http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 Gillard will be under so much pressure now i think her head will explode. YAY..
If you are referring to the 4000 bona fide refugees - no, they are still coming. No doubt the racists will be upset by this - but who cares about them? The four-year asylum swap deal, in which Malaysia would take 800 asylum seekers from Christmas Island in return for Australia accepting 4,000 refugees from Malaysia, was signed more than a month ago but almost immediately challenged by human rights lawyers. Since then a temporary injunction had put the transfer of asylum seekers on hold - and now the High Court has declared the injunction permanent. But it means it is likely Australia will still have to accept the 4,000 genuine refugees from Malaysia. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 It is a good result all round.
I've been browsing the comments on the Herald Sun website. Sounds like a lot of people would just walk past someone in need of assistance. What cruel people.
More costly and embarassing FAIL by the ALP government. Good they are swolling their own hairy spin by getting back to intelligent policy like what was being done under Howard
That would be 4,000 people deemed to be genuine refugees. Freeloaders? Good grief, that's the Aussie spirit. Must be another Joneserism. I suggest you get in touch with the UNHCR and tell them that refugees are free loaders. Imagine the reception you'll get from them. Your attitude is appalling.
I like how we care about a handful of boat people but no one seems to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the 90%+ of illegal immigrants who arrive by plane on a tourist visa and never leave.
THe Howard policy would have exactly the same result. Nauru - Malaysi - same thing. Why do you comment when you are so clueless?
Part of the high court ruling states Malaysia is unable to protect asylum seekers as they have not signed to the UN convention to refugees. This means Australia is unable to send asylum seekers to their care. We may be protecting asylum seekers from physical harm by detention, but are we protecting the mental, social, or even spiritual wellbeing by detention. Are we also violating the rules of convention? Our approach to asylum seekers, both politically and socially has always been divided, but has never, in my opinion fulfilled the doctrine of the charter on the convention. The answer? de-sign from convention. And this may be the best solution. We could deal with countries directly and accept people deemed refugees by the UN through giving visas etc These people could be processed in those countries by australian staff for security risks etc after having been deemed refugees We would have no obligation to accept or process any asylum who landed in australia, arriving illegally would result in jail If boat asylum seekers are jailed, the boats will stop. We could significantly increase the number of refugees accepted NO more australian mandatory detention! Any thoughts on this hypothetical?
Why don't we send out transport ships to collect the refugees rather than just enticing them here and watching their boats sink? Isn't it cruel and inhumane to dangle the carrot and then not provide a safe means to get here? Why don't you sycophantic humanists sell your plasma's and give the moneys to some poor refugee family in Malaysia so they too can afford a ticket to paradise? C'mon what's more important, watching garbage television on a fancy TV or SAVING HUMAN LIVES! You people disgust me.
Yes we should de sign. Our cooperation in the UN convention is killing people and assisting illegal people smuggling operations. The UN convention is not appropriate to our unique place in the world and is counter productive to helping genuine refugees and protecting our borders from unsafe and illegal methods of entry. However by "de signing" from the convention would no doubt incur the wrath of the UN and hurt us politically, so it wont happen. We don't want to be the only developed country that isn't a signatory to the convention, might make us look a bit racist.
My friends are going nuts about this. They're all worried about the cost of more "illegals" arriving in Australia, as if the cost isn't from the Australian government locking them up on tax payer money in the middle of the desert for most of a decade. They're all worried about terrorists now sneaking in. Yeah, because terrorists sneak into other countries with the risk of being caught instead of very easily obtaining visas and arriving legally with no fuss and suspicion. I've been telling my friends all this for years but they seem to have fallen for the antirefugee hype from both sides of Australia's politics.
I'm not so sure they are the same thing. Nauru is a small island with a tiny economy, getting them to sign the convention with a bit of an incentive thrown in wouldn't be too much hassle.
That's because they are white, and probably Christian. People only hate them if they are Muslims and have weird colored skin.
The Australian Government should either accept them or reject them Maybe use the 40 million we give to Indonesia each year in overseas aid to help accept them....there is no half baked, half way house system for this world wide problem....very sad......
If we accept them there will be more who want to come here. There's virtually a never ending queue of asylum seekers who would love to call Australia home, about 40 million of them. We resettle about 13,000 each year, that means about 100,000 applications via the UNHCR program get rejected. You see, rejection is part of the refugee problem, it's a necessary evil. Once people get a grip on reality, that there's no "nice" way of dealing with asylum seekers, then progress may finally be made. All this pretend love for refugees is making me sick.
Only a very simple person would see it that way. No doubt some do, but the complexities of this problem, those that transcend religion and "weird skin colour" are obviously beyond your facile understanding.
What do you want answered? If Nauru signed the convention it would be nothing like the situation with Malaysia. Its not that difficult to read my post or are you 2 guys sore I beat yaz on another thread I'll admit Im clueless about a few things so I dont take it as much of an insult.
If I railed against refugees, called them free loaders as another poster did... if I said divisive mean things about refugees as others on this forum have... would that be less disgusting for you? I find it curious you have no truck with anyone being derogatory towards refugees. You don't find that disgusting... But anyone showing any positive regard towards refugees... well, that disgusts you. Why are you attacking people for these reasons? Why are those with a positive regard for refugees more digusting to you than those that have a revolting, mean-spirited regard for refugees? Amazing where your focus and attention flys. It flys towards wanting to attack anyone that shows any positive regard for refugees.
Labor's solution: change the law, which will only not pass if the Libs want a political victory in the longer term while Labor continues to struggle with it. I wonder if the altered law will meet our obligations under international law.
