...meanwhile the TPP sails to Australia alongside asylum seekers...
Seriously? Libs want to change Tony Abbot for Turnbull or Bishop?
- Thread starter Beanie Girl
- Start date
So the only people we need to stop from doing things to hurt themselves are the brown ones coming by boat. Gotcha. The rest should have the freedom to do anything they like to hurt themselves. I can sleep better knowing the government is doing all they can to look at the interests of refugees.
Both parties are responsible for many deaths for having policies that are the only reason these people are put in danger in the first place. We should do as every other first world country does and just allow them to fly in for processing. It's so much cheaper than paying a people smuggler we could even insist they have a return ticket as a hedge against their application not being successful. (Noting that somewhere around 95% of applicants for asylum are successful.)
Oh my goodness! This just in. Mal Brough is being urged by his colleagues to act as a 'suicide bomber' and challenge Tony Abbott for the prime ministership.
This is getting farcical. Mal Brough is/cannot be a serious leadership contender. What does this achieve? I'm left scratching my head.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ny-abbott-for-leadership-20150131-132rfe.html
From The Age
'Fairfax Media has confirmed with multiple sources that Mr Brough has been approached to act as a leadership circuit-breaker. He is said to be a taking a wait and see approach'.
While a challenge by Mr Brough is seen as unlikely to succeed, many Liberal MPs believe it would be an effective way to bring to a head rampant leadership speculation and dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister's performance.'
Mr Brough did not deny approaches had been made to him when contacted by Fairfax Media'.
This is getting farcical. Mal Brough is/cannot be a serious leadership contender. What does this achieve? I'm left scratching my head.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ny-abbott-for-leadership-20150131-132rfe.html
From The Age
'Fairfax Media has confirmed with multiple sources that Mr Brough has been approached to act as a leadership circuit-breaker. He is said to be a taking a wait and see approach'.
While a challenge by Mr Brough is seen as unlikely to succeed, many Liberal MPs believe it would be an effective way to bring to a head rampant leadership speculation and dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister's performance.'
Mr Brough did not deny approaches had been made to him when contacted by Fairfax Media'.
The fact that should this happen Brough would be a stalking horse rather than a serious contender and the possible ramifications are clearly set out in the article.
I'm left scratching my head that this is beyound your understanding.
You give me too much credit, turk. I have no idea what a 'stalking horse' is. Sorry, I'm not a card carrying member of any party so don't direct your anger, contempt or vitriol onto me. I put the gist of the article up because a lot of people do not subscribe to online news like The Age because of the paywalls. I can't copy the entire article because of copyright issues. If you clearly understand what the ramifications are, why don't you explain it rather than resort to insults.
You describe Brough standing as farcical but you have no idea what a 'stalking horse' is so I'll stick by my post that
I'm left scratching my head that this is beyound your understanding
Suggest you try google to help yourself out or read the article which sets out the ramifications.
Mr Brough, who sits on the backbench after reclaiming a seat in the federal parliament in 2013, is seen as a credible stalking horse - or suicide bomber - for other leadership contenders such as Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
The 2009 leadership challenge that saw Mr Abbott replace Mr Turnbull was precipitated by Victorian Liberal MP Kevin Andrews mounting a similar surprise challenge.
While a challenge by Mr Brough is seen as unlikely to succeed, many Liberal MPs believe it would be an effective way to bring to a head rampant leadership speculation and dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister's performance.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ny-abbott-for-leadership-20150131-132rfe.html
Last edited:
So the ones coming by boat who chucked away their passports and other documents were mostly successful? That's why they came by boat. Do you know how many queue jumpers were successful if they came by plane with passports? Just wondering as I thought virtually none would have been?
See ya's.
Yes.
Australia is one of the only countries in the world that prevents people from entering Australia if they even suspect they're going to seek asylum. It's near-impossible to fly into Australia if you're travelling on an Afghani, Sri Lankan, or Iraqi etc. passport. (Unless you have Australian residency already, or have entered and left many times before on business, etc.) So there are very few statistics on the number of people who fly in and apply for asylum and are successful, because Australian policy makes that nearly impossible to do.topcropper said:
Edit: What "queue" do you think these people are jumping? Where is it? How does one join it?
The queue to come here as a permanent resident. The waiting line. It takes a few years. It really really grates and annoys you lefties when someone mentions "the queue" doesn't it?
Edit..Thats why I say it all the time to be honest.
See ya's.
I don't know that it annoys me so much as is an opportunity to educate, as it's ignorant.
It's not possible to apply for asylum from within your home country. International conventions define refugees as people who are outside their home country and cannot safely return, and thus you won't be considered for refugee status if you're in your home country.
I don't know that it annoys me so much as is an opportunity to educate, as it's ignorant.
It's not possible to apply for asylum from within your home country. International conventions define refugees as people who are outside their home country and cannot safely return, and thus you won't be considered for refugee status if you're in your home country.
And around and around we go.
Fit young men, coming on the boats who flew by plane into Indonesia. Enough money for the airfare, then the $5,000 boat ticket. Running from persecution. It was so bad there that they left behind their wives, kids and families to fend for themselves for a few years till they can come too. WTF! Whatever. I'll leave it there too. Dazz was right. opinions never change eh?
See ya's.
Are you serious? The whole problem could be solved if they just allowed the whole family to fly straight to Australia to have their status determined.And around and around we go.
Because the Australian government has the draconian policy of prohibiting that, their only option is to send one person - because the Australian government has blocked the cheap and safe means of travel, leaving only the expensive and dangerous option open - on the arduous journey, and if their claim is accepted, they can then bring the remainder of the family.
Sounds completely logical to me. What other option do you suggest they have?
Millions and millions of people want to come here. We can't take everyone, so that's why there is a limit. You apply and get in the queue. Ha ha, I said it again, sorry.
How many people would you let come here if you were running the show?
See ya's.
I think you're confusing migrants and refugees.
We have a quota for refugee intake that's smaller than comparable first world countries, so we certainly aren't taking a disproportionate share of the world's refugees.
If you're talking about migrants who want to come here for lifestyle and economic reasons, as opposed to fleeing persecution, that's a completely separate issue.
If you're suggesting that we shouldn't be a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees, that's also a separate issue.
You might be confusing the issue I think? So someone who flys to Indonesia and then pays a $5,000 boat ticket is not an economic refugee. Flippen funny.
See ya's.
Precisely.
They're not claiming asylum on economic grounds, but on personal safety grounds.
How does $5K in your pocket stop the Taliban shooting you, precisely?
Anyway, I'm off the watch the tennis then the soccer, so cheers.
Edit,,, Soccers on already! I'll be watching both.
See ya's.
Edit,,, Soccers on already! I'll be watching both.
See ya's.
Precisely.
They're not claiming asylum on economic grounds, but on personal safety grounds.
How does $5K in your pocket stop the Taliban shooting you, precisely?
How does the Taliban shoot at you while you're Indonesia? Especially if you've transited Pakistan, India and Malaysia on the way?
The question that has to be tackled is when a person goes from being a refugee to a person seeking economic benefit via the refugee path.
Also, what prevents a person from buying a ticket to Australia then requesting refugee status at immigration at the airport? Obviously someone without a passport won't be able to get on a plane in the first place, but for many people this isn't an issue.
EDIT: Here's an article that's a bit old, but claims that far more people arrive by plane than boat to claim asylum: http://www.news.com.au/national/asylum-seekers-arrive-by-plane-not-boat/story-e6frfkvr-1225790981775
TC seemed to suggest they should be staying put where they were.
None of Pakistan, India, Malaysia, or Indonesia are signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees, so there is no way to apply for refugee status in any of those countries.
I'm glad you asked! You have to have a visa to enter Australia; a tourist visa is pretty much the easiest to get. But if you're applying from Afghanistan, for example, they're unlikely to believe that you're coming as a tourist; visa applications from countries that generate lots of refugees are closely scrutinised and usually denied. It's entirely a different matter to a US or UK citizen getting a tourist visa.VYBerlinaV8 said:
If you tell them you want to apply for asylum, you'll be rejected. It's simply not possible for people from Afghanistan (for example) to jump on a plane to Australia on a tourist visa and apply for asylum upon arrival. It's the Australian government's own policies that force them to take the dangerous and expensive journey by boat, to one of the nearest countries that's signatory to the Refugee Convention.