mikib
 
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • mikib

      All be aware that one of keys to this whole issue is that the Australian Immigration Department picks those who will be resettled in Australia from United Nations Refugee Camps around the world with a points score very similar to the test applied to anyone wanting to immigrate to Australia. Australia does not accept refugees on grounds of their degree of persecution or fear for their lives but on their qualifications, work skills, English language proficiency etc. The immigration bureaucracy has never been happy with allowing permanent residency just because someone fears for their personal safety. This was the origin of the whole detention regime. Then because they were detained, the opportunity was seen by politicians to exploit the situation and start calling asylum seekers “illegal” and “queue jumpers” who had been “smuggled” into Australia. (How can you be “smuggled” if your intention is to declare yourself to authorities upon arrival?)

      The rise of Pauline Hanson’s ‘One Nation’ party revealed a significant percentage of the population who were disaffected but ignorant of understanding the causes of their disaffection (increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth for example). It was soon realised that this disaffection could be directed at a powerless group such as asylum seekers. As the demonizing of people legally seeking refuge in Australia under the Refugee Convention took hold, politicians soon grasp that there was a well of ignorance and inability to discover the truth on any matter to be mined. Issues why the bulk of the profits from Australia’s natural resources were going to foreign shareholders and financial institutions were sidelined by the “people smuggling” issue. Would be interesting to think what Australia would be doing if it had a land border such as Pakistan, Lebanon or Jordan do with countries that have populations seeking asylum and who are currently hosting millions of refugees. In the meantime look up the “Norwegian Government Pension Fund” to see what is realised when a nation and its people own their natural resources (unlike Australia).

    • mikib

      Another feeble comprehension of not much of anything. Australian policy has forced asylum seekers to take perilous boat journeys to Australia instead of allowing access by air. Would that not be a reason for leaving women and children behind in the hope that the father/husband would be able to establish refugee status. As for the comment on Sri Lankans, what ignorant drivel. The “friends that holiday” there are not any authority to allow for the stupid conclusion that “they are clearly economic asylum seekers”. See if you can start to inform yourself here:
      http://www.amnesty.org.au/crisis/comments/34235/

    • mikib

      More willful ignorance and a completely false analogy demonstrating a feeble knowledge (if any at all) of the the ‘United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees’ (ever read it?) and the situations that people seeking asylum find themselves in. The apparent incapacity of the majority of Australians to find out anything beyond the lies told by politicians and the corporate media is appalling. You should be ashamed for posting such witless nonsense.

    • mikib

      Fact (its in the article): The majority of asylum seekers arriving by boat have been determined to be genuine refugees. The main reason they come by boat from places such as Indonesia is that airlines are fined heavily are threatened with losing their landing rights if they bring anyone into Australia without documentation, so will not carrying them. This is the main reason for the deaths at sea coupled with the Australian policy of destroying any intercepted boats, meaning that the boats used are the least sea-worthy available.

    • mikib

      Abbott is a member of one of seven autonomous Liberal Party Divisions (the New South Wales one) each of which has its own constitution. He is Parliamentary leader of a coalition of representatives from those parties, which in turn are in coalition with representatives from state, and territory based National, Liberal/National and Country/Liberal parties. Abbott’s side of politics has never been too enamoured with the concept of “Australia”, historically preferring an Imperial federation with London as its capital.  In the past, they have opposed: The appointment of Australian governor-generals, the adoption of the Statute of Westminster (an Act of the British Parliament which set out as law the independence of the government of Australia), the passing of the Australian Citizenship Act of 1949, removing the Privy Council in London as Australia’s highest court of appeal, the Australia Act 1986 (to remove the power of the British government to be involved in the governing of an Australian State) and continue to oppose an Australian citizen as head of state. Australians as citizens of a nation over which they have sovereignty has never been a strong point for the Right in Australian politics despite their recent palaver aimed at the witless about “sovereign borders”.  This historical ideology leads to putting the interests of intentional financial institutions and corporations often ahead of the interests of the Australian people. What would be the ultimate heresy for Abbott and his ilk would be something like the Norwegian Government Pension Fund. Look it up (unless you are one of those that the Right relies on to be incapable of finding out anything for themselves) and see how it is constituted and what it earns and returns to the people of Norway. Meanwhile the Labor Party in its turn is often just simply afraid to do anything that may upset corporate interests and believes the majority of the electorate are too stupid to have anything explained to them. (It needs more train drivers, fire fighters, and care-givers elected instead of Party functionaries and right-wing union officials and lawyers.)

Load More
Loading...