Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[simple1]

Great, don't know how to post video links, do you mind posting the links for the rest of the doco? cannot recall the detail & would be very interested to view again...

Thanks...

This has Naught to do with the OP ... Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

Since none of the rufergess originated from Papua New Genuina ... I won't be watching.

Once again we disagree. The documentary contributes to the Australian publics' understanding of some of the drivers for asylum seekers/refugees decisions and perhaps would no longer support the harsh PNG policy. I guess your comment on refugees originating from PNG was a typo

In the program above ... "I guess your comment on refugees originating from PNG was a typo" ... did any of the refugees originate from PNG?

If not ... it has naught to do with the OP.

It has everything to do with the greater question relating to Global and Australian Refugees programs ... granted ... 100% ... but related to relocating illegal boat arrivals to PNG ... NO ... 100%

Remembering that we are replying to the OP ... not either your or my personal beliefs on what should be done with the refugees that present themselves on Australian shores.

No idea what you're talking about, who referred to refugees originating from PNG or are you talking about the potential future prospect of a change in policy of refugees sent to PNG to be be resettled in Australia?

In commenting on the OP it has everything to do with arrivals trying enter Australian territory by sea and individual opinions on policy right or wrongs of the PNG Solution to deal with this issue.

[David48]

^^ ... OK ... I'll try and be simple for you.

The post was this ...

It's a great insight what the current crop of Referees who have faced in their country of birth before paying their fare of $10,000 and burn their documents to take their perilous sea cruise to Australia (with Australian Customs and the Australian Navy on speed dial ... even calling them from within Indonesian territorial waters) ... but it has naught to do with the OP ... which is about "australia-to-send-refugees-to-papua-new-guinea"

Can I be more simple?

[thaibeachlovers]

There's no such thing as "democracy" in the world, only the dictatorship of the powerful.

If they want to take my tax money to support them, they'd dam_n well better integrate, or they can go back to their own country.

So by that logic...

As soon as they have a job and pay tax they can then do whatever they want?

I have to accept reality and agree with you, providing they abide by the law of the land. However, as for the many that do not pay tax, they'd better integrate.

[simple1]

^^ ... OK ... I'll try and be simple for you.

The post was this ...

It's a great insight what the current crop of Referees who have faced in their country of birth before paying their fare of $10,000 and burn their documents to take their perilous sea cruise to Australia (with Australian Customs and the Australian Navy on speed dial ... even calling them from within Indonesian territorial waters) ... but it has naught to do with the OP ... which is about "australia-to-send-refugees-to-papua-new-guinea"

Can I be more simple?

Now you're just being childish by repeating 'simple'. Is it too difficult to comprehend the nexus of antagonism of many Australians towards the 'boat people', without understanding the conditions faced by refugees, which drives populist political decisions as in the OP; this is the correlation of referring to the documentary.

I believe within this topic & others it has been made factually clear on why monies are paid to people traffickers, destruction of ID and rescue by Oz naval assets within Indonesian waters.

For the future it is best for the two of us to ignore each others post on the matter of asylum seekers & refugees as it is obvious we are not going to change either of our views, even though I am right minded and you're incorrect!

[chooka]

So has Tony totally dried up all the boats or is it now very top secret and hush hush. I haven't heard of a boat arriving for months so PNG must be scaring them off.

[Will27]

^^ ... OK ... I'll try and be simple for you.

The post was this ...

It's a great insight what the current crop of Referees who have faced in their country of birth before paying their fare of $10,000 and burn their documents to take their perilous sea cruise to Australia (with Australian Customs and the Australian Navy on speed dial ... even calling them from within Indonesian territorial waters) ... but it has naught to do with the OP ... which is about "australia-to-send-refugees-to-papua-new-guinea"

Can I be more simple?

Now you're just being childish by repeating 'simple'. Is it too difficult to comprehend the nexus of antagonism of many Australians towards the 'boat people', without understanding the conditions faced by refugees, which drives populist political decisions as in the OP; this is the correlation of referring to the documentary.

I believe within this topic & others it has been made factually clear on why monies are paid to people traffickers, destruction of ID and rescue by Oz naval assets within Indonesian waters.

For the future it is best for the two of us to ignore each others post on the matter of asylum seekers & refugees as it is obvious we are not going to change either of our views, even though I am right minded and you're incorrect!

You have made it clear that in your opinion, the people smugglers tell the asylum seekers to destroy their documents.

That may be the case, but it doesn't fly with me.

Heck, even the Jews fleeing Germany realized the importance of trying to keep their ID documents.

Can you give one good reason why they would destroy their documents?

[Will27]

A Hard Act To Follow

A pregnant asylum seeker highlights border protection's borderline facts.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-hard-fact-to-follow-20131116-2xn65.html

I can't help but feel Morrison is digging a hole for himself with a lack of transparency.

[simple1]

^^ ... OK ... I'll try and be simple for you.

The post was this ...

It's a great insight what the current crop of Referees who have faced in their country of birth before paying their fare of $10,000 and burn their documents to take their perilous sea cruise to Australia (with Australian Customs and the Australian Navy on speed dial ... even calling them from within Indonesian territorial waters) ... but it has naught to do with the OP ... which is about "australia-to-send-refugees-to-papua-new-guinea"

Can I be more simple?

Now you're just being childish by repeating 'simple'. Is it too difficult to comprehend the nexus of antagonism of many Australians towards the 'boat people', without understanding the conditions faced by refugees, which drives populist political decisions as in the OP; this is the correlation of referring to the documentary.

I believe within this topic & others it has been made factually clear on why monies are paid to people traffickers, destruction of ID and rescue by Oz naval assets within Indonesian waters.

For the future it is best for the two of us to ignore each others post on the matter of asylum seekers & refugees as it is obvious we are not going to change either of our views, even though I am right minded and you're incorrect!

You have made it clear that in your opinion, the people smugglers tell the asylum seekers to destroy their documents.

That may be the case, but it doesn't fly with me.

Heck, even the Jews fleeing Germany realized the importance of trying to keep their ID documents. Can you give one good reason why they would destroy their documents?

Various reasons have been put foward by government, UNHCR and refugee advocate organisations on this phenomena.

It is illogical to destroy ID as all asylum seekers go through the same process of verification to determine their refugee status. As you know asylum seekers can be detained for lengthy periods while being identified and assessed. In 2011 the average stay in detention centres for verification & assessment was 316 days.

[BookMan]

A Hard Act To Follow

A pregnant asylum seeker highlights border protection's borderline facts.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-hard-fact-to-follow-20131116-2xn65.html

I can't help but feel Morrison is digging a hole for himself with a lack of transparency.

I agree. There is no need for all this secrecy.

The covering up of information is pointless and merely focuses the spotlight back on to the subject.

As one of half a dozen central campaigning platforms of the last election there is obviously public interest in the 'boat people arrivals' drama that is being played out.

The public should not be denied access to the facts of # of arrivals, # of boats, # of returnees (pick whatever category you want). If Morrison insists on fronting the media conferences at least don;t make a mockery of the process.

With the pregnant woman, it seems as if he was splitting hairs. He could have said 'It was thought she was pregnant with twins, but further tests showed she had a single pregnancy'.

[BookMan]

So has Tony totally dried up all the boats or is it now very top secret and hush hush. I haven't heard of a boat arriving for months so PNG must be scaring them off.

Here is a good link chooka...most arrivals appear to be being sent to Christmas Island and Manus Island

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/log-of-boat-arrivals-and-other-asylum-seeker-incidents/5014496

[simple1]

So has Tony totally dried up all the boats or is it now very top secret and hush hush. I haven't heard of a boat arriving for months so PNG must be scaring them off.

Here is a good link chooka...most arrivals appear to be being sent to Christmas Island and Manus Island

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/log-of-boat-arrivals-and-other-asylum-seeker-incidents/5014496

Can anyone shed light on what happens to the Indonesian boat crews?

[BookMan]

So has Tony totally dried up all the boats or is it now very top secret and hush hush. I haven't heard of a boat arriving for months so PNG must be scaring them off.

Here is a good link chooka...most arrivals appear to be being sent to Christmas Island and Manus Island

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/log-of-boat-arrivals-and-other-asylum-seeker-incidents/5014496

Can anyone shed light on what happens to the Indonesian boat crews?

My understanding is they are arrested, jailed, convicted/or not, deported back to Indonesia

"A GROUP of Australian lawyers is preparing to sue the federal government on behalf of as many as 48 Indonesian youths who were held in adult prisons after being arrested for crewing asylum boats.

The action has the support of Indonesia's human rights commission, Komnas HAM, the child protection commission and House of Representatives commission responsible for foreign affairs and defence. The planned civil action will seek compensation, so far unspecified, and a formal apology from the Australian government to the 48 youngsters. They were identified by an Australian Human Rights Commission report last July as having been aged under 18 yet charged and then held in adult prisons for an average of more than six months before being released without conviction."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/boat-crew-youths-to-sue-over-prison/story-fn9hm1gu-1226559629822#

[BookMan]

Boat crew 'getting rich on jail pay'

MANDATORY sentencing -- a key element of Labor's policy to deter asylum boats -- is having the opposite effect, encouraging Indonesian crew attracted by Australia's relatively high prison pay.

Lawyer and former diplomat Anthony Sheldon says jailed crew members can make $20 a day in Australian jails, in his submission to the Gillard government's expert panel on asylum-seekers.

The submission coincides with the 89th asylum boat's arrival at the weekend, a large vessel carrying 144 passengers arrested northeast of Christmas Island.

This brings to 6107 the total of asylum-seekers detained this year, including more than 164 crew, mostly Indonesian.

In a five-page submission, Mr Sheldon, a fluent Indonesian speaker and former diplomatic attache, testifies to having worked in Indonesia "on issues of people-smuggling and illegal fishing".

The threat of imprisonment in Australia serves as no deterrent for Indonesian boat crew, he says.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/boat-crew-getting-rich-on-jail-pay/story-fn9hm1gu-1226432236632#

[Will27]

So has Tony totally dried up all the boats or is it now very top secret and hush hush. I haven't heard of a boat arriving for months so PNG must be scaring them off.

Here is a good link chooka...most arrivals appear to be being sent to Christmas Island and Manus Island

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-25/log-of-boat-arrivals-and-other-asylum-seeker-incidents/5014496

Can anyone shed light on what happens to the Indonesian boat crews?

The captain and repeat offenders are often charged.

But the vast majority (crew) are just sent back home ASAP as it's cost effective.

[chuckd]

This is my first, and likely only, post on this thread. As an American, what the Aussies do with their illegal immigrants is none of my business and has absolutely not one ounce of impact on my life...but I do have a question.

I recall a thread a few months ago citing how crime ridden Papua New Guinea is and the obvious threat to life there.

Link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/649252-four-chinese-nationals-butchered-in-papua-new-guinea/?p=6549596&hl=%2Bpapua+%2Bnew+%2Bguinea+%2Bcrime

My question is, if the Australian government was so concerned about the welfare of the illegal immigrants, why are they sending them to a place that might be injurious to their health?

Am I missing something here?

Edit for clarification.

[simple1]

This is my first, and likely only, post on this thread. As an American, what the Aussies do with their illegal immigrants is none of my business and has absolutely not one ounce of impact on my life...but I do have a question.

I recall a thread a few months ago citing how crime ridden Papua New Guinea is and the obvious threat to life there.

Link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/649252-four-chinese-nationals-butchered-in-papua-new-guinea/?p=6549596&hl=%2Bpapua+%2Bnew+%2Bguinea+%2Bcrime

My question is, if the Australian government was so concerned about the welfare of the illegal immigrants, why are they sending them to a place that might be injurious to their health? Am I missing something here?

Edit for clarification.

Australia is the only country in the world that utilises offshore processing for asylum seekers/refugees as a deterent for those trying to access sovereign territory by sea. Those that are now being transferred to Manus Island, PNG will be held in detention camps, until their claims and security status have been assessed. Currently, if vetted as genuine refugees, they will never be permitted to enter Australian territory, so will have to decide whether to stay in PNG; not a good option. If they decline I assume they would remain in detention in PNG until UNHCR can faciliate settlement in an alternative country, a process that can take many years. In summary the policy is an effort to deter asylum seekers/refugees from trying to enter Australia by sea. Some will say 'who cares', but the policy has been condemned by UNHCR as well as refugee / human rights advocates.

[samran]

@will27

Interesting that you raise the Jews and their plight in the lead up to the holocaust.

One of the reasons we have the refugee convention is for the very fact Jews were turned away and sent back to their deaths. The convention was established so that this never happens again, so that people can arrived unannounced and request asylum.

The famous story of the SS St Louis, which was turned back from Cuba, Canada and the US, sending many back to their deaths.

[thaibeachlovers]

This is my first, and likely only, post on this thread. As an American, what the Aussies do with their illegal immigrants is none of my business and has absolutely not one ounce of impact on my life...but I do have a question.

I recall a thread a few months ago citing how crime ridden Papua New Guinea is and the obvious threat to life there.

Link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/649252-four-chinese-nationals-butchered-in-papua-new-guinea/?p=6549596&hl=%2Bpapua+%2Bnew+%2Bguinea+%2Bcrime

My question is, if the Australian government was so concerned about the welfare of the illegal immigrants, why are they sending them to a place that might be injurious to their health? Am I missing something here?

Edit for clarification.

Australia is the only country in the world that utilises offshore processing for asylum seekers/refugees as a deterent for those trying to access sovereign territory by sea. Those that are now being transferred to Manus Island, PNG will be held in detention camps, until their claims and security status have been assessed. Currently, if vetted as genuine refugees, they will never be permitted to enter Australian territory, so will have to decide whether to stay in PNG; not a good option. If they decline I assume they would remain in detention in PNG until UNHCR can faciliate settlement in an alternative country, a process that can take many years. In summary the policy is an effort to deter asylum seekers/refugees from trying to enter Australia by sea. Some will say 'who cares', but the policy has been condemned by UNHCR as well as refugee / human rights advocates.

While I understand the objections to the scheme, if the illegals didn't come by boat, they wouldn't be going to PNG, so it's self inflicted. No doubt their calculation is that the bleeding hearts will force the government to capitulate and let them in to suck off the Oz taxpayer's teat.

It is obvious that none of the bleeding heart liberals have any idea as to how to stop illegals arriving by boat other than by letting all 70 million refugees in unimpeded.

[simple1]

This is my first, and likely only, post on this thread. As an American, what the Aussies do with their illegal immigrants is none of my business and has absolutely not one ounce of impact on my life...but I do have a question.

I recall a thread a few months ago citing how crime ridden Papua New Guinea is and the obvious threat to life there.

Link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/649252-four-chinese-nationals-butchered-in-papua-new-guinea/?p=6549596&hl=%2Bpapua+%2Bnew+%2Bguinea+%2Bcrime

My question is, if the Australian government was so concerned about the welfare of the illegal immigrants, why are they sending them to a place that might be injurious to their health? Am I missing something here?

Edit for clarification.

Australia is the only country in the world that utilises offshore processing for asylum seekers/refugees as a deterent for those trying to access sovereign territory by sea. Those that are now being transferred to Manus Island, PNG will be held in detention camps, until their claims and security status have been assessed. Currently, if vetted as genuine refugees, they will never be permitted to enter Australian territory, so will have to decide whether to stay in PNG; not a good option. If they decline I assume they would remain in detention in PNG until UNHCR can faciliate settlement in an alternative country, a process that can take many years. In summary the policy is an effort to deter asylum seekers/refugees from trying to enter Australia by sea. Some will say 'who cares', but the policy has been condemned by UNHCR as well as refugee / human rights advocates.

While I understand the objections to the scheme, if the illegals didn't come by boat, they wouldn't be going to PNG, so it's self inflicted. No doubt their calculation is that the bleeding hearts will force the government to capitulate and let them in to suck off the Oz taxpayer's teat.

It is obvious that none of the bleeding heart liberals have any idea as to how to stop illegals arriving by boat other than by letting all 70 million refugees in unimpeded.

Some facts...

In 2011-12 14,415 people applied for a visa under the onshore program. Half of them (7,041) was granted asylum.

Almost half of the 14,415 people who applied for a visa under the onshore component had arrived in Australia by plane (7,036), while 7,379 had arrived by boat. Under the onshore component, most visas went to people who arrived by boat (4,766), an increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, 2,272 visas were granted to people who arrived by plane.

More details at:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/07/22/asylum-seekers-where-australia-stands

Don't know where you got the 70 million refugee number, another figure is approx 40 million worldwide with 30 million plus IDP. I guess these figures have increased dramatically during 2012/2013 due to the civil war in Syria. Interesting that the country with the largest IDP number is Colombia with around 5 million.

[Will27]

@will27

Interesting that you raise the Jews and their plight in the lead up to the holocaust.

One of the reasons we have the refugee convention is for the very fact Jews were turned away and sent back to their deaths. The convention was established so that this never happens again, so that people can arrived unannounced and request asylum.

The famous story of the SS St Louis, which was turned back from Cuba, Canada and the US, sending many back to their deaths.

Yep

I remember watching a good documentary on it.

I found it interesting that they were so adamant in trying to retain their identity documents.

I think one of the main reasons the asylum seekers destroy their passports now is because

a lot of them are fraudulent.

[thaibeachlovers]

This is my first, and likely only, post on this thread. As an American, what the Aussies do with their illegal immigrants is none of my business and has absolutely not one ounce of impact on my life...but I do have a question.

I recall a thread a few months ago citing how crime ridden Papua New Guinea is and the obvious threat to life there.

Link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/649252-four-chinese-nationals-butchered-in-papua-new-guinea/?p=6549596&hl=%2Bpapua+%2Bnew+%2Bguinea+%2Bcrime

My question is, if the Australian government was so concerned about the welfare of the illegal immigrants, why are they sending them to a place that might be injurious to their health? Am I missing something here?

Edit for clarification.

Australia is the only country in the world that utilises offshore processing for asylum seekers/refugees as a deterent for those trying to access sovereign territory by sea. Those that are now being transferred to Manus Island, PNG will be held in detention camps, until their claims and security status have been assessed. Currently, if vetted as genuine refugees, they will never be permitted to enter Australian territory, so will have to decide whether to stay in PNG; not a good option. If they decline I assume they would remain in detention in PNG until UNHCR can faciliate settlement in an alternative country, a process that can take many years. In summary the policy is an effort to deter asylum seekers/refugees from trying to enter Australia by sea. Some will say 'who cares', but the policy has been condemned by UNHCR as well as refugee / human rights advocates.

While I understand the objections to the scheme, if the illegals didn't come by boat, they wouldn't be going to PNG, so it's self inflicted. No doubt their calculation is that the bleeding hearts will force the government to capitulate and let them in to suck off the Oz taxpayer's teat.

It is obvious that none of the bleeding heart liberals have any idea as to how to stop illegals arriving by boat other than by letting all 70 million refugees in unimpeded.

Some facts...

In 2011-12 14,415 people applied for a visa under the onshore program. Half of them (7,041) was granted asylum.

Almost half of the 14,415 people who applied for a visa under the onshore component had arrived in Australia by plane (7,036), while 7,379 had arrived by boat. Under the onshore component, most visas went to people who arrived by boat (4,766), an increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, 2,272 visas were granted to people who arrived by plane.

More details at:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/07/22/asylum-seekers-where-australia-stands

Don't know where you got the 70 million refugee number, another figure is approx 40 million worldwide with 30 million plus IDP. I guess these figures have increased dramatically during 2012/2013 due to the civil war in Syria. Interesting that the country with the largest IDP number is Colombia with around 5 million.

70 million is a figure quoted on ABC. I have no idea if it, or your 40 million is the correct number, but anything over 500,000 (total ) would probably be impossible to assimilate into Australia so it's just an impossibly large number of people that liberals want to bring into Oz.

I feel sorry for anyone that says on Q & A that they don't want every refugee in the world to move into Oz, given the overwhelmingly hostile response they get from the audiences. They must screen the audience to ensure that only the bleeding hearts get in!

[Will27]

This is my first, and likely only, post on this thread. As an American, what the Aussies do with their illegal immigrants is none of my business and has absolutely not one ounce of impact on my life...but I do have a question.

I recall a thread a few months ago citing how crime ridden Papua New Guinea is and the obvious threat to life there.

Link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/649252-four-chinese-nationals-butchered-in-papua-new-guinea/?p=6549596&hl=%2Bpapua+%2Bnew+%2Bguinea+%2Bcrime

My question is, if the Australian government was so concerned about the welfare of the illegal immigrants, why are they sending them to a place that might be injurious to their health? Am I missing something here?

Edit for clarification.

Australia is the only country in the world that utilises offshore processing for asylum seekers/refugees as a deterent for those trying to access sovereign territory by sea. Those that are now being transferred to Manus Island, PNG will be held in detention camps, until their claims and security status have been assessed. Currently, if vetted as genuine refugees, they will never be permitted to enter Australian territory, so will have to decide whether to stay in PNG; not a good option. If they decline I assume they would remain in detention in PNG until UNHCR can faciliate settlement in an alternative country, a process that can take many years. In summary the policy is an effort to deter asylum seekers/refugees from trying to enter Australia by sea. Some will say 'who cares', but the policy has been condemned by UNHCR as well as refugee / human rights advocates.

While I understand the objections to the scheme, if the illegals didn't come by boat, they wouldn't be going to PNG, so it's self inflicted. No doubt their calculation is that the bleeding hearts will force the government to capitulate and let them in to suck off the Oz taxpayer's teat.

It is obvious that none of the bleeding heart liberals have any idea as to how to stop illegals arriving by boat other than by letting all 70 million refugees in unimpeded.

Some facts...

In 2011-12 14,415 people applied for a visa under the onshore program. Half of them (7,041) was granted asylum.

Almost half of the 14,415 people who applied for a visa under the onshore component had arrived in Australia by plane (7,036), while 7,379 had arrived by boat. Under the onshore component, most visas went to people who arrived by boat (4,766), an increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, 2,272 visas were granted to people who arrived by plane.

More details at:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/07/22/asylum-seekers-where-australia-stands

Don't know where you got the 70 million refugee number, another figure is approx 40 million worldwide with 30 million plus IDP. I guess these figures have increased dramatically during 2012/2013 due to the civil war in Syria. Interesting that the country with the largest IDP number is Colombia with around 5 million.

The stats you quote regarding arrivals by air can be misleading.

The stat is not just from people arriving at the airport and claiming asylum.

It also includes students (mainly from China) who arrive on student visa's and somewhere

along the track, for various reasons like they're failing their studies or have had their visa cancelled,

then aim to buy themselves more time by claiming asylum.

That's also why there is a greater percentage of boat arrivals granted visa's compared to arrivals

by plane. The ones by boat are usually found to be more genuine than failed students.

[Sing_Sling]

Australia is the only country in the world that utilises offshore processing for asylum seekers/refugees as a deterent for those trying to access sovereign territory by sea. Those that are now being transferred to Manus Island, PNG will be held in detention camps, until their claims and security status have been assessed. Currently, if vetted as genuine refugees, they will never be permitted to enter Australian territory, so will have to decide whether to stay in PNG; not a good option. If they decline I assume they would remain in detention in PNG until UNHCR can faciliate settlement in an alternative country, a process that can take many years. In summary the policy is an effort to deter asylum seekers/refugees from trying to enter Australia by sea. Some will say 'who cares', but the policy has been condemned by UNHCR as well as refugee / human rights advocates.

While I understand the objections to the scheme, if the illegals didn't come by boat, they wouldn't be going to PNG, so it's self inflicted. No doubt their calculation is that the bleeding hearts will force the government to capitulate and let them in to suck off the Oz taxpayer's teat.

It is obvious that none of the bleeding heart liberals have any idea as to how to stop illegals arriving by boat other than by letting all 70 million refugees in unimpeded.

Some facts...

In 2011-12 14,415 people applied for a visa under the onshore program. Half of them (7,041) was granted asylum.

Almost half of the 14,415 people who applied for a visa under the onshore component had arrived in Australia by plane (7,036), while 7,379 had arrived by boat. Under the onshore component, most visas went to people who arrived by boat (4,766), an increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, 2,272 visas were granted to people who arrived by plane.

More details at:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/07/22/asylum-seekers-where-australia-stands

Don't know where you got the 70 million refugee number, another figure is approx 40 million worldwide with 30 million plus IDP. I guess these figures have increased dramatically during 2012/2013 due to the civil war in Syria. Interesting that the country with the largest IDP number is Colombia with around 5 million.

70 million is a figure quoted on ABC. I have no idea if it, or your 40 million is the correct number, but anything over 500,000 (total ) would probably be impossible to assimilate into Australia so it's just an impossibly large number of people that liberals want to bring into Oz.

I feel sorry for anyone that says on Q & A that they don't want every refugee in the world to move into Oz, given the overwhelmingly hostile response they get from the audiences. They must screen the audience to ensure that only the bleeding hearts get in!

"the bleeding heart liberals"

"letting all 70 million refugees in unimpeded."

"liberals"

"it's just an impossibly large number of people"

I'd be fascinated to know how you get the idea that 'liberals' want to bring 70 million refugees/immigrants into the country . . . but the more frequently you use that kind of terminology to try to make your point the less you do so.

[Sing_Sling]

There's no such thing as "democracy" in the world, only the dictatorship of the powerful.

If they want to take my tax money to support them, they'd dam_n well better integrate, or they can go back to their own country.

So by that logic...

As soon as they have a job and pay tax they can then do whatever they want?

I have to accept reality and agree with you, providing they abide by the law of the land. However, as for the many that do not pay tax, they'd better integrate.

So, if they pay tax they can do anything they want . . . and they don't need to speak English, move outside of Bankstown, DEMAND they get interpreter services wherever they are because THEY PAY TAX, DAMNIT!!! and generally.

Hang on . . . we have something called the GST . . . so anyone who spends any money, irrespective of where it comes from is quite in his/her right to do whatever they please.

Nice new world you have there

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Stick to the topic and not to personal remarks/comments/questions directed at other posters.

[simple1]

Just realised by post #531 "40 million worldwide with 30 million plus IDP" was poorly worded. Should have read 40 million worldwide, comprising roughly 10 million refugees, plus approx 30 million IDP (Internally Displaced Persons).

[David48]

So ... a little focus back to why the 'PNG' solution was enacted.

Because it because a political issue.

Aussies can smell BS from a mile kilometre away ...

So, tonight, the ABC had their 4 Corners program on the issue as they saw it.

4 Corners - Trading Misery

WARNING - This Program contains content with may disturb some Members here

Monday 18 November 2013

In September a boat carrying 72 asylum seekers sank in stormy waters off the coast of Indonesia. Most of the people onboard drowned, many of them children.

The majority of passengers came from Lebanon. They'd been persuaded to part with hundreds of thousands of dollars to go on a vessel they had been told was seaworthy and well equipped with food and safety equipment. They had been deceived.

First up ... absolute sadness for the victims here ... the many who died on that fateful boat trip.

But ... these people paid a little under $10,000 per person to undertake this journey.

These people are economic refugees ... not asylum seekers. One family paying almost $100,000 for their fateful trip.

Just some relevancy ... Lebanon, the country from which most of these people came from has a GDP of $15,900 Australia is about $43,000.

So, we are not talking about war torn poor people here ... we are talking about economic refugees.

Guys, I get absolutely no joy writing this, no jollies, no fun, no sense of self-righteousness, just a sense of sadness that they have paid, not money, but the ultimate sacrifice.

The facts are what they are.

.

[David48]

In a follow up from the above post ...

So, for the Businessmen, the Criminals who organise all this ... what's next?

People smugglers selling asylum seekers passports and visas for entry to Australia by plane ...

People smugglers are offering asylum seekers passports and Australian visas for entry to Australia by plane.

An investigation by the ABC's Four Corners program has revealed evidence that people smugglers are selling the travel documents for up to $16,000.

The passports and visas could enable asylum seekers to enter Australia via commercial airline flights rather than by fishing boats.

In a series of meetings in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur late last week, an Iraqi national known as Abu Tarek was secretly filmed offering the travel documents to potential customers.

"An Australian visa, everything is proper - genuine passport, genuine visa," Mr Tarek told them.

"They bring it straight from the embassy complete and you fly in your name."

He claimed one of his customers had recently entered Australia using a visa and a passport issued by the Gulf state of Bahrain, and had applied for asylum at an Australian airport.

people-smugglers-visas-asylum-seekers-passports-australia

So now, you have 'refugees' knowing buying fake Passports and Visas paying $16,000 for the deceit ...

Guys, please re-consider the argument that these are genuine refugees. They're not.

For everyone of these economic migrants who try and call Australia home, one less poor soul, stuck in a Refugee Camp somewhere around the world, most likely in Indonesia or Malaysia is denied that opportunity to call Australia the Lucky Country.

.

[samran]

Watched the four corners Dave, it was heart wrenching.

For me there is a line which must never be crossed. A genuine refugee must be able to turn up on Australian shores and be able to claim asylum.

That is not to say I support people smuggling and want people to get on boats.

What I oppose, and always have, is three word slogans as proposed solutions. It is a complex issue, and calls for complex and multifaceted solutions.

[simple1]

Within the first minutes of the Four Corners program the reporter visiting the village of the deceased and talks to the high level of violence in the area, kidnappings and the flow on effect of the sectarian proxy war in Syria. Don't know why this was not mentioned as a contributing driver, rather than solely commenting on the costs of doco/transportation and calling them all out as economic refugees.

Right now there is a major concern that Lebanon is heading towards another civil war, with Lebanese officials estimating there are 1.4 million Syrians in the country, including 800,000 registered refugees. Note that Lebanon is not a signatory to the UN convention for refugees and stateless persons, there is no viable legal framework or admin processes for assisting/protecting refugees or displaced persons.