Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[bulldogproud2]

They still make the journey. It's called desperation.

Desperation costs around $6-8000 and includes a satellite phone to call relatives in Melbourne and update them on your progress.

The average cost that asylum seekers are paying to get on a boat btw is much nearer to $1 000. In many cases, this is all that can be raised from ALL family members and relatives pooling their money together to get ONE person out. I think you should read the biography that Robin De Crespigny has written (The People Smuggler).

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

What they pay isn't relevant.
More than 90% of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees, regardless of what they had to sell to get here.

Plane arrivals account for more applications, but are twice as likely to be rejected. Yet, they are processed onshore and eligible for release into the community. There is no reason for boat arrivals to be treated any differently.

Just checking for possible reasons for any difference as I haven't looked into it myself:
Is there much difference in the numbers arriving simultaneously by the two methods?
Have the plane arrivals supplied documents and applied for entry before arriving?

A point worth taking into consideration is if you have sufficient funds you would definitely fly rather than come by boat. Why risk taking the chance of dying at sea when you can hop on a plane? As for passports, people who have sufficient funds can fairly easily (unfortunately) obtain fake ones. This is unlike the asylum seeker who comes by boat. They have very little funds, therefore having to travel by sea, and have very little opportunity to obtain a passport, for two reasons. One, they have had to rush from their village to avoid the persecution. Two, they don't have sufficient funds to obtain a fake one. If you are trying to stop 'potential terrorists' and 'economic refugees' then it is those who travel by plane who need to be looked at, not those coming by sea. As far as I have been able to ascertain, no terrorist has ever travelled on a 'leaky boat' to another country. Plane is their definite preferred mode.

[bulldogproud2]

With such a broad definition, I feel for the +/- 10% who cant convince authorities that they are genuine refugees!!

It also states those that are "outside their country".........which, for mine reads, that you leave where you live and mount any case you can for not going back when arriving in another country.

Hey, I'm not arguing against peoples rights to seek assylum or refugee status but it looks like it would be fairly "easy" as a non-genuine applicant to appear "genuine".

It is actually incredibly difficult for non-genuine applicants coming by boat to appear 'genuine'. You will find that they will be locked up in detention centres for years if there is any real doubt about their legitimacy.

[Q.]

What they pay isn't relevant.
More than 90% of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees, regardless of what they had to sell to get here.

Plane arrivals account for more applications, but are twice as likely to be rejected. Yet, they are processed onshore and eligible for release into the community. There is no reason for boat arrivals to be treated any differently.

Just checking for possible reasons for any difference as I haven't looked into it myself:
Is there much difference in the numbers arriving simultaneously by the two methods?
Have the plane arrivals supplied documents and applied for entry before arriving?

I'd have to look for the exact numbers of both.

The plane arrivals obviously require a passport to enter the country. And, depending on the country of origin, they may have required at least a tourist visa to enter. Once in the country they then make the application.

I'd wager that the majority are from Asia.

[bulldogproud2]

What they pay isn't relevant.
More than 90% of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees, regardless of what they had to sell to get here.

Plane arrivals account for more applications, but are twice as likely to be rejected. Yet, they are processed onshore and eligible for release into the community. There is no reason for boat arrivals to be treated any differently.

Just checking for possible reasons for any difference as I haven't looked into it myself:
Is there much difference in the numbers arriving simultaneously by the two methods?
Have the plane arrivals supplied documents and applied for entry before arriving?

I'd have to look for the exact numbers of both.

The plane arrivals obviously require a passport to enter the country. And, depending on the country of origin, they may have required at least a tourist visa to enter. Once in the country they then make the application.

I'd wager that the majority are from Asia.

This article, from Murdoch's own stable (so definitely no left-wing bias) published a month ago makes interesting reading:

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/ten-m ... 6676024840

Re the boat versus plane asylum-seeking arrivals:

REALITY: Statistics from 2008 showed at least 13 asylum seekers arrive through Australian airports daily, more than 32 times the number of boat people supposedly ''flooding'' across our maritime borders in that year. A total of 4768 ''plane people'', more than 96 per cent of applicants for refugee status, arrived in that year on legitimate tourist, business and other visas - compared with 161 who arrived by boat during the same period. While boat numbers have increased, Australian Government statistics from the first quarter of 2013 showed more than 90 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat were found to be genuine refugees. In comparison, those who arrived by plane - despite being eligible for release into the community and not having to face years of detention on Nauru or Manus Island - were almost twice as likely to be rejected as refugees. The figure continued a long-term trend of high approval rates for people arriving by boat, with 93.5 per cent being found to be refugees in 2010-11 and 91 per cent in 2011-12.

Cheers

[bulldogproud2]

You may find the following points from the Australian Federal Parliament's website interesting too:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... sylumFacts

Although the proportion of asylum seekers arriving by boat has increased significantly in the last few years, and boat arrivals continue to be the focus of much public and political attention, they are in fact more likely to be recognised as refugees than those who have arrived by air. For example, the progressive protection visa grant rate for asylum seekers from the top country of citizenship for boat arrivals (Afghanistan) has varied between about 80 and 95 per cent since 2009; while the final protection visa grant rate for those applying for asylum from the top country of citizenship for air arrivals (China) is usually only around 20 to 30 per cent.[34]

Dr Khalid Koser (Lowy Institute for International Policy) notes that:

The reason this ... point is important is that it means that arguably Australia is worrying about the wrong asylum seekers. Whereas the majority of those arriving by boat are refugees, the majority of those arriving by air are not.[35]

[Bully]

Must be Tony's fault with the boat that sank off the coast of Italy

[bulldogproud2]

.

[bulldogproud2]

Must be Tony's fault with the boat that sank off the coast of Italy

That is the thing that really makes me feel sad about people like you, Bully.
Rather than have concern and sympathy for people who lose their lives in a terrible tragedy, you try to make a joke about their loss of life.
Thankfully, not all Coalition voters are like you.

[Bully]

That is the thing that really makes me feel sad about people like you, Bully.
Rather than have concern and sympathy for people who lose their lives in a terrible tragedy, you try to make a joke about their loss of life.
Thankfully, not all Coalition voters are like you.

and people like ...you, can maybe get off your high horse and come back down to earth

instead of putting words in my mouth, AS USUAL. it was not a joke about the death of those people, yet the labor party blaming everyone else except themselves AS USUAL


THANK YOU

[dedja]

Morrison to get the full arsenal out ... LOL

[Sky Pilot]

and people like ...you, can maybe get off your high horse and come back down to earth

instead of putting words in my mouth, AS USUAL. it was not a joke about the death of those people, yet the labor party blaming everyone else except themselves AS USUAL


THANK YOU

Gold

[bulldogproud2]

That is the thing that really makes me feel sad about people like you, Bully.
Rather than have concern and sympathy for people who lose their lives in a terrible tragedy, you try to make a joke about their loss of life.
Thankfully, not all Coalition voters are like you.

and people like ...you, can maybe get off your high horse and come back down to earth

instead of putting words in my mouth, AS USUAL. it was not a joke about the death of those people, yet the labor party blaming everyone else except themselves AS USUAL


THANK YOU

So, now you are not only talking about the horrible loss of human lives by including a winking smile but now you are blaming the Labor Party for their deaths????
Otherwise, please explain the connection between people tragically dying at sea in Italy and the Labor Party.
As for Sky Pilot, stay up there where the air is rarefied. It is sure proving to have an effect!
Cheers

[Bully]

you really, truly have no idea. Yeah, I am blaming the labor party for their deaths, even thou I didn't post that, yep that's what I am doing......
I forgot my "how to post something so as bulldogproud2 understands it book" when I posted that.

like is said. STOP putting words in my mouth to make yourself look better as you usually do.

CHEERS

[The Sleeping Giant]

You can't argue with the figures about refugees coming by air and by boat though.

[cripple]

But you can keep them quiet to make an issue conveniently disappear

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4

[Booney]

Must be Tony's fault with the boat that sank off the coast of Italy

That is the thing that really makes me feel sad about people like you, Bully.
Rather than have concern and sympathy for people who lose their lives in a terrible tragedy, you try to make a joke about their loss of life.
Thankfully, not all Coalition voters are like you.

Or, like me, he is trying to work out why a boat sinking within that close of a proximity to Indonesia is our resposibility?

[Sky Pilot]

Must be Tony's fault with the boat that sank off the coast of Italy

That is the thing that really makes me feel sad about people like you, Bully.
Rather than have concern and sympathy for people who lose their lives in a terrible tragedy, you try to make a joke about their loss of life.
Thankfully, not all Coalition voters are like you.

Or, like me, he is trying to work out why a boat sinking within that close of a proximity to Indonesia is our resposibility?

X2

[shoe boy]

Or, like me, he is trying to work out why a boat sinking within that close of a proximity to Indonesia is our resposibility?[/quote]
X2[/quote]

[Bully]

Must be Tony's fault with the boat that sank off the coast of Italy

That is the thing that really makes me feel sad about people like you, Bully.
Rather than have concern and sympathy for people who lose their lives in a terrible tragedy, you try to make a joke about their loss of life.
Thankfully, not all Coalition voters are like you.

Or, like me, he is trying to work out why a boat sinking within that close of a proximity to Indonesia is our resposibility?

X2

you got it. It seems everything is blamed on tony. Ok the Australian government said they would take response for the boats in Indonesia waters, but 50 mtrs of their coast line ....FFS yeah ok.

And before BP2 responds, I would say the same for the labor party if they had that issue on that day