Seriously? Libs want to change Tony Abbot for Turnbull or Bishop?

[VYBerlinaV8]

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.

Agree with you here, but if someone has been residing in Indonesia for 6 months, is working and has has their children in school, and living in fixed accomodation, are they still a refugee? Presumably they can't easily gain Indonesian citizenship.

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.

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.

True, but none of that physically prevents anyone from flying to Sydney. You don't need a visa to get to the airport, but rather to cross into Australia from the international terminal. The news report I linked suggests quite a few people claim asylum at immigration.

 

[Perp]

Agree with you here, but if someone has been residing in Indonesia for 6 months, is working and has has their children in school, and living in fixed accomodation, are they still a refugee? Presumably they can't easily gain Indonesian citizenship.

Right, they're ineligible for Indonesian citizenship and are in Indonesia illegally. As well as having no access to healthcare etc., they run the risk of being deported. That might be survival, but it's not an acceptable permanent resolution.

True, but none of that physically prevents anyone from flying to Sydney. You don't need a visa to get to the airport, but rather to cross into Australia from the international terminal. The news report I linked suggests quite a few people claim asylum at immigration.

It does prevent you flying to Sydney, actually. Airlines flying non-Australians into Australia are required to view foreigners' Australian visa before allowing them to board.

Those who've applied for asylum at immigration would, I suspect, have come from lower-risk countries, or otherwise have passed through immigration filtering.

I repeat: the vast majority of refugees would never qualify for a tourist visa, and would never be allowed to board a flight for Australia.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Right, they're ineligible for Indonesian citizenship and are in Indonesia illegally. As well as having no access to healthcare etc., they run the risk of being deported. That might be survival, but it's not an acceptable permanent resolution.

It does prevent you flying to Sydney, actually. Airlines flying non-Australians into Australia are required to view foreigners' Australian visa before allowing them to board.

Those who've applied for asylum at immigration would, I suspect, have come from lower-risk countries, or otherwise have passed through immigration filtering.

I repeat: the vast majority of refugees would never qualify for a tourist visa, and would never be allowed to board a flight for Australia.

Interesting - thanks for taking the time to clarify.

 

[BayView]

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.

My thoughts exactly; almost every single one of these "refugees" has bypassed several other Countries along the way to arriving here.

Pakistan, Afghanistan and numerous other similarly geographical Countries where such folks travel from are not exactly in the next street or over the next mountain.

I would wager that many of these people have one singular plan; and that is to move only to Australia.

"Refugee" indeed. If this were really accurate, surely they would gladly stop travelling at the first available Country that would take them?

 

[Hoffy]

My thoughts exactly; almost every single one of these "refugees" has bypassed several other Countries along the way to arriving here.

Pakistan, Afghanistan and numerous other similarly geographical Countries where such folks travel from are not exactly in the next street or over the next mountain.

I would wager that many of these people have one singular plan; and that is to move only to Australia.

"Refugee" indeed. If this were really accurate, surely they would gladly stop travelling at the first available Country that would take them?

They sure have bypassed plenty of other countries in their quest to flee persecution or find safety. But the people say they should only have to stay in counties that are party to the UN convention.

Here is a map of those countries: http://www.unhcr.org/4d651eeb6.html

We sure are a long way from those source countries.....

 

[Perp]

"Refugee" indeed. If this were really accurate, surely they would gladly stop travelling at the first available Country that would take them?

Indeed. None of those countries are signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees, and thus do not accept refugees.

 

[BayView]

Indeed. None of those countries are signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees, and thus do not accept refugees.

And yet, folks bleat on about how uncaring, racist and so forth we are here in Aus.

Well, they can all just frack off if that's what they think about our fantastic and generous Country.

Personally, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about Aus.

 

[Hoffy]

Indeed. None of those countries are signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees, and thus do not accept refugees.

And yet the majority of the worlds refugees are located in non signatory countries?

 

[Perp]

And yet the majority of the worlds refugees are located in non signatory countries?

Right, condemned to living forever stateless and without access to education, healthcare, work, and so on. Often even without housing, living in tents. Not a long-term solution, is it?

 

[LibGS]

My thoughts exactly; almost every single one of these "refugees" has bypassed several other Countries along the way to arriving here.

"Refugee" indeed. If this were really accurate, surely they would gladly stop travelling at the first available Country that would take them?

You keep using the word refugee in quotes. Most of the refugees coming are granted asylum, 95% in fact. Is it your politics or you that is ignorant of reality?

 

[Hoffy]

Right, condemned to living forever stateless and without access to education, healthcare, work, and so on. Often even without housing, living in tents. Not a long-term solution, is it?

Just correcting your false statement for the record.

But Yes that sounds very dramatic, but refugees still go there, stay there, live there. You clearly think we should only take the ones rich enough to pay people smugglers.

Look the convention is not the be all and end all. Most countries are not signatories, and most refugees go to those countries. It was written in another time and has little relevance today. It's unsurprising very few new countries are added to the list of signatories these days. But maybe that's the long term solution, get more countries to sign up - but why won't they? Have you ever wondered?

The major right for the refugee given by the convention is non refoulment. How many of the non signatory countries are actually sending people back?

 

[Perp]

Just correcting your false statement for the record.

I made no false statement; I'm pretty careful not to, and if I make a mistake, I correct and apologise.

If you're referring to my statement that non-signatory countries don't accept refugees, it's accurate. Which countries offer the benefits of permanent residence to refugees?

The fact that they tolerate refugee camps full of what are effectively squatters is neither "accepting refugees", nor a viable solution.

You clearly think we should only take the ones rich enough to pay people smugglers.

Wrong again. I stated very clearly that I think we should allow asylum seekers to fly in and have their refugee status determined.

 

[Hoffy]

I made no false statement; I'm pretty careful not to, and if I make a mistake, I correct and apologise.

If you're referring to my statement that non-signatory countries don't accept refugees, it's accurate. Which countries offer the benefits of permanent residence to refugees?

The fact that they tolerate refugee camps full of what are effectively squatters is neither "accepting refugees", nor a viable solution.

Wrong again. I stated very clearly that I think we should allow asylum seekers to fly in and have their refugee status determined.

It was just plain wrong sorry. They either accept or not accept. Let them stay, or send them on their way.

So surely the real viable solution is having more countries sign up to the convention right?

 

[Perp]

I'm out. I won't be called a liar.

 

[seismic]

I can't believe the furore created over this knighting of Prince Philip on Australia Day
I keep reading that the phones among Lib backbenchers have been running hot as they discuss 'feverishly' leadership change to either Turnbull or Bishop because of this "knightmare" fiasco

Seriously, leadership change over knighting Prince Philip?
I really couldn't have cared if they knighted, sainted or gave the Victoria Cross to Prince Philip. It doesn't affect my life one iota.

Bolt attacks Abbot over the knighthood
Murdoch tweets that Peta Credlin should fall on her sword

Does anybody else think a mountain is being made out of a molehill
or is it just me?

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...y-abbott-faces-criticism-20150129-131f0o.html

I agree - these are not the real issues.
I guess the real issue is economy and unemployment/underemployment

There is a serious problem of long term unemployment and under employment.
I have a feeling that the unemployment figures are being seriously under quoted.

It is ridiculous to have official 6 - 7 % unemployment with 23 million population and 63% labour participation rate.

The small business have been seriously impacted last few years as well.

Some of the issues I believe are related to mining boom, 2 speed economy, overestimation of the mining boom and its duration, flooding the market with PR and 457 visa holders, etc.

Things are probably going to get better over the next year or two but at the moment there are many unhappy voters.

 

[BayView]

You keep using the word refugee in quotes. Most of the refugees coming are granted asylum, 95% in fact. Is it your politics or you that is ignorant of reality?

What's the reality I'm missing?

If they are coming in boats, what are they if not refugees?

"A refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion; because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons; or because they are fleeing a war."

"An asylum seeker is a person who fled from their country (endangered) but is not accepted yet as a refugee. Refugees and asylum seekers are different. The decision whether a person is a refugee or not is most often left to certain government agencies within the host country."

I guess if you want to split hairs; asylum seeker might also apply...but aren't they all supposedly fleeing persecution and/or fear for their safety, etc?

But I wonder; how many of them should probably be called "people who are trying to immigrate"? - and not either a refugee or asylum seeker at all - or worse; a nutjob terrorist in training.

Besides; you've skewed it off track; my point was that the Libs have stopped the boats and therefore the drownings, and yet the wider population want to go running back to Labor after 5 minutes - who were the cause of the policy change which encouraged the boats, which led to the drownings.

You decided to go all stupid and try and pin every other life-threatening device on earth to that one statement like I abhore one but not all others.

Don't you think that is rather childish?

 

[BayView]

There is a serious problem of long term unemployment and under employment.
I have a feeling that the unemployment figures are being seriously under quoted.

I've been saying this for oh; only about 2 or more years now.

But, every time I mention it I get poohoo'ed because "the official stats say otherwise".

Lots of screen gazers here who never go outside.

 

[Strannik]

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?

there is no taliban in indonesia. why do they have to come to australia instead of staying there?

 

[JamesP]

People are incredibly stupid and lack sense/morality.

This knighthood was the one thing I actually didn't mind, it's an incredibly stupid concept but doesn't affect anyone so it is rather harmless. I find it amazing how "moved" most people are in response to such nonsense.. whilst apathetically ignoring cuts to health/education/homeless services. These issues for some reason don't bother their moral thought process to express the same level of outrage. It's quite amazing and baffling really that this level of "person" is quite a common percentage in our very American day and age. Evolution is supposed to move forwards not backwards.

 

[WattleIdo]

totally agree