Racehorse TALK

Well they can't send the boat people home the same way they got here because they usually burn their boats.

I enjoy the programme but some of the detainees play the dumb game to try and get off.  The asians tend to get caught a lot mainly for bringing in to the country things they like to eat or use for medicinal purposes. 

 Story in the CM about the latest arrivals and possible sabotage  of the boat.

Can't send them back on that .Bugger.

Vote option on Are we Tough Enough 


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25344698-952,00.html

Disagree with the thumbs down.  Isn't that the idea behind offering asylum, that people in certain circumstances need help for the sake of their lives, thus different treatment...

Unfortunately there's no black and white (ie. this bloke DOES need help, those 3 are just freeloaders etc.), and that's where the whole issue gets overwhelmed with political rhetoric and false ideology.

On a per capita basis, Australia's immigration and asylum levels are low.  That might be a good or a bad thing, depending on your view, but we are certainly not overwhelmed.

At that point the boat people are not 'illegals', they are asylum seekers. The people you refer to on the TV show are not asylum seekers and are assessed under a different criteria.

It's a pretty simple differentiation for those not looking on with prejudice.



From the Australian Human Rights Commission :

What are the human rights of asylum seekers and refugees?

Australia has an obligation to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of whether they arrive with or without a visa.

As a state party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that people who meet the definition of ‘refugee’ under the Convention are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement.

In addition, Australia has obligations not to return people who face a real risk of violation of their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (articles 6 and 7) and the Convention Against Torture (article 3), even if they do not meet the definition of refugee under the Refugee Convention. The Convention on the Rights of the Child also requires Australia to provide special protection to refugee children and children seeking asylum in Australia.

I thought this would start an argument .

The point in the original post was that  illegals if claiming to be  asylum seekers have rights even though they arrive in the back door often without proof of identity and  no visa.

If they are refused refugee status they have right of appeal with legal aid provided while their living needs are met by taxpayers.


Contrast that with  a traveller coming in the front door without a visa  who gets shown the door ,generally the same day.

No free board and lodging or appeal rights there.

It appears the reason most are refused entry is because it is suspected they will seek work or that they may overstay and become an illegal immigrant who if caught will be extradited.

Quite a difference .Sympathy and support for one but not the other.

Yes, it is not unusual for refugees to arrive in another country with little or no possessions including identification.

Under the law, you do not require them to be an asylum seeker.

Asylum seekers can apply for the protection of Australia either offshore (in another country) or onshore (from within Australia). Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive onshore without a valid visa must be detained while their claims for protection are being processed.


I'm not arguing, I'm just stating the facts.

The two groups are treated differently because the law says they should be treated differently.

I don't think most people have difficulty in seeing the difference.

The former has no capacity to support themselves.  More critically their life would be in peril if they returned to their former home.  So compassion is shown on humanitarian grounds.  This necessary compassion supersedes the otherwise strict entry laws we apply at traditional immigration points.

The latter does have the ability to support themselves and their life would not be in danger if they returned to their former home.  There are no grounds for compassion and thus no need for the strict entry laws to be eased.  Apply the law, send them home.

I think you're partially stirring Mr Arsenal...but as said earlier, it does get very grey in the middle and unfortunately many people choose to ignore the grey and just argue at one extreme or the other.  That's often fueled by the press and that's just not helpful to anyone.

Arsenal, they are not 'illegals' - they have not broken any law.

Thanks fellas ,just stating an opinion.

Interesting that Readers' survey on the CM article posted earlier shows almost evenly divided opinions .

The Yes vote 49% (That's the get tougher option)  to the No vote 50%

So at this stage Wenona and Bamboo and others of the same mind are slightly in front.

As usual I'm in the minority.

As all Arsenal supporters should be (COYS!).