Perspective
- Share
In 2008, Australia had 161 boat people arrive.
In 2008, Australia had 4750 applications for asylum submitted.
In 2008, France, the UK and Italy combined had 96,870 applications for asylum submitted.
In 2008, 51 industrialised countries participating in the UNHCR statistics program had 382,670 applications for asylum submitted.
In 2008, there were approximately 827,000 asylum applications submitted across the globe
In 2008, there were approximately 15.2 million forcibly displaced refugees around the world
Yesterday we had SBY address our Parliament – the leader of a country of 230 million people, heading a democratic government that struggles with serious economic and social development issues everyday. He was here to talk about development cooperation, security and intelligence sharing and international economic partnership in the forums of global power to boost living standards and enhance the social and economic ties between our two nations.
What did we bang on about?
Boat people.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
I loved Tone : “it’s started again”!
We are living proof of the parochial Westerners living at the bottom of Asia.
It’s embarrassing.
An absolute cracker of a post, Possum. That is by far the most eloquent and compelling argument against ‘boat people’ hysteria I’ve read. It should be shown in every classroom in the country.
Embarrassing is the right word, Christopher. It was completely cringeworthy to watch him rabbit on.
Amazing post, and thank you.
Well done mate. Well done.
*applauds*
Where’s the queue?
We stopped boat people before and we can do it again. The reason other countries have more refugees crossing their borders is just that – they have borders, that people can walk across. They are mostly jealous of Australia’s ability in this regard. There’s an apposite saying, “Why does a dog lick his balls?” And you know the answer.
BTW this is 2010.
Col, 2008 is the latest year for which global data has been compiled. We should get 2009 data in about 6 months.
Brilliant, fucking brilliant.
Hey Poss, Do you have any figures showing the number of illegal immigrants via boats compared to planes?
Great post to show in reality that it is such a beat up it is idiotic.
Excellent post, Poss. As I have said before, Italy gets more boat people from North Africa in a bad week than we get in a year. You could do similar comparisons on the number of displaced people different countries house, that also puts our Christmas Island paranoia into perspective. Iran houses over 2 million Afghan refugees; Germany houses sevreal hundred thousand refugees.
In the same light, the suggestion that the flow of people here is somehow linked to our policy is absurdly self-deluded. The number of refugees goes up and down based on world events, not Australian policy. Some of those peopel come here as “boat people”. Why are more Sri Lankans coming here now? Because the Tamil resistance was defeated; they had to go somewhere.
Stunning. Well, it left me stunned. A terrific, impactful visualisation of data. Impressive.
From 1 July 2008 until 9 February a whole 1966 Afghans arrived here of the 4 million refugees we have forced to flee. 2 million are in Pakistan, over 1 million in Iran and nearly 1 million in Europe. Of that 1966 only 879 were still on the island on 12 February, and they were not deported.
If our media would stop calling it frigging people smuggling that would be good, it is just refugees exercising their legal right to claim asylum.
And col stopping refugees from being safe is a crime against humanity you jerk. We did that in 1938 and Hitler loved us all for it, so many more victims for him to fry.
And in 2009 6147 people made asylum claims in Australia, over 4,000 of them flew here.
Boat people is always an important consideration.
is = are
Why are boat people an important consideration though? They aren’t doing anything wrong or illegal, just exercising their legal rights to ask for our help.
Captain Col: Just the fact you harp on about ‘stopping boat people’ kinda gives you away. Why do we need to stop them? They do have a right to come here. We do have a responsibility to assess their claims as refugees in a timely manner and help resettle them. The majority of them are currently Afghans and we ARE part of the reason (call it coalition of the willing, if you will) that they are here. We helped trash their home even worse than it already was, after decades of waging proxy wars through them.
We are over 20 million Australians, and rank 2nd in the world on the human development index. We are filthy rich in terms of natural resources and have been pretty much at full employment or suffering skills shortages for almost a decade. We can afford to help and should be doing so.
It pi$$es me off to see the utter selfishness inplied in your post, and which you obviously cannot see yourself.
No 18
They have no right to come here in that manner. They are illegal immigrants until assessed as otherwise by the Australian Government.
I also dislike Poss’s inference that seeming statistical insignance makes issues not worth talking about.
Dear Captain Col,
From your conment I assume that you are a supporter of the “Howard hardline” on boat people and considered it a success.
I would suggest that you actuallu study the data. I’m going from memory here but the gist of what follows is true.
Since “boat people’ became an issue around the end of the Vietnam war Howard was PM for about 30% of that time yet about 70% of boat people landed during his tenure.
This means Howard was the least successful from Whitam to Rudd.
If you say that it was beacuse during Howard’s tenure there was more global instability you shoot your self in the foot on two grounds.
Firstly it means that you agree that our laws don’t affect arrivals in which case you then agree that your first sentence is rubbish (which it is by the way) or secondly you don’t regard the end of the Vietnam War, Tianamen Square, Sri Lankan civil wars, the first Gulf War & numerous natural & economic disatsers as instability factors.
My rough calculations are that all the boat people add up to less than 0.5% of our current population.
The number of boat people has nothing to do with our laws & polocies & everything to do with events outside our control. Things like wars & revolutions etc that cause people to want to leave
There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant in Australia, there is no legal requirement to have a visa and no offence if you don’t have one.
And the minute people ask for asylum they are legally in the country as asylum seekers under Australian and International law.
Will generic and col. just stop their filthy tripe please?
Add to that the 2 million Iraqis refugees living in neighbouring countries, and another 2 million that are internally displaced because we attacked their country for no other reason than Howard wanted to curry favour with a moron.
Interestingly, in the last 7 years I have never heard of a single Iraqi refugee fleeing to Jordan, Syria, etc. being turned back despite them being poor countries.
No 22
Wrong, a person who enters Australia without a proper visa is an unlawful non-citizen under the Migration Act.
Gold. Pure visual Gold. Thanks Possum.
But I still think the majority of posts here are not representative of the Australian Electorate. I’m still thinking most Australians are like Generic Person and Captain Col. Hence why the Media throw them (the Australian electorate) what they want (because in a capitalistic society hysteria sells and makes money) and the Politicians pander to that position, they virtually have to for political survival. Vicious circle.
Boat people are some of our best Australians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoa_Do
who’s brother (ironically?) does standup on the footy show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anh_Do
Additionally, when having a discussion about why I wanted to have the Sri Lankan boat people granted asylum, my answer (semi-honsestly) was that I can’t find a good Sri Lankan joint in Brisbane, where we have tasty Thai, Vietnamese and Indian everywhere.
GP @ 24 – in this context unlawful and illegal are not they same thing. Marilyn is right, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant under Australian law. There is no provision under Australian law which makes it illegal to arrive in this country and seek asylum.
The use of terms like “queue jumpers” and “illegal immigrants” is done so in an attempt to delegitimise an otherwise legitimate class of refugee – onshore asylum seeker. The implication is that boat arrivals are somehow undeserving of our protection because they have availed themselves of an illegitimate path to asylum – this is simply not the case.
Through necessity there is no one correct process for seeking asylum. The only process envisaged by the Refugee Convention is for a person who has a well founded fear of persecution to leave the country in which they fear such persecution and seek protection in a contracting State (a State that is a signatory to the Convention). The process by which a refugee seeks protection in a contracting State is not restricted to offshore application or processing through the UNHCR.
The simple truth is any person who has a well founded fear of persecution has the right under international law “to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. The right to seek is in no way restricted by either legal status – lawful or unlawful – or by mode of transit – plane, boat, foot, bicycle or parachute.
Thanks Poss. Excellent illustration of the reality of this issue.
Sadly, Generic Poison and Captain Colon are probably fairly representative of the racist, bigoted, pig-ignorant populace.. which is why both major parties bend over for them.
It’s not just boat people, it’s “terrorism”, and any group that is singled out for vilification by the far right Jonesian cretinati.
Poss,
Why is the last chart bigger, which makes the problem bigger than it is compared to previous charts?
You know what I appreciate most about this blog.
Firstly, Possum, your work is fantastic, you seem to be the most engaged, compassionate and sensible person providing commentary on the sad state of affairs which is Australian politics and media.
Thank you.
Secondly, thank god the average person that reads and comments on this blog actually has something to say worth saying. And when two people who clearly have no idea what they’re talking about such as Generic Person (which I fear in Australia may be a particularly apt name, or a troll) and Captain Col, we have a whole load of sensible, articulate, intelligent people (and Possum) to succinctly smack them down and show them the error of their ways.
I have nothing further to add. Generic and Captain, you’re both wrong as wrong. Alan, thank you for saving me the trouble of writing out some convoluted explanation myself about the difference between illegal and unlawful. It would have made far less sense, and I wouldn’t be able to write this long winded self aggrandizing sermon.
Keep it up Possum, love your work.
Greeny went:
Simply to fit the blue in!
Possum
You should give Truthy permission to re-produce those graphs alongside the crap he has on his F*%kwit racist bigotted website.
I am not sure if he would understand them though.
26
Tri$tan
Arent we lucky to have them here doing what they are doing for Australia.
If their parents had have been in the wrong place at the wrong time they would have been creamed with napalm or agent orange or some other big bomb that we and the Seppos were dishing up in an illegal war sponsored by none other than the Liberal Party of Australia in conjunction with the Seppos.
The same Liberal idiots have got us involved in two more country obliterating events, causing the people to want to flee. Then all the GP’s and Capn Colons, who run out of their way to support these wars, want to do is turn them back in the hope they drown at sea like the SievX.
You could give them a bit of leeway if they were hurling their abuse at the people smugglers and not the people being smuggled, but it is easier to vent their spleen and bile on those affected by their idols actions.
Its not the selfishness or the racism that amazes me, its the utter blindness of twits who have been sold the message “We can stop boat people”. There’s a very obvious retort to that one: how?
Now we could just sent the navy out and shoot the buggers. That would do the trick, yes? I wonder how many people who harp on about boat people would be seriously comfortable with that solution? Fortunately only a few. So what “solution” do they really believe in?
We could just yell at them with a loud hailer “this is the maritime border, do not cross”. Of course, there’s going to be two kinds of response. One is to sit there until your boat sinks. Then we can sit and watch them drown. Is that what you want? (Yes, you know who you are). The other group would turn back and end up either in skirmishes with the Indonesian police, or else waiting until the boat sank underneath them in an Indonesian port. The press would love that. The Indonesians would too, wouldn’t they?
Or we could take them to some remote island, and let the UNHCR process them? Solved? You’ve gotta be kidding. Howard tried this, and nearly all of those that ended up in such squalid camps ended up back in Australia. In other words, all he did was fudge the figures. Yes, fewer people arrived by boat, but the exact same people ended up settling in Australia, but only after great expense and at the price of further trauma to the refugees.
I really wish the guys that get off on hating boat people would come to terms with what a “solution” really means.
We can stop boat people? No we cannot. We get fewer refugees because its physically harder to get here. Nothing else changes a thing. And as Possum points out, you gotta have a twisted view of reality to even consider it a “problem”. As far as I’m concerned, if you got the balls and the ingenuity to get here by boat, you’re probably a good contribution to the country.
Almost all our ancestors got here on boats, what on earth is it we whine on and on about anyway?
I really wish the guys that get off on hating boat people would come to terms with what a “solution” really means.
Don’t worry this is now the Maddest of the Mad Hansonite vote, Who’d vote [1] Burn all those stinking Commies and Jews party, like Geriatric Person and Captain Colostomy Bag, who’d never vote left of Ghengis Khan, and barely to his right either!
The vast majority of the rest of Australia couldn’t give a stuff about this, as seen in the polls before the “Garrett’s gone all pear shaped” incident…
No 28
Alan Shore, unlawful = illegal. There is no difference.
I’m sorry GP but you are mistaken. In this context illegal means “expressly forbidden” and unlawful means “not expressly authorized”. There is a difference and it’s important.
Thanks Alan,
I was about to say: “unlawful = illegal. There is no difference”
And that… L&G… is the perfect example of a person who feels informed enough to comment on a field such as law, yet whose lack of aptitude in it makes them unable to adequately assess their own incompetence.
Well done mfs. There was a great article published in 1999 about Illusory Superiority called “Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assesments.” It was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. I am sorry I dont have a link to it but you should be able to google it. It argues that the less skilled you are in a particular field, the less aware you are of your limitations. It can be applied to all uninformed commentary.
Australia has a colourful history of right wing political and tabloid media hysteria. The “boat people” saga is a classic example. These easily shocked and indignant people and organisations will always be with us and always be hysterical and vociferous about some real or perceived threat to their status quo. They live and breathe on fear. They are the cross that the progressives of this world have to bear. Politicians of the left and the less sensational media simply need to highlight the irrationality of the high dudgeon and fears and concentrate on rational argument and analysis of the issues at hand. Ultimately reason will out and progress is made. Healthy democracy at work.
So simple, Poss and so effective. Great.
Poss-
many of your graphs leave my head spinning. This one is sensational.
Best evidence of the sheer xenophobia behind the whole issue.
btw- can you do one on the quantity of evidence re global warming vs the denialists evidence.
Just for a laugh.
I don’t have much patience with stats/flow charts etc., but the above really does show things in context.
Sadly, with the exception of Craptain Col, and GePe, you are attracting responses from those of us who already know that this is the case.
As has been said here, Crap and Pe are representative of the majority view. They fail to see that unless they are from transportation or Indigenous descent, they are also ‘imports’ (as one Neanderthal feckwit put it elsewhere).
Don’t burn up the keys guys, you were more than likely ‘legal’ (sheesh!),but you came to this country for a better life. These folks are doing no different, but under considerable duress.
Your rationale is so obviously ‘I’m alright, but I’ll make damn sure to slam the door on those who desperately need to resettle……., because they are ‘illegal’ ???(sheesh!).
It has NOTHING to do with culture or colour now does it? (Justify the intolerance by the boogie-man defence: they are terrorists!!!!((sheesh!)).
Are you able to grasp the self absorption of that? You can’t can you?
If the West could grasp the concept that invasion to stop genocide might just be a good thing, as opposed to invasion for political gain………………., who knows? We might-just might have a lot of these people content to live in their country of origin.
What an outlandish concept!
Generic Person the High Court (and the full court of the Federal Court for that matter) does not agree with you and if you had a genuine wish to be informed you’d look up the references.
There is a very important difference.
GUMMOW J: What is the force of the word “unlawful”?
MR BENNETT: It is merely a word which is used in a definition section, your Honour.
GLEESON CJ: Does it mean without lawful permission?
MR BENNETT: Yes, that is perhaps the best way of paraphrasing – - –
GUMMOW J: But in the Austinian sense that is meaningless, is it not?
MR BENNETT: Yes, your Honour. The draftsperson of the Act is not necessarily taken to be familiar with the – - –
GUMMOW J: Well, perhaps they ought to be.
With Thanks (and apols Marilyn) to Adelaide busy body Marilyn Shepherd
That’s OK SBH, it’s about time the media reported the facts. These have been documented for years now, since 1994 in fact but the media still persist in the “illegal” business and even “unlawful” means nothing at all.
4 Trackbacks
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.