The Federal Government has confirmed that 41 asylum seekers have been handed over to Sri Lankan authorities after being intercepted near the Cocos Islands.
It is believed that two boats were intercepted north-west of Australia in late June, but the Government was not confirming their existence.
However, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has now confirmed that one of the boats, intercepted west of the Cocos Islands, was carrying 37 Sinhalese and four Tamils from Sri Lanka.
A statement from the Immigration Minister says the 41 people on board were processed at sea and transferred to the Sri Lankan navy yesterday near Sri Lanka.
The Government says one of the Sinhalese may have a case for seeking asylum but opted to be handed back to Sri Lanka.
Well how is that? Now that these would be illegal immigrants have been handed back to the Sri Lankan navy I very much doubt that there will be a new flood of mendicants following their example and buying passage on a voyage of gilliaganesque proportions that takes them nowhere. To me the thing that I find most in interesting about this cohort is their ethnicity. Namely that the majority were not even Tamils they were Sinhalese which very neatly undermines the arguments form the open borders left who have been insisting that they are all Tamils. Frankly if ever there was proof that these are economic migrants then that is the clincher right there.
Isn’t it nice to see our government doing what it promised?
Predictably the minions of the left are making very big shows of compassion for the family (in INDIA) of Leo Seemanpiallai, and of course its right to show compassion for their loss however, if I may be so bold as to suggest that letting family members to enter this country to attend his funeral would be a very bad idea.
The likely hood is that any person that comes to attend this funeral will then try to stay and if that attempt succeeds then what is the bet that other Tamil illegal immigrants would be trying the same “trick”? OK I know that I am going to accused of being insensitive for making this suggestion but its something that does have to be said out aloud because its just so obvious that the bleeding hearts are going to try to wedge the government if any family members do make it here for a funeral.
Cynicism about chancers is not optional, its mandatory because we all know that no heart string will be left unpliucked no appeal for compassion will be left unmade and no condemnation for “cruelty” will be withheld when the inevitable and necessary government toughness is manifested. Just you wait and see how this plays out.
Sigh Comrades, a very big sigh indeed.
People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.
Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles. My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly. With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.
As I suggested the other day the government has easily found an adequate workaround to overcome the stunt pulled by the Greens and the ALP in moving to disallow TPVs in the senate:
The cap ordered yesterday has been set at the current number already issued this year – 1650 – meaning not a single new permanent residency visa will be granted until at least July when the cap will be reset.
This is also when the new Senate will be sworn in, stripping Labor and the Greens of their power to block legislation.
Mr Morrison has also used provisions under section 46 of the Migration Act – which apply to ministerial discretion to allow applications to be made by asylum seekers offshore – and has placed a self-imposed ban on allowing applications to be made for permanent protection visas.
All other humanitarian visa programs remain in place, such as those which apply for asylum seekers in UN-administered refugee camps overseas.
Mr Morrison said the effect of the Greens-led roadblock in the Senate – supported by Labor – would be asylum seekers in Australia would be denied any access to work rights or welfare payments other than what is allowed under the bridging visa program.
He said the move was necessary to ensure people smugglers did not use the Labor-Greens Senate alliance to “re-open the door to asylum seekers” as propaganda to encourage more people to get on boats.
He said the freeze on permanent protection visas would remain until the Senate changed its mind.
So all that the stunt will do is provide a small hiatus in the issuing of TPVs and in the mean time those who would qualify for them will suffer more. Good one Mr Shorten. of course this issue clearly begs the question “just how out of date is the UN convention?” and for those of us who have been suggesting for some time that the answer is a resounding “completely!”. Of course the minions of the left claim that the UN convention is wonderful and overflowing with fine principles about “protecting” vulnerable people and I will admit that the original intention was precisely that. However the passage of sixty odd years finds that the world is a vastly different place, in many ways its two worlds, there is the well governed old world countries that have both stability and relative prosperity and then there is the ill governed rabble that makes up the majority of the planet’s nation states. Sadly many of that rabble will never get their act together enough to provide the opportunities for their citizens that we can take for granted. Minions of the far left take the point of view that materially successful nations are required to feel guilty about those who live in dysfunctional societies and to subsequently supply them with either money or allow them to immigrate so that they can share the spoils of our good governance and our ordered society, the problem with this seemingly humane approach is just where to draw the line about just how generous we should be, Its clear to me that for the far left there should be no line at all which will lead to our nation being overwhelmed.
The history of immigration has largely been a success because the numbers have generally been held at the level that can easily be absorbed into our society the problem with the open borders left is that they are just too myopic to see the bigger picture and the possible consequences of the things that they advocate. That is fine when you are dealing with just one person but when that individual is but one of many thousands then we have a big problem.
Going out on a limb here I would suggest that if the Abbott government were to consider pulling out of the UN convention it would be done by providing a legislative instrument setting out the way that asylum-seekers would be treated. An instrument that enshrines in law that we offer temporary protection and that permanent residency would forever be out of the question. Likewise I would expect that those applicants who arrive without any form of documentation would generally be considered suspect. Now if this sort legal basis was enshrined in our law I tend to think that we would not be the only nation to get off the UN convention bandwagon. because we are certainly not the most put upon nation that has to deal with the mass migration from the third world.
In mediaeval Japan anyone who set foot on the shores of the land was subject to immediate beheading. We certainly do not want to get to that extreme but the more that western nations have a problem with an uncontrollable influx of the world’s poor the more brutal the methods to control the flow will surely become. This country , being an island, is better placed than either Europe or the US to have very effective border controls and it is the duty of our federal government to make-sure that those who come here are people that we choose, people who add to the whole rather than create a social problem but most importantly who can become Australians first and foremost rather than just living here.
- Visa decision will leave asylum seekers worse off, Scott Morrison says (oddonion.com)
- Immigration Minister freezes refugee visas (dailytelegraph.com.au)
- The Depths of Indecency (speakupforthose.wordpress.com)
- Morrison puts a cap on protection visas (news.theage.com.au)
- Abbott castigates Labor on TPVs (news.smh.com.au)
- Morrison puts permanent visas on hold (skynews.com.au)
- Senate quashes temporary visas (news.com.au)
- Senate quashes temporary visas (skynews.com.au)
- Morrison visa halt ‘brutal’: Labor, Greens (news.smh.com.au)
Those of us who are concerned about the issue of the endless stream of unauthorised arrivals of
asylum seekers illegal immigrants have long known that the most attractive carrot that draws them here is the easy route to getting permanent residency and the right to sponsor their family members once that get that desired migration outcome. I am not alone in being disgusted to discover that even those who have been convicted of the destruction of commonwealth property have thus far not been “bad enough” for the minister to refuse them a visa on “character grounds”. The fact that the Labor government has finally decided to “Toughen up” and change the law so that any offence will be enough to refuse residency is a good start. But the obvious question that comes to mind is why the hell has it taken the partial destruction of not one but two detention centres for them to act?
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said that if the laws were passed they would come into force from today and cover any troublemakers convicted over acts of violence and riots at Broadmeadows, Villawood and Christmas Island.
As protests continued at four detention centres around the country yesterday, Mr Bowen said: “These changes send a clear message to anyone considering engaging in unacceptable behaviour in immigration detention that this will only increase their chances of not being granted a visa.
“The Government believes the powers under the Migration Act can be strengthened to create a more significant disincentive for this sort of destructive behaviour.
This will apply to all people in immigration detention: onshore and offshore arrivals, asylum seekers, or otherwise,” he said.
Under the Migration Act, Mr Bowen already has the power to refuse visas, but it is easy for him to do so only where a person has a substantial criminal record, or where someone has been sentenced to jail for a year or more.
The changes will mean that, if a convicted criminal faces persecution in their own country, they will most probably be granted only a provisional visa, which does not permit refugees to bring their families to Australia.
Once the threat in their home country is over, they can be sent back.
Along with the ridiculous reluctance to forcefully deport those who have failed in their claim for asylum (they and their country of origin has to agree that they be deported 🙄 ) the lack of any meaningful sanction for unacceptable behaviour while their claims are being determined is the underlying cause of the unrest in the detention centres at present. Further I find the naivete of the protests from asylum seeker activists almost breathtaking. If ever there was an issue where a protest is beyond futile it is this one . They certainly will get a chorus of “right on ” from the Uber-left loopy Greens but Labor have no wriggle room to give even the tiniest part of a millimetre to their noisy demands lest they lose even more of their base vote. And the general public are just not prepared to believe the narrative that “asylum seekers” are the “worthy of our concern victims of oppression” narrative since both Christmas Island and Villawood have burned.
So in true Labor party tradition what we can see here is an example of policy over reach followed by a ridiculous denial of the negative consequences of their changes and then finally a partial restoration of that which they changed.
Is it any wonder that the Gillard government is the top contender for the “Worst Labor government of all time?
The story of the Labor governments’ incompetence could not be written as a convincing dark satire and no issue illustrates it more starkly than the way that the “asylum seeker” issue has literally blown up in their faces.
How dumb is it to send a whole lot of rioters from Christmas Island to Villawood in Sydney and to then allow them to burn down another detention facility?
You really can not invent stupidity of this magnitude!
Of course this begs the question “Do we want the sort of people who act like this to be allowed to stay? Further a rather horrid thought has just occurred to me and that is the sad fact that Wayne Swan is in the big chair at present, what with Joolia and Tim off to the Royal Wedding and all, so we are going to have the second string of a very manky guitar being strummed here in response to this incident….
Just shaking my head in disbelief here Comrades
Just for a change of pace I’m going to revisit a topic that has not appeared at the Sandpit for quite a while. Firstly lets look at the source report:
There are reports that tear gas has again been used at the Christmas Island detention centre after protesters set a number of buildings on fire.
The Department of Immigration says between 200 and 250 detainees were involved in a range of violent behaviour including rock throwing, vandalism, arson and theft.
The unrest started at 8:00pm (local time) and lasted until around midnight.
Refugee advocates say a number of sleeping quarters were destroyed and all staff on the site were evacuated.
It is believed a number of detainees at the centre received a letter from the Government yesterday. It is not known what was in the letter.
Is anyone with me in thinking that the letter mentioned in the report tells the rioters that their claim for asylum has been declined?
Now we have a most generous system here with multiple opportunities to appeal an unwelcome outcome. However once these have been exhausted those who have failed to convince us of their veracity should be promptly removed from the country. I suspect that the failure to promptly deport failed claimants is the catalyst for this latest violence on Christmas Island. Because as It stands now while the government is rejecting a substantial number of claims they seem unable to actually deport any of them,
The result of this road block is obviously a large pool of people in an unacceptable limbo, rejected as refugees but unwilling to return to their homelands. The usual suspects will of course pretend that that the trouble makers are not the rejected claimants and that all of those in detention are “real” refugees.In the end I don’t think that the rioting will do the cause of legitimate claimants any good at all because the Australian people are just going to see this nonsense as a sort of blackmail and there is no mood to surrender to coercion.(except for those in the ranks of the Labor government)
The solution is not rocket science; in the first instance those who are found to have a legitimate claim should only be given temporary protection visas (with no right to sponsor the migration family members), secondly those who have exhausted their avenues of appeal should be promptly returned to their country of origin. Finally Our parliament should repudiate the UN convention that is used as an excuse by illegal immigrants and prepare our own act of parliament that more accurately reflects the current paradigm.