cracka wrote:No but AGAIN your initial post that I questioned failed to put any blame on them & their upper class elite constituents. Some plane arrivals do get processed offshore. No I am not lying, it was in the link you posted. You obviously didn't read it properly. We can go around in circles for days or years on this & get nowhere, so like I've said before I'll agree to disagree.
The original post wasn't about blame.
Plane arrivals get processed onshore - "Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive by boat are called 'irregular maritime arrivals' (IMAs). All IMAs are placed in offshore immigration detention, in regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Air arrivals who seek asylum are placed in closed immigration detention in centres throughout Australia or in community detention while awaiting the determination of their claim for refugee status."
cracka wrote:No but AGAIN your initial post that I questioned failed to put any blame on them & their upper class elite constituents. Some plane arrivals do get processed offshore. No I am not lying, it was in the link you posted. You obviously didn't read it properly. We can go around in circles for days or years on this & get nowhere, so like I've said before I'll agree to disagree.
The original post wasn't about blame.
Plane arrivals get processed onshore - "Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive by boat are called 'irregular maritime arrivals' (IMAs). All IMAs are placed in offshore immigration detention, in regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Air arrivals who seek asylum are placed in closed immigration detention in centres throughout Australia or in community detention while awaiting the determination of their claim for refugee status."
I didn't think you could ever get on a plane here without a passport or visa (courtesy of Border Security) And, if you do, they put you on the next plane home and fine the airline ($20k from memory)
And, Q, how do I rort the super laws? Seriously question considering my age!
A lot of places allow you to apply for a visa upon entry - Not actually sure whether Australia is the same.
In any event, you could just apply for a tourist visa and then apply for asylum when you get here
cracka wrote:Interesting reading. Some of it actually contradicts your points, especially your original one. Thanks for that.
Care to point out how?
Some of the policies that have been put in place are actually from the ALP & their upper class voters. The reason plane arrivals are treated differently is because they arrive with the documents to be processed quicker & easier. The riots were because the asylum seekers who arrived by boat didn't believe they were being processed quick enough. You posted the link, have you even read it yourself. If you think the libs are the only plutotonic party you are in denial.
You obviously are having trouble with comprehension. I haven't denied Labor's involvement.
Plane arrivals are processed onshore, not offshore - despite half not having valid claims. No reason we can't process boat arrivals onshore.
You're just plainly lying about the third sentence - there's plenty of documentation links on the website that outlines that riots aren't just occurring because 'they aren't being processed quick enough' and that it's primarily been due to the mismanagement of contractor services - https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/Reportsa ... ornall.pdf
Labour have been complicit on policy, but you can't deny that the LNP market themselves as being 'tougher on immigration' and it's a key selling point for their constituents.
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:You can arrive by plane but without the correct paperwork you get sent straight back home.
If you are claiming asylum there is no law against the method in which you do it - so they would have to process your claim, not just put you on the next plane out of there
I didn't think you could ever get on a plane here without a passport or visa (courtesy of Border Security) And, if you do, they put you on the next plane home and fine the airline ($20k from memory)
And, Q, how do I rort the super laws? Seriously question considering my age!
A lot of places allow you to apply for a visa upon entry - Not actually sure whether Australia is the same.
In any event, you could just apply for a tourist visa and then apply for asylum when you get here
Other than kewees, nobody can board a plane to Australia without a valid passport and visa If you do; they wont let you past immigration so you have not entered Australia
I think Q is referring to people who stay past their visa time and then claim asylum Major differences in circumstances and, in my view, not comparable
I didn't think you could ever get on a plane here without a passport or visa (courtesy of Border Security) And, if you do, they put you on the next plane home and fine the airline ($20k from memory)
And, Q, how do I rort the super laws? Seriously question considering my age!
A lot of places allow you to apply for a visa upon entry - Not actually sure whether Australia is the same.
In any event, you could just apply for a tourist visa and then apply for asylum when you get here
My understanding is that our VISA requirements are among the toughest in the region and for many OS government employees, it's actually an embarrassment. It can even mean the wives and partners of some Australian nationals are unable to get into the country.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Jimmy_041 wrote:I think Q is referring to people who stay past their visa time and then claim asylum Major differences in circumstances and, in my view, not comparable
No, I'm referring to people who lodge protection visa after arrival by air:
The countries from which the majority of air arrivals originate are different from those from which the majority of boat arrivals originate. In recent years, the countries of origin of the majority of boat arrivals have been Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, along with a significant number of stateless people. By contrast, in recent years the ten countries from which the largest number of air arrivals has originated have been Iran, Pakistan, China, Egypt, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Turkey, Fiji and Lebanon.
Whether they arrive by boat or by air, all unauthorised arrivals (that is, people who arrive without a valid visa) are detained. This is because, under the policy of mandatory detention introduced by the Keating government in 1992, all 'unlawful non-citizens' must be detained until their immigration status is determined. Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive by boat are called 'irregular maritime arrivals' (IMAs). All IMAs are placed in offshore immigration detention, in regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Air arrivals who seek asylum are placed in closed immigration detention in centres throughout Australia or in community detention while awaiting the determination of their claim for refugee status.
One of the major points of difference between air and boat arrivals, besides the way in which they are processed is that "around 45% of air arrivals who apply for asylum are found to be refugees. This can be contrasted with the percentage of boat arrivals who are found to be refugees: a number that fluctuated between 88% and 100% between 2009 and 2014".
Jimmy_041 wrote:I think Q is referring to people who stay past their visa time and then claim asylum Major differences in circumstances and, in my view, not comparable
No, I'm referring to people who lodge protection visa after arrival by air:
The countries from which the majority of air arrivals originate are different from those from which the majority of boat arrivals originate. In recent years, the countries of origin of the majority of boat arrivals have been Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, along with a significant number of stateless people. By contrast, in recent years the ten countries from which the largest number of air arrivals has originated have been Iran, Pakistan, China, Egypt, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Turkey, Fiji and Lebanon.
Whether they arrive by boat or by air, all unauthorised arrivals (that is, people who arrive without a valid visa) are detained. This is because, under the policy of mandatory detention introduced by the Keating government in 1992, all 'unlawful non-citizens' must be detained until their immigration status is determined. Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive by boat are called 'irregular maritime arrivals' (IMAs). All IMAs are placed in offshore immigration detention, in regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Air arrivals who seek asylum are placed in closed immigration detention in centres throughout Australia or in community detention while awaiting the determination of their claim for refugee status.
OK, but don't the majority of air arrivals have passports and visas? If not, how did they get on the plane? (Some dodgy airlines must be copping some fines!)
Jimmy_041 wrote:I think Q is referring to people who stay past their visa time and then claim asylum Major differences in circumstances and, in my view, not comparable
No, I'm referring to people who lodge protection visa after arrival by air:
The countries from which the majority of air arrivals originate are different from those from which the majority of boat arrivals originate. In recent years, the countries of origin of the majority of boat arrivals have been Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, along with a significant number of stateless people. By contrast, in recent years the ten countries from which the largest number of air arrivals has originated have been Iran, Pakistan, China, Egypt, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Turkey, Fiji and Lebanon.
Whether they arrive by boat or by air, all unauthorised arrivals (that is, people who arrive without a valid visa) are detained. This is because, under the policy of mandatory detention introduced by the Keating government in 1992, all 'unlawful non-citizens' must be detained until their immigration status is determined. Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive by boat are called 'irregular maritime arrivals' (IMAs). All IMAs are placed in offshore immigration detention, in regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Air arrivals who seek asylum are placed in closed immigration detention in centres throughout Australia or in community detention while awaiting the determination of their claim for refugee status.
OK, but don't the majority of air arrivals have passports and visas? If not, how did they get on the plane? (Some dodgy airlines must be copping some fines!)
Jimmy_041 wrote:I think Q is referring to people who stay past their visa time and then claim asylum Major differences in circumstances and, in my view, not comparable
No, I'm referring to people who lodge protection visa after arrival by air:
The countries from which the majority of air arrivals originate are different from those from which the majority of boat arrivals originate. In recent years, the countries of origin of the majority of boat arrivals have been Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, along with a significant number of stateless people. By contrast, in recent years the ten countries from which the largest number of air arrivals has originated have been Iran, Pakistan, China, Egypt, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Turkey, Fiji and Lebanon.
Whether they arrive by boat or by air, all unauthorised arrivals (that is, people who arrive without a valid visa) are detained. This is because, under the policy of mandatory detention introduced by the Keating government in 1992, all 'unlawful non-citizens' must be detained until their immigration status is determined. Under Australian law, asylum seekers who arrive by boat are called 'irregular maritime arrivals' (IMAs). All IMAs are placed in offshore immigration detention, in regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Air arrivals who seek asylum are placed in closed immigration detention in centres throughout Australia or in community detention while awaiting the determination of their claim for refugee status.
OK, but don't the majority of air arrivals have passports and visas? If not, how did they get on the plane? (Some dodgy airlines must be copping some fines!)
Yes, they all have passport/visa
and if they didn't; then they wouldn't get through immigration and sent back home on the next flight and 1 or 2 (?) ban
So, they have been personally identified (passport), vetted in many other ways before arriving (visa), and have landed legally in the country Totally different situation to, as I understand it, to the vast majority of the IMAs
IMO, whether one group has a higher percentage of confirmed refugee status than the other is totally irrelevant, and you and I will probably always disagree from that point.
Jimmy_041 wrote:and if they didn't; then they wouldn't get through immigration and sent back home on the next flight and 1 or 2 (?) ban
So, they have been personally identified (passport), vetted in many other ways before arriving (visa), and have landed legally in the country Totally different situation to, as I understand it, to the vast majority of the IMAs
IMO, whether one group has a higher percentage of confirmed refugee status than the other is totally irrelevant, and you and I will probably always disagree from that point.
My main point is that they can all be processed in onshore detention.
IMAs and offshore detention is a political football.
Jimmy_041 wrote:and if they didn't; then they wouldn't get through immigration and sent back home on the next flight and 1 or 2 (?) ban
So, they have been personally identified (passport), vetted in many other ways before arriving (visa), and have landed legally in the country Totally different situation to, as I understand it, to the vast majority of the IMAs
IMO, whether one group has a higher percentage of confirmed refugee status than the other is totally irrelevant, and you and I will probably always disagree from that point.
Honest question, trying to understand the mindset.,
I meant it the context of - airports in third world countries (or heck even some in wealthy places too) don't always have the same rigour and protocol around airports that we do. There are many places that will allow you to get on a plane to Australia without adequate documentation provided you grease the right palms.
Likewise, there are many places that dont have the same rigour and protocol around aforementioned documentation too. This is why different Passports have different amounts of clout.
Not to mention that if you're, you know, fleeing Russian bombs and head chopping psychopaths, standing in line at the photo machine for your new passport photo so you can adequately fill out an online form for your visit to Australia might not be top of the priority list.
Jimmy_041 wrote:and if they didn't; then they wouldn't get through immigration and sent back home on the next flight and 1 or 2 (?) ban
So, they have been personally identified (passport), vetted in many other ways before arriving (visa), and have landed legally in the country Totally different situation to, as I understand it, to the vast majority of the IMAs
IMO, whether one group has a higher percentage of confirmed refugee status than the other is totally irrelevant, and you and I will probably always disagree from that point.
Honest question, trying to understand the mindset.,
Have you travelled at all?
Lived overseas on 3 separate occasions. How about you?
I wasn't born in Australia. Not an avid traveller, but the travelling I have done showed me pretty clearly that the notion of "if you get on a plane you're ok but a boat is full of nasties" is naff. I just got back from Cuba I reckon you could board a plane in Havana and with a connection or two get to Australia (with a visa) with nary a fake drivers license.
Which was the point I was trying to get across. Not that travelling makes one more "worldly".
Last edited by morell on Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
