Re: 2/8/05:AUST.GOVT.CONTINUED RACIST ASYLUM POLICY.
- From: The pragmatist. <None@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:09:26 +1000
Countries must exercise control over who enters and lives in that
country. The so called Asylum seekers are in many cases "Queue
jumpers" who were/are wanting to enter Australia ahead of those who
are awaiting processing after applying for visas correctly.
These so called political refugees/assylum seekers have bypassed many
countries to get to Australia therefore should best be termed
selective refugees. Had they been genuinely seeking Asylum they would
have been happy to stay at one of the countries to en route to
Australia.
The Queue jumpers were not told by Australian authorities that they
would easily gain entry into this country, if fact quite the opposite!
Why should we as a country admit people who arrived on our doorstep
when they were already aware that immediate entry would be highly
unlikely, particularly after passing through many safe havens.
The Tampa crew was told to return the queue jumpers to Indonesia from
where they came, however the crew was blackmailed with the suggestion
of a riot on board or self harm.
While some issues regarding the Australian Immigration policy my be
undesirable, I see very little condemnation for the people smugglers
who gained considerably financially by the movement of the queue
jumpers and in a number of cases utilized unseaworthy heavily over
loaded boats which drowned many.
While many Western countries may have over reacted to recent horrific
events, the fact that Australia is populated by folk who originated
fromr almost all countries of the world, therefore can hardly be
deamed racist simply because it refuses to allow anyone to enter and
reside without checks to ensure that they are who they say they are.
Sure Muslims are having some problems here now, but what do you expect
when immigrant Muslim clerics incite their followers to murder, rather
than encourage them to do something constructive for their adopted
country.
Maybe the fact that some new arrivals among us who espouse murder of
innocent citizens in the name of religion is maybe an indication that
our immigration system is already far too lenient.
Brad.
>[AddedNote: Having shunted Petro Georgiou's Asylum reform bill, the
>Australian Government continued its policy of excising certain
>territories for immigration purpose. Of course, such territorial
>excision has no weight in terms of UN Refugee Convention -- those who
>in these off-shore detention centers will be responsibility of the
>Government of Australia.
>
>Apart from this trivial fact, the government's offshore detention
>practice has been costing too much to the Australian tax payers. The
>offshore detention of asylum seekers from Tampa in 2001 alongwith few
>hundreds have costed $500 million. Considering all trauma for those
>detained, and then finally have to admitted these asylum seekers to
>Australia, one would just wonder whether there is any worth of these
>millions.
>
>The governments may necessarily initiate the so-called offshore asylum
>processing only when the number of displaced/refugee is large. In
>otherwords, the number of displaced are significant in terms of
>regional security. Australian government initiating such offshore
>solution is way out of step with international practice: It is a
>pathetic effort of sending message to those 'potential' asylum
>seekers.
>
>The reason refugee boats do not come to Australia is not because of
>the policy of mandatory detention nor that of the offshore processing.
>The incoming boats stopped because of the sinking of
>SIEV-X. Inexistence of any visible refugee crisis in the region may
>also be another factor. But don't hold your breath. Isn't there a
>saying -- Nobody can stop refugees when they have to come!!
>
>-- Regards, U Ne Oo.
>
>---------------
>
>
>29/07/2005. ABC News Online
>
>EXCISION OF TERRITORIES FOR ASYLUM PURPOSE CONTINUED
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1425269.htm
>
>Last Update: Friday, July 29, 2005. 9:56am (AEST)
>
>By Louise Yaxley for AM
>
>The Federal Government has used its Senate majority to excise
>thousands of islands from the Australian migration zone.
>
>The Government's earlier attempts to implement its long-standing
>policy had failed but the regulations to implement the policy were
>made last week.
>
>The regulations remove islands in the north of Western Australia,
>Queensland and the Northern Territory from the migration zone.
>
>The islands include tourist destinations Magnetic Island and Dunk
>Island in Queensland, as well as Groote Eylandt, the Tiwi Islands,
>Bathurst and Melville in the Northern Territory and Barrow Island in
>Western Australia.
>
>The Governor-General made the regulations on Thursday last week on the
>advice of Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone.
>
>The Government says excising the islands from the migration zone
>frustrates people smugglers and deters people from trying to reach the
>Australian migration zone by boat because they cannot make a valid
>visa application.
>
>Scathing
>
>Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett is a long-standing
>opponent of the policy.
>
>"What excising islands means is basically giving the Government the
>opportunity to deal with people completely outside of the realm of a
>Migration Act and we've seen over the last few months how appalling a
>job they do even when they're within the existing law," Senator
>Bartlett said.
>
>"Imagine how much more they go when they're completely outside the
>Act."
>
>In September 2001, the Labor Party voted with the Government to take
>Cocos Island, Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef and Cartier Reef out of
>the migration zone.
>
>But Labor has not agreed with four other bids to take more places out
>of the zone, meaning the Government has been unable to achieve its
>aims.
>
>Senator Bartlett is scathing about the Government's decision not the
>announce that it had taken the thousands of islands out of the
>migration zone.
>
>"No concern for due process, no concern for fairness or justice and
>it's the same old problems as before," he said.
>
>"It's another reminder of why we need proper reform of the whole
>Migration Act before we can really get cultural change in the
>migration area."
>
>Changed role
>
>Senator Bartlett says the new regulations are a clear demonstration of
>the Senate's changed role now the Government has a majority.
>
>"This is a clear example of the important role the Senate was able to
>play before, when the Democrats could protect the Australian public
>from things that were just bad in principle, bad laws, that was the
>role of the Senate," he said.
>
>"Obviously it's now a lot harder to rely on the Senate to stop bad law
>- bad in principle and bad in practice - and now we'll have to rely on
>a couple of government senators each time around to recognise that and
>cross the floor and that's always a big ask.
>
>"We'll certainly ask to disallow it again and try to put the pressure
>on at least some government senators to recognise that this is another
>step backwards to the bad old days in approach to migration issues -
>we'll just have to see what happens."
>
>There will be 15 sitting days for such an attempt to disallow the
>regulations.
>
>--------------------------------
>
>$320m for empty centre
>Date: July 29 2005
>By Jewel Topsfield
>
>A new immigration detention centre on Christmas Island will go ahead
>despite the Federal Government's decision to free the last asylum
>seekers there.
>
>Eleven Vietnamese nationals, including three children, will arrive in
>Perth this morning after two years on the remote island off
>Australia's west coast.
>
>But Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone's decision to use new
>ministerial intervention powers to grant temporary protection visas
>has raised questions about the future of the now deserted detention
>centre, with critics asking why the Government is spending more than
>$320 million to build a second, 800-bed facility on the island.
>
>Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett called for the project to be
>scrapped, while Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said he
>was baffled as to why it was continuing.
>
>But a spokeswoman for the Immigration Department said the new centre
>and the "mothballed" centre would remain as part of a contingency
>plan.
>
>"Even though the Government's policies have been successful in
>stemming the flow of unauthorised arrivals, the capacity needs to be
>available should the flow start again," she said. "The centre sends a
>clear message to people smugglers and those entering Australia
>illegally that they will not be successful."
>
>The 11 asylum seekers released today were the last of 53 Vietnamese
>who were detained after their fishing boat, the Hao Kiet, was detected
>in Australian waters off Port Hedland in July 2003. Refugee advocate
>Kaye Bernard said the decision meant that all 53 - members of two
>extended families - had now been granted visas despite being initially
>rejected by immigration officers.
>
>"This decision shows the processing of these people by DIMIA was 100
>per cent wrong and requires examination under the scrutiny of a royal
>commission," Ms Bernard said.
>
>"The whole sorry mess of two years of unnecessary detention for these
>Vietnamese kids and their families - costing in excess of $50 million
>- leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of many Australians."
>
>Australia's Vietnamese community welcomed the decision, saying the
>asylum seekers had been pro-democracy activists and would be harshly
>punished if returned to Vietnam.
>
>http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2
> 005/07/28/1122143961517.html
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Ttg fatwa haramnya MUI buat Ahmadiyah
- Next by Date: Re: Mohon pamit
- Previous by thread: Re: Bin Laden's "American Hiroshima"
- Next by thread: Si Yani mau belajar bahasa asing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
