 people in the busiest year for irregular maritime arrivals. Australia's net migration is approximately 300,000 people per year. Australia accepts fewer refugees than it has at any other time in recent history. Nearly double the number of refugees were accepted in the early 80s.

Fourth, it costs around $5,000AUD, not $10,000. Families pool everything they have, everything their extended families have, to send a relative to safety, in the hope that they may follow once their relative's claim has been adjudicated. People smugglers are a result of the lack of options for resettlement, nothing more.

The cost to the country and the individual taxpayer is ENORMOUS - and I guess if certain individuals feel uncomfortable with someone speaking his mind (and even more shocking, backing up his opinion with verifiable facts) and addressing a problem that is *real* I would humbly suggest the problem is not with the person speaking his mind - its with those individuals who have a problem with, and are threatened by, someone expressing a view that is incompatible with their own world view - sad really lol

The cost of processing asylum seekers is almost entirely the cost of the dog and pony show that is run to make bigots like you feel safe. Refugees who become residents of Australia (and remember, most asylum seekers (upwards of 90%) are genuine and found to be in need of protection, make a significant net contribution to the Australian economy.

The only additional "hand outs" that newly resettled asylum seekers receive from the Australian government over and above what every citizen and permanent resident is entitled to is to be exempt from the usual waiting period for social security benefits that applies to new migrants and 510 hours of free English lessons. Hardly the crown jewels.

Your view is based on what you've read in the Daily Telegraph and One Nation's website. You haven't provided any facts, just assertions. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion -- if you want to be a xenophobe, then it's your right, but where are these "facts" you're claiming to have contributed?

The "problem" isn't real, and you've given no facts to the contrary. The real problem is that the cheap political point scoring that goes on in Australia where asylum seekers are everyone's favourite whipping boy encourages more people to adopt your moronic views.

Rest of the random crap from your post deleted.

 

[Johnno]

Ho hum - I honestly couldn't be bothered - but I will post a couple of links that at least define illegal immigration into Australia in fairly clear and understandable terms - terms of the extent of the problem, the side effects, the costs and so on:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tcb/1-20/tcb002.aspx

Some of the convictions I am talking about for this illegal activity:

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2009/ce09064.htm

To address the idea that this is ''not a problem'' - even Gillard herself (our not so beloved prime minister) has quite a bit to say on it - because she KNOWS she has to if she wants to keep her job:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillards-goal-wreck-people-smugglers-20100706-zy0f.html

This is one article that addresses the costs involved - per each individual illegal immigrant:

http://www.nationalobserver.net/2000_summer_ed2.htm

Once again - the extent of the problem:

http://voiceofthepeoplelobbygroup.com/2010/May/illegal_immigration_easy_money.htm

(Please note - NONE of these URLs are ''One Nation'' type websites - several are Aust. government and what I am sure even you would consider to be *mainstream* sources of information lol

MORE on what this problem is actually COSTING the Australian taxpayer (or from your point of view I guess it is a non-problem):

http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com/2009/02/immigration-policy-and-health-care.html

ANOTHER cost - hurting those who deserve so much better:

http://www.charlielynn.com.au/2010/08/diggers-homes-for-illegal-immigrants-a-disgraceful-betrayal/

A few more facts: http://www.gwb.com.au/2000/lee/140100.htm

Okay - thats at least 5 minutes it took me to find these links in Google - and is only a tiny fraction of the information that is available online - anyone who can read through all of this and still think there ''isn't an issue'' or that this isn't costing every hard working taxpaying Australian citizen out there a small fortune - or that this is in fact not even ''illegal immigration'' - well, what is the old saying?

"Convince a man against his will - he'll remain of the same opinion still''

Bottom line: the amount of factual information and data that backs up everything I've said is enormous - but what it really comes down to is the idea that a lot of people see what they *want* to see - just the way it is I guess

 

[ndcj]

Ho hum - I honestly couldn't be bothered - but I will post a couple of links that at least define illegal immigration into Australia in fairly clear and understandable terms - terms of the extent of the problem, the side effects, the costs and so on:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tcb/1-20/tcb002.aspx
http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2009/ce09064.htm

These speak about people smuggling. Where does it say irregular arrivals are illegal? Oh right, it doesn't. Not even once, not even a hint. Is it written in invisible ink?

To address the idea that this is ''not a problem'' - even Gillard herself (our not so beloved prime minister) has quite a bit to say on it - because she KNOWS she has to if she wants to keep her job:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillards-goal-wreck-people-smugglers-20100706-zy0f.html

Wow, a politician pandering to people like you. Really? Even she doesn't call them illegal arrivals. The only hint of the word illegal in relation to irregular arrivals is provided by the journalist, not Gillard. You must have cobbled your list of links together pretty quick. Read the bottom of that article:

"It is not unlawful to seek asylum by boat in Australia," he [Small Business Minister Craig Emerson] said.


Other than that, it shows that the governments you helped elect are spending a boat load (pardon the pun) of time and money appeasing xenophobes like you with the most rank of populism because it's a relatively cheap way to buy votes.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillards-goal-wreck-people-smugglers-20100706-zy0f.html#ixzz1LACfe6q8
​

This is one article that addresses the costs involved - per each individual illegal immigrant:

http://www.nationalobserver.net/2000_summer_ed2.htm

Quality source, that one. Lets assume that the number in that article is correct, that it costs $60,000 to remove an unsuccessful asylum seeker. This ignores the fact that 94% (between October 2008 and December 22, 2010) of irregular arrivals by boat were found to be genuine refugees, therefore invoking Australia's protection obligations.

Once again - the extent of the problem:

http://voiceofthepeoplelobbygroup.com/2010/May/illegal_immigration_easy_money.htm

What does this article say about the extent of the problem of irregular arrivals?

(Please note - NONE of these URLs are ''One Nation'' type websites - several are Aust. government and what I am sure even you would consider to be *mainstream* sources of information lol

Umm, you misrepresented two of your sources, and the other two are pretty much opinion pieces from the far-right light on facts and heavy on rhetoric.

MORE on what this problem is actually COSTING the Australian taxpayer (or from your point of view I guess it is a non-problem):

http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com/2009/02/immigration-policy-and-health-care.html

ANOTHER cost - hurting those who deserve so much better:

http://www.charlielynn.com.au/2010/08/diggers-homes-for-illegal-immigrants-a-disgraceful-betrayal/

A few more facts: http://www.gwb.com.au/2000/lee/140100.htm

Are you serious? If you want to play "lets exchange the random musings of lunatics", I'll find you a bunch of lunatics who have seen aliens, know the whereabouts of Elvis and take their facts and figures from little green men. All these three articles show are that there are other rednecks out there just like you, with the same poor grasp of the facts.

Attacking the poor, down-trodden and marginalised has been widely successful throughout history. Why should modern day Australia be any different?

Okay - thats at least 5 minutes it took me to find these links in Google - and is only a tiny fraction of the information that is available online - anyone who can read through all of this and still think there ''isn't an issue'' or that this isn't costing every hard working taxpaying Australian citizen out there a small fortune - or that this is in fact not even ''illegal immigration'' - well, what is the old saying?

"Convince a man against his will - he'll remain of the same opinion still''

It's not about convincing you. You're not interested in facts or reality, that's clear. Your misinformation shouldn't go unchallenged though.

Bottom line: the amount of factual information and data that backs up everything I've said is enormous - but what it really comes down to is the idea that a lot of people see what they *want* to see - just the way it is I guess

Indeed they do. How about you find some primary sources to back up your opinion, instead of misrepresenting a couple of newspaper articles and posting a couple of right wing nutter blog posts?

You dodged the earlier question about your status in Argentina. It'd be a touch hypocritical to be flouting another country's immigration laws by working here on a tourist visa with such hardline views on immigration.