Australian sailors quietly put on "war footing" to enforce Abbott's anti-asylum policies

Navy personnel carrying out border protection were quietly stripped of some workplace safety protections and obligations last month in an apparent preparation for dangerous operations such as turning back boats.

The Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, used his powers under workplace safety laws shortly before Christmas to exempt Navy sailors from their obligation to take ''reasonable care'' to ensure their own safety and that of other sailors and asylum-seekers.

The change aims to give sailors legal protection, meaning they would ''not face individual criminal sanctions under the Act for giving effect to Government policy'', an explanatory statement issued by General Hurley states.

General Hurley acted in consultation with Employment Minister Eric Abetz to make the change, which effectively puts the sailors on a similar footing to military personnel fighting in battle.

The change, made on December 19, came as the government enacted its hardline election promise of turning back asylum-seeker boats, which critics have warned poses dangers to Navy personnel and asylum seekers. As many as six are believed to have been turned back to Indonesia in recent weeks.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/navy-sailors-now-on-war-footing-to-turn-back-boats-20140114-30t47.html

:D 

"Dangerous operations" ?!?

Yeh, right. What a load of hooey..
It's the Timor Sea ~ NOT Iraq nor Afghanistan, "for crying out loud" !

One of those asylum seekers is going to throw another "baby overboard" at the navy, are they ?  And one of our sailors could then break a fingernail during the subsequent fracas..    

My thoughts exactly. Leave it to a right-wing numbskull to treat desperate people like armed invaders, right?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Navy personnel carrying out border protection were quietly stripped of some workplace safety protections and obligations last month in an apparent preparation for dangerous operations such as turning back boats.

The Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, used his powers under workplace safety laws shortly before Christmas to exempt Navy sailors from their obligation to take ''reasonable care'' to ensure their own safety and that of other sailors and asylum-seekers.

The change aims to give sailors legal protection, meaning they would ''not face individual criminal sanctions under the Act for giving effect to Government policy'', an explanatory statement issued by General Hurley states.

General Hurley acted in consultation with Employment Minister Eric Abetz to make the change, which effectively puts the sailors on a similar footing to military personnel fighting in battle.

The change, made on December 19, came as the government enacted its hardline election promise of turning back asylum-seeker boats, which critics have warned poses dangers to Navy personnel and asylum seekers. As many as six are believed to have been turned back to Indonesia in recent weeks.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/navy-sailors-now-on-war-footing-to-turn-back-boats-20140114-30t47.html

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/navy-sailors-now-on-war-footing-to-turn-back-boats-20140114-30t47.html

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

And yet many are descendants from immigrants, huge land mass and small population, the question should be why not!

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Navy personnel carrying out border protection were quietly stripped of some workplace safety protections and obligations last month in an apparent preparation for dangerous operations such as turning back boats.

The Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, used his powers under workplace safety laws shortly before Christmas to exempt Navy sailors from their obligation to take ''reasonable care'' to ensure their own safety and that of other sailors and asylum-seekers.

The change aims to give sailors legal protection, meaning they would ''not face individual criminal sanctions under the Act for giving effect to Government policy'', an explanatory statement issued by General Hurley states.

General Hurley acted in consultation with Employment Minister Eric Abetz to make the change, which effectively puts the sailors on a similar footing to military personnel fighting in battle.

The change, made on December 19, came as the government enacted its hardline election promise of turning back asylum-seeker boats, which critics have warned poses dangers to Navy personnel and asylum seekers. As many as six are believed to have been turned back to Indonesia in recent weeks.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/navy-sailors-now-on-war-footing-to-turn-back-boats-20140114-30t47.html

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

Um, because they're human beings in desperate need and it's the right thing to do?

Well, decent people would think so Ben.

@shady
they are refugees, at the least we should take them in a process them (settling them is another issue).

@bee
it's not that, we are flaunting Indonesia's sovereignty. And they are getting pretty pissed off with Abbot, who has almost made a point of being a dick towards them.

I swear to god it this fucknuckle monkey is a disgrace to the nation.

PhilDidge wrote:

Shady wrote:

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

And yet many are descendants from immigrants, huge land mass and small population, the question should be why not!

Because they'll end up overcrowded, under resourced and their cities will end up divided into tribal enclaves like other places?
It may be a continent but quite a lot of it isn't liveable land and I would think many Australians like their space.

it is a bit both ways

We cant let ourselves become full, partly not all the land is great, but also we export food to south east asia, if we were to fill it with people not only would we not have food to sell because we didn't have the space to grow it, we also would need more food ourselves to feed the larger population.

We are an aging population so we can afford to take a fair few, we are doing pretty good on the enclave avoidance part, we are already one of the most mulitcultrual nations. And most cultures are absorbed, with the best bits becoming part of 'Mordern Australia' (i.e 1980 onward, Post white Australia policy)

Australia is the second most multicultural nation in the world, tied with Switzerland behind table-leader Luxembourg.
The report says skilled migrants account for 62 per cent of arrivals.
Report author Riyana Miranti, of Canberra University, says migrants make up a quarter of Australia's population.
"Compared to the oeCD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) average, which is only 11 per cent, and in comparison to other countries, this is almost double that of the United States and more than twice that of the United Kingdom,"

THE Federal Government has denied claims the Australian Navy physically abused asylum seekers.
Video aired on ABC News shows asylum seekers undergoing medical checks for burns that Indonesian police say were caused by the Australian Navy.

Indonesian police say they had to get medical treatment for 10 asylum seekers - seven with severe burns on their hands - after they were picked up in Indonesian waters on January 6, ABC News reports.

Indonesian police told ABC News the burns were caused after the Australian Navy forced asylum seekers to board a boat being towed back to Indonesia and to hold onto pipes coming out of the boat's engine.

http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-navy-accused-of-asylumseeker-burns/story-fncynjr2-1226807332338

One can only hope the Electorate is forced to consider how evil it is willing to be to prevent desperate people coming here. Hopefully the Boat people issue will come to a head and next election will be the last we hear of it.       one can hope, cant they?

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/navy-sailors-now-on-war-footing-to-turn-back-boats-20140114-30t47.html

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

  

THE topic here is "Asylum seekers", numbskull Shady !!!

NOT immigrants..

Nor "refugees".

 

PhilDidge wrote:

Shady wrote:

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

And yet many are descendants from immigrants, huge land mass and small population, the question should be why not!

  UNFORTUNATELY, Didge - with regard to our deceptively "large landmass" ~

76% is desert;

3/4 of the remainder is either semi-arid, rocky, mountainous or rugged;

LEAVING only 6% as quality arable farmlands...


Australia is the driest inhabited continent  ~ with less rainfall than any other continent apart from Antarctica;

Australia's best water-secure areas are already home to cities, towns or farms..

THAT'S why over 90% of Australia's population lives along the coast.

"Desalination plants" are expensive, inefficient and highly polluting in their own rights..


Australia's soils are shallow, often fragile, and low quality in comparison to Euro' or US standards;

Even France, as small as it is, still has a greater "cropping capacity" than all of Oz, due to it's much deeper and richer soils.

Increasing Australia's population past "sustainable" levels (somewhere around 36-40 million people..) will impact on the economy, the environment, and on the liveability and amenity of our cities, towns and countryside.

 ::resmahauth::  ::=|Q::  ::rambo::

veya_victaous wrote:
it is a bit both ways

We cant let ourselves become full, partly not all the land is great, but also we export food to south east asia, if we were to fill it with people not only would we not have food to sell because we didn't have the space to grow it, we also would need more food ourselves to feed the larger population.

We are an aging population so we can afford to take a fair few, we are doing pretty good on the enclave avoidance part, we are already one of the most mulitcultrual nations. And most cultures are absorbed, with the best bits becoming part of 'Mordern Australia' (i.e 1980 onward, Post white Australia policy)

Australia is the second most multicultural nation in the world, tied with Switzerland behind table-leader Luxembourg.
The report says skilled migrants account for 62 per cent of arrivals.
Report author Riyana Miranti, of Canberra University, says migrants make up a quarter of Australia's population.
"Compared to the oeCD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) average, which is only 11 per cent, and in comparison to other countries, this is almost double that of the United States and more than twice that of the United Kingdom,"

  

ACCORDING to the last Census, 24% of Australians were born overseas...

veya_victaous wrote:
@shady
they are refugees, at the least we should take them in a process them (settling them is another issue).

@bee
it's not that, we are flaunting Indonesia's sovereignty. And they are getting pretty pissed off with Abbot, who has almost made a point of being a dick towards them.

I swear to god it this fucknuckle monkey is a disgrace to the nation.

  

IN WHICH case, in respect to the Abbott-Hockey-Bishop guvm'nt - they should take them all out the back, and belt them around the head with rubber hoses for a few hours until they come to their senses...

 

Beekeeper wrote:

Shady wrote:

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

  

THE topic here is "Asylum seekers", numbskull Shady !!!

NOT immigrants..

Nor "refugees".

 

Good afternoon Beekeeper.

While I appreciate that you & me got off to a bad start on ADO,I would have thought that by now you would be able to put our past differences behind us especially now that you realize that Sassy is not the leading light that you thought she was.

If you try debating instead of having a go at me,you will receive a reciprocal response.

Just try & speak to me instead of at me & I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised.

Kind regards,Shady.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

Um, because they're human beings in desperate need and it's the right thing to do?

That's one way of looking at it especially from someone who lives in such a fast country.

However,whether or not it's the right thing to do is not the issue.The issue being can Australia cope with more & more peole in it's country? And how many more people should it take? Where does it stop?

And from I have read, the majority of the Australian electorate agree with their PMs decision.

Sassy wrote:Well, decent people would think so Ben.

Sassy considering what a poisonous & destructive person you,I hardly think that you should take the moral high ground.

veya_victaous wrote: @shady
they are refugees, at the least we should take them in a process them (settling them is another issue).

@bee
it's not that, we are flaunting Indonesia's sovereignty. And they are getting pretty pissed off with Abbot, who has almost made a point of being a dick towards them.

I swear to god it this fucknuckle monkey is a disgrace to the nation.

Good afternoon Veya.

That stance is all pretty good in theory but in the real world it doesn't work like that.

Just look at what has happened to us in the UK.

The very nature & fabric of our society has been changed & is changing further.Do you really want the whole Australian culture to be changed? If you do,then that's fair enough.But do you want a mosque plonked on Bondi beach?.......Now I suppose you're going to tell me there's one there already.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

This sounds like a very good idea.What's wrong with it? Why should Australia have to take in more immigrants?

Um, because they're human beings in desperate need and it's the right thing to do?

What would any animal do in desperate need?

Absolutely anything is the answer.


And by animal, I count myself as one too - I'm not picking on asylum seekers!



I applaud the Australian government for doing what their people have asked them to - take not, Dave.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Um, because they're human beings in desperate need and it's the right thing to do?

What would any animal do in desperate need?

Absolutely anything is the answer.


And by animal, I count myself as one too - I'm not picking on asylum seekers!



I applaud the Australian government for doing what their people have asked them to - take not, Dave.

BA I reckon you are an animal & I also reckon that you've got animal like habits.......Smelly,dirty ones.

Do you roll around around in your own s--t & p--s before you have a jump,you dirty dog?  

Shady wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


What would any animal do in desperate need?

Absolutely anything is the answer.


And by animal, I count myself as one too - I'm not picking on asylum seekers!



I applaud the Australian government for doing what their people have asked them to - take not, Dave.

BA I reckon you are an animal & I also reckon that you've got animal like habits.......Smelly,dirty ones.

Do you roll around around in your own s--t & p--s before you have a jump,you dirty dog?  

You remind me of a good pal I had in the army Shady - he was known as "animal arms" - flippin heck he was a good lad on the p1ss!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Shady wrote:

BA I reckon you are an animal & I also reckon that you've got animal like habits.......Smelly,dirty ones.

Do you roll around around in your own s--t & p--s before you have a jump,you dirty dog?  

You remind me of a good pal I had in the army Shady - he was known as "animal arms" - flippin heck he was a good lad on the p1ss!

Animal arms eh? I used to know a matelot nicked named Knuckles who was also a good runashore.

I often wonder what happened to him.

And while you're taking me down memory lane,I also used to serve with a matelot nicknamed 'pincher'who was the ugliest,HAIRIEST,FATTEST,SMELLIEST.........and most excellent runashore ever.He looked & acted like a f--king caveman.

But his wife was absolutely ESSENCE.And I mean totally ESSENCE.Straight off the catwalk she was......but she loved him.

A society of decent people helps others in dire need. A society of selfish pigs acts like ... selfish pigs. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

Shady wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:
  

THE topic here is "Asylum seekers", numbskull Shady !!!

NOT immigrants..

Nor "refugees".

 

Good afternoon Beekeeper.

While I appreciate that you & me got off to a bad start on ADO,I would have thought that by now you would be able to put our past differences behind us especially now that you realize that Sassy is not the leading light that you thought she was.

If you try debating instead of having a go at me,you will receive a reciprocal response.

Just try & speak to me instead of at me & I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised.

Kind regards,Shady.

Right, I believe it started over here with your calling Bee, Donk. That's putting it behind you, eh? What mensch, shady. Admit it, you're too frightened to go head-to-head with Bee.

TO BE FAIR, it was Drinky ("Clarkson") who started using the name "Donk" way back in the ADO days !!!

Anybody else who may have used it since then has simply taking their lead from Drinky..

Unfortunately for Drinky, he STILL doesn't seem to be willing to accept that he has NO idea of even what to word means over here.. Much like his constant misuse of political and economic terms.

SO he sounds like even more of an ignoramus than usual whenever he falls back on using the Aussie slang term for "motor or engine" in an attempt to somehow insult me..


SHADY didn't start the use of the mis-used word "donk" ~ that's ALL down to poor old silly Drinky !   

Ben_Reilly wrote:A society of decent people helps others in dire need. A society of selfish pigs acts like ... selfish pigs. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

So what's the upshot of this Ben - that Australian society is down the drain? Just their government or them plus their voters?

Or, is the Western world's generosity being abused?

Please discuss.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:A society of decent people helps others in dire need. A society of selfish pigs acts like ... selfish pigs. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

So what's the upshot of this Ben - that Australian society is down the drain?  Just their government or them plus their voters?

Or, is the Western world's generosity being abused?

Please discuss.

I think that Australia was victimized by a fear-mongering right wing that misrepresented what immigration in general, and "boat people" specifically, would really do in Australia. We're not talking about a sudden population surge of millions, or a Muslim takeover of Australian culture.

But the right made that out to be the case in order to win elections. If you notice, the anti-boat-people shit is only a small part of what they're doing -- it appears that in the main, they're orchestrating the corporate rape of Australia.

Voters there are taking notice -- Abbott's approval is down the tubes and Labor is looking stronger than it has in a good while. Fear-mongering only works in the short term -- most people aren't stupid enough to fall for it for that long.

Ben_Reilly wrote:A society of decent people helps others in dire need. A society of selfish pigs acts like ... selfish pigs. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

I don't think people have a problem helping others in dire need but as Veya said, if push comes to shove and the number of people in Australia outstrip its resources and it is a fairly fragile environment when everything is considered, how will they be able to help themselves let alone anyone else in need. People have been in need throughout time all over the world, some people try to relocate some people stay and try to make changes to the leadership and politics of their homeland make a better life where they are. We'll end up with no one left in some places (which may be good for the local fauna and flora) and cities and 'rich' countries crowded out - something like Soylent Green, far better to help people develop their countries where they are and get a grip on the world population while we are at it.

Well, I don't imagine that the current level of asylum seekers is nearly enough to push Australia in any meaningful way to provide for its people, but I don't live there. Maybe Veya or Beekeeper can give us some numbers? I get the argument, I just wonder if what I was under the impression was a few thousand people per year will make that kind of dent.

And of course, helping asylum seekers doesn't have to mean automatic entry into the country. There are things not only Australia but the rest of the world should be doing to prevent so many people from having to leave their homelands, and the "us first" approach will only doom everyone in the end.

As Darwin wrote (this used to be my sig quote):

“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

@bee
Asylum seeker = Refugee
unless Proven otherwise, Someone Seeking Refugee Status is an Asylum seeker until granted the legal status of Refugee.

refugee
/rɛfjʊˈdʒiː/
noun
noun: refugee; plural noun: refugees
1.
a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
"tens of thousands of refugees fled their homes"
synonyms:
displaced person, DP, escapee, fugitive, asylum seeker, runaway, exile, émigré, stateless person, outcast, returnee;

asylum seeker
noun
noun: asylum seeker; plural noun: asylum seekers
1.
a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another.
"only asylum seekers who are granted refugee status are allowed to work in the country"

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I don't imagine that the current level of asylum seekers is nearly enough to push Australia in any meaningful way to provide for its people, but I don't live there. Maybe Veya or Beekeeper can give us some numbers? I get the argument, I just wonder if what I was under the impression was a few thousand people per year will make that kind of dent.

And of course, helping asylum seekers doesn't have to mean automatic entry into the country. There are things not only Australia but the rest of the world should be doing to prevent so many people from having to leave their homelands, and the "us first" approach will only doom everyone in the end.

As Darwin wrote (this used to be my sig quote):

“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

That's my argument we should be all doing what we can to help these countries develop in all ways including better government whatever that may be, considering most of ours (the developed countries).

Shady wrote:

veya_victaous wrote: @shady
they are refugees, at the least we should take them in a process them (settling them is another issue).

@bee
it's not that, we are flaunting Indonesia's sovereignty. And they are getting pretty pissed off with Abbot, who has almost made a point of being a dick towards them.

I swear to god it this fucknuckle monkey is a disgrace to the nation.

Good afternoon Veya.

That stance is all pretty good in theory but in the real world it doesn't work like that.

Just look at what has happened to us in the UK.

The very nature & fabric of our society has been changed & is changing further.Do you really want the whole Australian culture to be changed? If you do,then that's fair enough.But do you want a mosque plonked on Bondi beach?.......Now I suppose you're going to tell me there's one there already.

@shady
we have twice as many Immigrints as the UK already???? Your Point is NOT valid.
You could use Us as an example of making it work.

Ohh and Not on Bondi beach but about 4 to 5kms closer to the city centre


And Bondi Is a really bad example, Bondi is Backpacker Culture NOT Aussie Culture, we don't swim there that is where the sewerage is pumped out           Tourists ONLY


And As we are changing FROM the Anglo Culture to our own Multiculture YES it is the BEST thing to ever happen to this nation. Everything is better now we have dozens of cultures working and living together in the towards the Same goal of making Australia great. The Very small minority that come here and think it was better where they came from get told to 'fuck off back then' by their own communities.

Sign you live in a successful multiculture: these folks train right down the road from me:



... at a facility called "Sanchez Taekwondo"

veya_victaous wrote:@bee
Asylum seeker = Refugee
unless Proven otherwise, Someone Seeking Refugee Status is an Asylum seeker until granted the legal status of Refugee.

refugee
/rɛfjʊˈdʒiː/
noun
noun: refugee; plural noun: refugees
1.
a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
"tens of thousands of refugees fled their homes"
synonyms:
displaced person, DP, escapee, fugitive, asylum seeker, runaway, exile, émigré, stateless person, outcast, returnee;

asylum seeker
noun
noun: asylum seeker; plural noun: asylum seekers
1.
a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another.
"only asylum seekers who are granted refugee status are allowed to work in the country"

  

HOW MANY genuine refugees have $US15-20,000 available to buy passage on illegal attempts to bypass customs and immigration laws ?

HOW MANY of the boat people leaving Indonesia this week ARE in fact genuine "refugees" ?

HOW MANY may have criminal or military records they don't want us to know about ?   

@Bee
9 out of 10 are genuine.

More than 90 per cent of boat people were found to be genuine refugees in the March quarter, figures to be released on Monday show.

But asylum seekers who arrived by plane - despite being eligible for release into the community - were almost twice as likely to be rejected as refugees.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/boat-people-genuine-refugees-20130519-2juvg.html#ixzz2rBlIKoDV

  

Currently, the UNHCR collects statistics for several population categories collectively referred to as ‘persons of concern’. The categories in the annual UNHCR report, Global Trends, include:

Refugees: individuals recognized under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; its 1967 Protocol; the 1969 Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa; those recognized in accordance with the UNHCR Statute; individuals granted complementary forms of protection; or, those enjoying ‘temporary protection’. The refugee population includes people in a refugee-like situation.

Asylum-seekers: individuals who have sought international protection and whose claims for refugee status have not yet been determined. Those covered [by the UNHCR] refer to claimants whose individual applications are pending, irrespective of when they may have been lodged.

Internally displaced persons: people or groups of individuals who have been forced to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of, or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural- or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an international border.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/BoatArrivals

 ::resmahauth:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Well, I don't imagine that the current level of asylum seekers is nearly enough to push Australia in any meaningful way to provide for its people, but I don't live there. Maybe Veya or Beekeeper can give us some numbers? I get the argument, I just wonder if what I was under the impression was a few thousand people per year will make that kind of dent.

And of course, helping asylum seekers doesn't have to mean automatic entry into the country. There are things not only Australia but the rest of the world should be doing to prevent so many people from having to leave their homelands, and the "us first" approach will only doom everyone in the end.

As Darwin wrote (this used to be my sig quote):

“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

    THE number of "boat people" asylum seekers aiming for Australia last year was a little over 5,000 ~ the numbers have usually ranged between a few hundred and up to ~5,000 plus, averaging under 4,000 a year, depending on what wars are being fought around the world and the number of refugees being generated... while there were peaks during and after the Vietnam War, the Iraqi Afghan wars, and then to a lesser degree Somalia and the Sudan (most refugees from these last two sources couldn't afford to be boat people..).

NOTE that those higher numbers over the past decade are influenced by the wars in Afghanistan, northern Africa and the Middle East at present.  AND the numbers this year WILL be down a fair bit with Abbott's tougher rules, while the numbers waiting in transit-points such as Nepal, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia will certainly increase in line..

"Among the 44 industrialised countries UNHCR includes in its asylum trends analysis, Australia was third overall in 2010 for refugee recognition and resettlement and sixth on a per capita basis behind Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Austria. When the same statistics are viewed over eight years, Australia was fourth overall (behind USA, Canada and UK) and eighth per capita (behind Malta, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Canada)."
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/isub/2012-13-IntakeSub.pdf  

NOTE where, while Australia is 4th overall (3rd previously..) for accepting and settling refugees, it drops to 8th place when divided by population size. WHILE Oz does currently have a refugee intake target of 20,000, This CAN be expected to drop during the current term of the Abbott-Hockey regime, as part of it's severe "cost cutting" policies..   

THE way that the right-wing gutter press and various extremist groups go on in their usual hysterical "big girly man" manner, you would be excused for believing that the number is ten times greater than the reality !  (And the "black armband" ex-pat dickhead faux "journalists" like that traitorous dog John Pilger and company, only exacerbate misunderstandings and wrong-thinking, what with all their white-bashing and "all muslims are innocents" lines..).    

STILL, 20,000 refugees total (with less than 1/4 of them being from "boat people"..) among a total of more than 100,000 immigrants in any one year WON'T be making that much impact in the short term. THOUGH no doubt there will come a point in a couple of decades when Australia will have to look at lowering it's overall immigration levels for a while (until numbers again "stabilise"..).     


The number of "Illegal Immigrants" in Australia each year is roughly around 55,000 - most of these are people flying in on regular airlines and then overstaying their tourist or student visas, rather than using more circumspect or risky routes into this country..

"Boat People" asylum seekers, therefore, make up less than 10% of the total illegal immigrants ~ even less when the majority are inevitably re-classified as "Genuine Refugees" status ~ probably from less than 1% to just on 2% some years, of the overall total !

THE major nationalities of most of these "illegal immigrants" into Australia over recent years, by the way, are British, New Zealanders, Irish, and American !   ::smthg:: 


 ::=|Q::   IF I had my way the groups of "illegal migrants" that I would most eagerly be targeting and sending back home are those hundreds of thieving scumbag "Irish and English Gypo' Traveller" conmen who migrate down here every southern Summer, and then systematically proceed to scam, bully, threaten and rob thousands of victims over the next half year. LAST week some of the latest mongrel "Irish Traveller" gangs were openly abusing and threatening and attempting to stand over Aussie residents in some of the towns they are currently hitting..   ::slap::

Beekeeper wrote:  

Currently, the UNHCR collects statistics for several population categories collectively referred to as ‘persons of concern’. The categories in the annual UNHCR report, Global Trends, include:

Refugees: individuals recognized under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; its 1967 Protocol; the 1969 Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa; those recognized in accordance with the UNHCR Statute; individuals granted complementary forms of protection; or, those enjoying ‘temporary protection’. The refugee population includes people in a refugee-like situation.

Asylum-seekers: individuals who have sought international protection and whose claims for refugee status have not yet been determined. Those covered [by the UNHCR] refer to claimants whose individual applications are pending, irrespective of when they may have been lodged.

Internally displaced persons: people or groups of individuals who have been forced to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of, or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural- or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an international border.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/BoatArrivals

 ::resmahauth:: 

And over 90% of individual arriving by boat are determined to be genuine refugees, after spending years in mandatory detention       
Face it Bee in this case our nations actions and attitudes are indefensible      

We could resettle a lot more in we invested in Building a City in the desert (of course the Aboriginals would lose some more land   ) if Americans can build Los Vegas I don't see why we cant build something similar, But we couldn't pay for it with whores and gambling as they are legal in most of Australia   

Maybe if we rob Gina          

veya_victaous wrote:

And over 90% of individual arriving by boat are determined to be genuine refugees, after spending years in mandatory detention       

Face it Bee in this case our nations actions and attitudes are indefensible      

 

AND have you ever seen me attempt to deny or sidestep that plain and obvious fact, anywhere ???

NO.. Never, no how, no way !    

veya_victaous wrote:
We could resettle a lot more in we invested in Building a City in the desert (of course the Aboriginals would lose some more land   ) if Americans can build Los Vegas I don't see why we cant build something similar, But we couldn't pay for it with whores and gambling as they are legal in most of Australia   

Maybe if we rob Gina          

  

I WOULDN"T be surprised if Gina R' actually supported such a scheme ~ as that refugee intake could supply her with a ready "low cost" workforce for some of those mining areas north of the Kimberleys where she wants an "autonomous, low tax, low regulation, economic zone" to help develop some of her leased Iron Ore deposits...

WHERE no government wanted to touch her previous fascist-oriented schemes, maybe putting such a "refugee settlement" twist onto such plans could sweeten things up ==> solve the Fed's refugee and Foreign Aid headache, make more profit for Reinhart, and more royalties for the WA government (and the Aboriginal land owners could also be compensated via rents and licenses..).   :::grouch::

@bee
Much more fun to rob her though  

Beekeeper wrote:TO BE FAIR, it was Drinky ("Clarkson") who started using the name "Donk" way back in the ADO days !!!

Anybody else who may have used it since then has simply taking their lead from Drinky..

Unfortunately for Drinky, he STILL doesn't seem to be willing to accept that he has NO idea of even what to word means over here.. Much like his constant misuse of political and economic terms.

SO he sounds like even more of an ignoramus than usual whenever he falls back on using the Aussie slang term for "motor or engine" in an attempt to somehow insult me..


SHADY didn't start the use of the mis-used word "donk" ~ that's ALL down to poor old silly Drinky !     

Good evening Beekeeper.

Thank you for that & it was very gracious of you to point out the truth to Quill.Besides,I'd never heard of the word donk before.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Beekeeper.

While I appreciate that you & me got off to a bad start on ADO,I would have thought that by now you would be able to put our past differences behind us especially now that you realize that Sassy is not the leading light that you thought she was.

If you try debating instead of having a go at me,you will receive a reciprocal response.

Just try & speak to me instead of at me & I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised.

Kind regards,Shady.

Right, I believe it started over here with your calling Bee, Donk.  That's putting it behind you, eh?  What mensch, shady.  Admit it, you're too frightened to go head-to-head with Bee.

Good evening Quill.

Look before you leap.

Why would I be scared of a guy who is thousands of miles away from me?

I have no desire to go head to head with anyone.

You're comments are straight out of the school playground.

I do quite like you & you are quite a good poster.

Those shoes you're wearing are so 1970s.

You need a haircut.

Restrict your apology to one line.

Ben_Reilly wrote:A society of decent people helps others in dire need. A society of selfish pigs acts like ... selfish pigs. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

Good evening Ben.

Oh do stop being so melo-dramatic & calm down darling.We in the UK are in dire need of a good government,a good leader & some good ideas.

Just because a large chunk of decent hard working Brits want a stop to mass migration doesn't make us selfish pigs.Nor does it make us racist bigots.

Think about what you are saying.Ben I've noticed something about you......You're too irrational.

veya_victaous wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Veya.

That stance is all pretty good in theory but in the real world it doesn't work like that.

Just look at what has happened to us in the UK.

The very nature & fabric of our society has been changed & is changing further.Do you really want the whole Australian culture to be changed? If you do,then that's fair enough.But do you want a mosque plonked on Bondi beach?.......Now I suppose you're going to tell me there's one there already.

@shady
we have twice as many Immigrints as the UK already???? Your Point is NOT valid.
You could use Us as an example of making it work.

Ohh and Not on Bondi beach but about 4 to 5kms closer to the city centre


And Bondi Is a really bad example, Bondi is Backpacker Culture NOT Aussie Culture, we don't swim there that is where the sewerage is pumped out           Tourists ONLY


And As we are changing FROM the Anglo Culture to our own Multiculture YES it is the BEST thing to ever happen to this nation. Everything is better now we have dozens of cultures working and living together in the towards the Same goal of making Australia great. The Very small minority that come here and think it was better where they came from get told to 'fuck off back then' by their own communities.

Good evening Veya.

Veya I've got to admit that I've read your reply 4 times & I don't understand what you are talking about.Neither do you.

Your very first sentence......@shady
we have twice as many Immigrints as the UK already???? Your Point is NOT valid.........

How can my point be invalid?.....The population of Australia is nowhere near as high as the UKs.....Nowhere near it.And again the size of your country & it's natural resources are vastly greater than ours.

Australia can absorb these migrants.....for now.The UK is virtually full.

Perhaps you'd like to reassess your reply?

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:A society of decent people helps others in dire need. A society of selfish pigs acts like ... selfish pigs. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

Good evening Ben.

Oh do stop being so melo-dramatic & calm down darling.We in the UK are in dire need of a good government,a good leader & some good ideas.

Just because a large chunk of decent hard working Brits want a stop to mass migration doesn't make us selfish pigs.Nor does it make us racist bigots.

Think about what you are saying.Ben I've noticed something about you......You're too irrational.

Not melodramatic, or irrational, just a statement of fundamental values that I felt was needed. Taking care of each other should be our top priority, and as I noted later, that comes in many forms.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good evening Ben.

Oh do stop being so melo-dramatic & calm down darling.We in the UK are in dire need of a good government,a good leader & some good ideas.

Just because a large chunk of decent hard working Brits want a stop to mass migration doesn't make us selfish pigs.Nor does it make us racist bigots.

Think about what you are saying.Ben I've noticed something about you......You're too irrational.

Not melodramatic, or irrational, just a statement of fundamental values that I felt was needed. Taking care of each other should be our top priority, and as I noted later, that comes in many forms.

Ok, so if a few of us from Europe feel the need to relocate can we come and stay at your house indefinately and I'm sure you won't mind if we rearrange the furniture ------

Vintage wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good evening Ben.

Oh do stop being so melo-dramatic & calm down darling.We in the UK are in dire need of a good government,a good leader & some good ideas.

Just because a large chunk of decent hard working Brits want a stop to mass migration doesn't make us selfish pigs.Nor does it make us racist bigots.

Think about what you are saying.Ben I've noticed something about you......You're too irrational.

Not melodramatic, or irrational, just a statement of fundamental values that I felt was needed. Taking care of each other should be our top priority, and as I noted later, that comes in many forms.

Ok, so if a few of us from Europe feel the need to relocate can we come and stay at your house indefinately and I'm sure you won't mind if we rearrange the furniture ------

Total false equivalency. Nobody from Australia has to open the doors to their houses and give up room to a group of people who are merely feeling the need to relocate. That's a very bad analogy.