David Cameron to introduce tough new laws on EU immigration in response to UKIP election wins.

[Parley]

You are correct PWA200.

 

If you enter Australia without a valid visa you are entering illegally and can be detained.

[MARYROSE02]

You are correct PWA200.

 

If you enter Australia without a valid visa you are entering illegally and can be detained.

 

But not if you claim asylum? Is that right? Anybody from any country can avoid the Migration Act by claiming asylum?

 

So it all comes down to those who want all people entering illegally, whether claiming to be asylum seekers or not, to be detained whilst their status is investigated, and those who want an 'open door' policy, with no controls, other than that one simple yes or no question. 'Are you claiming asylum?' (Even easier than those supposed 'four questions' we were supposed to be asking people, if I remember correctly?)

 

I heard on the news today (ABC) that despite the present building and construction boom in Sydney, we are not building enough blocks of units to house the projected population for 2031.

 

So where are we going to house all the people who want to come here, who supposedly have the inalienable right to come if they are an asylum seeker?

 

Logistics versus common humanity? Everybody on the 'Titanic' was entitled to a seat on a lifeboat, but if everybody was given the seat, the boats would all have sunk. What would Harpo & Co have done in that situation, I wonder? I mean, it is all very well talking about Australia's vast open spaces and the ratio of population to land size, but how do you house people when we are not building enough homes. Build temporary camps?!

[PWA200]

But not if you claim asylum? Is that right? Anybody from any country can avoid the Migration Act by claiming asylum?

 

So it all comes down to those who want all people entering illegally, whether claiming to be asylum seekers or not, to be detained whilst their status is investigated, and those who want an 'open door' policy, with no controls, other than that one simple yes or no question.

 

I agree with you.

 

The basis of my argument is that unless you want an uncontrolled border policy, a facility or detention center has to exist somewhere within which persons are detained and processed.

 

However on your other point I would argue you cannot avoid detention under the Migration Act until you are granted asylum, for up until the grant of asylum you are subject to detention under the Migration Act as you remain an illegal immigrant as a non-visa holder within Australian territory. You rightly stated that a period of grace is allowed during which your claim to asylum is considered. It is therefore possible to delay, though not necessarily prevent, deportation under the Migration Act by claiming asylum.

 

Main observation: Personally claiming asylum and a government granting asylum to an individual are separate actions.

 

What I am attempting to ask is whether people actually believe the state has a moral obligation, or even a right, to control borders? If you do not allow the state to control its borders through law you have a de facto open border policy.

 

If a state agrees to unrestricted immigration the concept of asylum within that state becomes meaningless - To argue for unrestricted borders while also arguing the legal right to claim asylum is impossible as there could never be a law requiring persons to claim asylum.

 

The opponents of immigration controls refuse to discuss what border controls , if any, they believe should exist.

Edited November 21, 2014 by PWA200

[flag of convenience]

I said 'enter Australia' which implies crossing the border. I didn't mention asylum.

 

Do you even believe the state has the right to detain certain persons under the Migration Act 1958?

 

Then the question is not relevant. A person requiring asylum would be required to declare as such at point of entry. Entering Australia and over staying is an illegal act. What you suggested with regards to Nauru was wrong as with your claim of being illegal migrants. Providing the request for asylum was pleaded at point of entry or within Australian territorial waters.

[flag of convenience]

You are correct PWA200.

 

If you enter Australia without a valid visa you are entering illegally and can be detained.

 

He and you are wrong as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

[flag of convenience]

But not if you claim asylum? Is that right? Anybody from any country can avoid the Migration Act by claiming asylum?

 

So it all comes down to those who want all people entering illegally, whether claiming to be asylum seekers or not, to be detained whilst their status is investigated, and those who want an 'open door' policy, with no controls, other than that one simple yes or no question. 'Are you claiming asylum?' (Even easier than those supposed 'four questions' we were supposed to be asking people, if I remember correctly?)

 

I heard on the news today (ABC) that despite the present building and construction boom in Sydney, we are not building enough blocks of units to house the projected population for 2031.

 

So where are we going to house all the people who want to come here, who supposedly have the inalienable right to come if they are an asylum seeker?

 

Logistics versus common humanity? Everybody on the 'Titanic' was entitled to a seat on a lifeboat, but if everybody was given the seat, the boats would all have sunk. What would Harpo & Co have done in that situation, I wonder? I mean, it is all very well talking about Australia's vast open spaces and the ratio of population to land size, but how do you house people when we are not building enough homes. Build temporary camps?!

 

You are changing the subject to the Ponzi immigration scheme in place to stimulate the construction and allied industries. AS you should be aware housing is the major economic activity replacing the faltering mining boom. The asylum seeking issue and Nauru and related topics relating to law before looking at the moral implications remain a totally different issue.

 

No one has ever stated a solution shouldn't be sought to a complicated issue just not at any price to the cost of a nation's humanity. But you know al this already.

[flag of convenience]

I agree with you.

 

The basis of my argument is that unless you want an uncontrolled border policy, a facility or detention center has to exist somewhere within which persons are detained and processed.

 

However on your other point I would argue you cannot avoid detention under the Migration Act until you are granted asylum, for up until the grant of asylum you are subject to detention under the Migration Act as you remain an illegal immigrant as a non-visa holder within Australian territory. You rightly stated that a period of grace is allowed during which your claim to asylum is considered. It is therefore possible to delay, though not necessarily prevent, deportation under the Migration Act by claiming asylum.

 

Main observation: Personally claiming asylum and a government granting asylum to an individual are separate actions.

 

What I am attempting to ask is whether people actually believe the state has a moral obligation, or even a right, to control borders? If you do not allow the state to control its borders through law you have a de facto open border policy.

 

If a state agrees to unrestricted immigration the concept of asylum within that state becomes meaningless - To argue for unrestricted borders while also arguing the legal right to claim asylum is impossible as there could never be a law requiring persons to claim asylum.

 

The opponents of immigration controls refuse to discuss what border controls , if any, they believe should exist.

 

On the basis of your argument countries like Turkey should not have taken in over one million Syrians fleeing ISIS and related terror. Lebanon should not have a large percentage as does Jordon made up of refugees fleeing Iraq, Syria and displaced Palestinians. Why should Pakistan host so many being one of the poorest countries as well as African countries. Uganda, as an example has a very open policy to the subject.

 

So a few on here applaud Australia's hard line stance, a country of great wealth and a history of poaching talent from the rest of the world. Not only that but applaud the inhumanity dealt out as a method of control. Why should Australia escape unpunished from sanction when so many countries of limited wealth and not even signatories to the UNHCR Accord comply.

 

What nonsense. Immigration controls are to be applauded and in my case migration levels are far too high, the lack of wiliness to seek solutions rather than punishment to those operating within the law in seeking asylum, is nothing but lazy and populist politics to appeal to the unfortunate easily manipulated in society.

 

 

So your observation is that the claiming of asylum and the granting of asylum are two separate actions. How cleaver are you? Some might say stating the bleeding obvious. Hence the return of those found Not to be in need of a safe haven.

[PWA200]

How cleaver are you?

 

Ad hominem.

 

He and you are wrong as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

 

Entering Australia and over staying is an illegal act

 

You cannot argue both ways. Entering Australia without a valid visa is either legal or illegal - I suggest you decide upon one.

Edited November 21, 2014 by PWA200

[flag of convenience]

Or how about PWA200 swallow his pride and curl into a protective ball and admit defeat. I am humble in victory and won't rub in your lack of attention and knowledge to detail with any degree of harshness.

[Thom]

Getting back to the original discussion, I see that UKIP have had another impressive victory, (and Labour have shot themselves in the foot once more.) All political parties will have to sit up and pay attention now.

[Rallyman]

Getting back to the original discussion, I see that UKIP have had another impressive victory, (and Labour have shot themselves in the foot once more.) All political parties will have to sit up and pay attention now.

 

 

Maybe the tide has turned in UK politics a party that seems to be listening to the people and are putting the UK first ,will be interesting to see what happens come the election.

[MARYROSE02]

You are changing the subject to the Ponzi immigration scheme in place to stimulate the construction and allied industries. AS you should be aware housing is the major economic activity replacing the faltering mining boom. The asylum seeking issue and Nauru and related topics relating to law before looking at the moral implications remain a totally different issue.

 

No one has ever stated a solution shouldn't be sought to a complicated issue just not at any price to the cost of a nation's humanity. But you know al this already.

 

But if the population is increasing, particularly in the cities, how are all the people going to be housed? What is this 'Ponzi scheme' rubbish? Housing and construction has its booms and busts, like any sector of the economy.

 

As far as refugees go, regardless of whether they are 'legal' or 'illegal', they have to be housed too. WHERE are you going to put them, unless it is in temporary camps, which is where many immigrants used to stay 'back in the day.'

 

The public housing waiting lists contain thousands of people already, many of whom will have to wait decades. I seem to recall reading somewhere that many people who lost their homes in the Christchurch earthquake are still waiting to be properly re-housed. Why? I guess neither the Government, nor the construction industries have the resources and manpower to do it.

 

You talk about 'humanity' but what would happen if we let limitless people in with nowhere for them to live? Isn't that 'inhuman?'

[flag of convenience]

But if the population is increasing, particularly in the cities, how are all the people going to be housed? What is this 'Ponzi scheme' rubbish? Housing and construction has its booms and busts, like any sector of the economy.

 

As far as refugees go, regardless of whether they are 'legal' or 'illegal', they have to be housed too. WHERE are you going to put them, unless it is in temporary camps, which is where many immigrants used to stay 'back in the day.'

 

The public housing waiting lists contain thousands of people already, many of whom will have to wait decades. I seem to recall reading somewhere that many people who lost their homes in the Christchurch earthquake are still waiting to be properly re-housed. Why? I guess neither the Government, nor the construction industries have the resources and manpower to do it.

 

You talk about 'humanity' but what would happen if we let limitless people in with nowhere for them to live? Isn't that 'inhuman?'

 

You are repetitive and it has been explained to you already. I care not as to whether you take the time to research the matter and come to an own conclusion or not, not understanding is fine, but after getting an answer either disagree stating a reason or ignore if prefer, but please don't act as a nine year old, in asking the same old tired questions that you constantly pose to me.

I'd imagine it being boring for all concerned, going over the same drivel.

[flag of convenience]

Getting back to the original discussion, I see that UKIP have had another impressive victory, (and Labour have shot themselves in the foot once more.) All political parties will have to sit up and pay attention now.

 

Yes back on subject. UKIP although a protest party is somewhat unusual in getting members into the House of Parliament being as such. The question to my mind is not so much how far they can go, but will they/how soon before they implode?

[Thom]

Hopefully they will cause a change in British politics, and start the moves towards exiting Europe.

[Thom]

For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions

 

Without googling, who is the quote from?

[flag of convenience]

Hopefully they will cause a change in British politics, and start the moves towards exiting Europe.

 

British interests will hardly be better served leaving The Union, but some changes need to be forthcoming to which there appears a lack of wiliness.

[MARYROSE02]

On the basis of your argument countries like Turkey should not have taken in over one million Syrians fleeing ISIS and related terror. Lebanon should not have a large percentage as does Jordon made up of refugees fleeing Iraq, Syria and displaced Palestinians. Why should Pakistan host so many being one of the poorest countries as well as African countries. Uganda, as an example has a very open policy to the subject.

 

So a few on here applaud Australia's hard line stance, a country of great wealth and a history of poaching talent from the rest of the world. Not only that but applaud the inhumanity dealt out as a method of control. Why should Australia escape unpunished from sanction when so many countries of limited wealth and not even signatories to the UNHCR Accord comply.

 

What nonsense. Immigration controls are to be applauded and in my case migration levels are far too high, the lack of wiliness to seek solutions rather than punishment to those operating within the law in seeking asylum, is nothing but lazy and populist politics to appeal to the unfortunate easily manipulated in society.

 

 

So your observation is that the claiming of asylum and the granting of asylum are two separate actions. How cleaver are you? Some might say stating the bleeding obvious. Hence the return of those found Not to be in need of a safe haven.

 

I seem to recall Turkey was positioning troops on its border with Syria, not to attack ISIS, but stop refugees coming into Turkey?

[MARYROSE02]

You are repetitive and it has been explained to you already. I care not as to whether you take the time to research the matter and come to an own conclusion or not, not understanding is fine, but after getting an answer either disagree stating a reason or ignore if prefer, but please don't act as a nine year old, in asking the same old tired questions that you constantly pose to me.

I'd imagine it being boring for all concerned, going over the same drivel.

 

Well, you have not explained yet how people will be housed, if there are already not enough homes being built, whether in the private or public sectors. I guess if there is a 'Ponzi Scheme' then a governent with a bit of bottle could cut the public housing waiting list to zero by moving them all into the empty 'Ponzi' homes.

 

But the fact remains, people in NSW at least are on ten and more year waiting lists for public housing.

 

Anyway, what does it matter? The boats have stopped - until the ALP get back into government!

[PWA200]

Or how about PWA200 swallow his pride and curl into a protective ball and admit defeat. I am humble in victory and won't rub in your lack of attention and knowledge to detail with any degree of harshness.

 

Decide.

[Thom]

British interests will hardly be better served leaving The Union, but some changes need to be forthcoming to which there appears a lack of wiliness.

 

I'd disagree. I think the whole EU experiment has been a failure, thank god we never joined the Euro.

 

Get us out ASAP.

[flag of convenience]

I seem to recall Turkey was positioning troops on its border with Syria, not to attack ISIS, but stop refugees coming into Turkey?

 

Remind me after how many had crossed the border. Turkey had in a week or so what Australia had in a year.It would equate Indonesia in turmoil and hundreds of thousands fleeing to come here. Australia failed to cope with the relative low numbers that came by boat, interesting how air arrivals are never mentioned, as such no comparison at all.

[flag of convenience]

Well, you have not explained yet how people will be housed, if there are already not enough homes being built, whether in the private or public sectors. I guess if there is a 'Ponzi Scheme' then a governent with a bit of bottle could cut the public housing waiting list to zero by moving them all into the empty 'Ponzi' homes.

 

But the fact remains, people in NSW at least are on ten and more year waiting lists for public housing.

 

Anyway, what does it matter? The boats have stopped - until the ALP get back into government!

 

The immigration Ponzi scheme feeds into shoring up the housing sector, which in turn is about the only viable sector growing at the moment. As such excess immigration is encouraged to make up in part the short falls as a result of the declining ore sector. Hence a Ponzi scheme. One feeds into another but neither is sustainable. It has been debated just to what degree there is a housing shortage and how much is hype. The hype certainly called the bluff of a number of speculators here in WA. Down quids. The small flow of refugees could have actually filled some of those empty houses in country locations as well as restoring vitality and life to areas so badly in need of people.

[flag of convenience]

I'd disagree. I think the whole EU experiment has been a failure, thank god we never joined the Euro.

 

Get us out ASAP.

 

It's been a pretty good experiment to all those million plus Brit's that moved to warmer climes and prospered. I know a friend in The Rhonda in Wales that profiteered from a EEC grant as it was then called in the 80's due to living in a deprived area.

Lot's going for Britain actually. When it comes to benefits it should be like in Mainland Europe where they are hard to come by for incomers.

[Guest51810]

What happens to all the Brits abroad in Spain etc? Would they still be allowed to stay?