Lets do a quick analysis of the Illegal Immigrants/Asylum Seekers/Boat People problem.
A group of people arrive in Australia from Indonesia claiming to be from Afghanistan; they lack passports and all other forms of identification.
So question 1: How do these people get to Indonesia from Afghanistan without passports?
This question begets two answers, either they didnt have passports and illegally crossed the boarders of multiple countries to get to Indonesia, or
They did have passports when they arrived in Indonesia all of which subsequently magically dissappeared before they arrived in Australia.
Thus either these people are happy to flout and ignore international laws giving no indication that they won't treat Australian laws in the same manner, or they have purposefully obscured information about their backgrounds before they arrive.
As it happens it appears that in a large number of cases the "asylum seekers" destroy their own passports while in transit to Australia.
Having spoken with a number of people affiliated with the naval actions regarding such "boat people" a common complaint was that prior to being boarded they sabotage their own boats by such actions as flooding the engine with seawater; jettisoning the engine, setting fire to the boat or scuttling the boat thereby attempting to force the navy to "rescue" them and take then back to the mainland. An example of this occured during the Tampa affair when upon being told that the Norwegian vessel would not be taking them to Australia, they proceeded to spend the rest of the trip spitting on the crew.
Yet these people want to become part of our community?
The next claim is that it takes too long to process the "asylum seekers"; it is not surprising that this is the case given that their past history is obfuscated (willfully or otherwise) and that refugee status is only given to people from certain regions of Afghanistan; which all such "boat people" claim to be from. Thus the process is to not only determine whether such people are indeed from Afghanistan, and are who they claim to be, but to determine their actual places of residence. This has led to some cases only being resolved by a translator attempting to determine the "refugee's" accent by speaking to them. Following determining whether they are legitimate or otherwise a security check needs to be done in order to determine any past criminal records or war crimes affiliations; often any "refugees" with such black marks have undergone a change of name just prior to departing their original country such that when asked the records have not yet been transferred to the new name and they appear to be unblemished.
An example of how fast identification can be occured when a man convicted of manslaughter in Canada attempted to arrive in Australia claiming to be from Afghanistan; he was identified before the boat made landfall.
At no point do these "asylum seekers" assist the authorities in their identification or processing, generally they languish in the detention centres and after a period of time they apply for inhumane treatment, their processing is stopped and they are basically let out into the community. With this regard Australia has a 100% retention rate of those who claim to be "asylum seekers" due to this level of obfuscation, as opposed to the maximum level in Europe being 18%; (82% are discovered to have lied about their origins or past records).
For those who advocate "community detention" it is of note that at least 5 people of Middle Eastern descent are currently fugitives from the law in Melbourne, and the police suspect that they are being harboured by their ethnic groups. There is nothing to say that once said "asylum seekers" are placed in community detention that they dont just claim to be a legal migrant or Australian born citizen of the same ethnicity and vanish into their own cultural enclaves.
(And this is before we consider why if they had reached Indonesia without being apprehended [The biggest country of the Islamic religion in the world] they didnt just stay there)
inb4 tldr
A group of people arrive in Australia from Indonesia claiming to be from Afghanistan; they lack passports and all other forms of identification.
So question 1: How do these people get to Indonesia from Afghanistan without passports?
This question begets two answers, either they didnt have passports and illegally crossed the boarders of multiple countries to get to Indonesia, or
They did have passports when they arrived in Indonesia all of which subsequently magically dissappeared before they arrived in Australia.
Thus either these people are happy to flout and ignore international laws giving no indication that they won't treat Australian laws in the same manner, or they have purposefully obscured information about their backgrounds before they arrive.
As it happens it appears that in a large number of cases the "asylum seekers" destroy their own passports while in transit to Australia.
Having spoken with a number of people affiliated with the naval actions regarding such "boat people" a common complaint was that prior to being boarded they sabotage their own boats by such actions as flooding the engine with seawater; jettisoning the engine, setting fire to the boat or scuttling the boat thereby attempting to force the navy to "rescue" them and take then back to the mainland. An example of this occured during the Tampa affair when upon being told that the Norwegian vessel would not be taking them to Australia, they proceeded to spend the rest of the trip spitting on the crew.
Yet these people want to become part of our community?
The next claim is that it takes too long to process the "asylum seekers"; it is not surprising that this is the case given that their past history is obfuscated (willfully or otherwise) and that refugee status is only given to people from certain regions of Afghanistan; which all such "boat people" claim to be from. Thus the process is to not only determine whether such people are indeed from Afghanistan, and are who they claim to be, but to determine their actual places of residence. This has led to some cases only being resolved by a translator attempting to determine the "refugee's" accent by speaking to them. Following determining whether they are legitimate or otherwise a security check needs to be done in order to determine any past criminal records or war crimes affiliations; often any "refugees" with such black marks have undergone a change of name just prior to departing their original country such that when asked the records have not yet been transferred to the new name and they appear to be unblemished.
An example of how fast identification can be occured when a man convicted of manslaughter in Canada attempted to arrive in Australia claiming to be from Afghanistan; he was identified before the boat made landfall.
At no point do these "asylum seekers" assist the authorities in their identification or processing, generally they languish in the detention centres and after a period of time they apply for inhumane treatment, their processing is stopped and they are basically let out into the community. With this regard Australia has a 100% retention rate of those who claim to be "asylum seekers" due to this level of obfuscation, as opposed to the maximum level in Europe being 18%; (82% are discovered to have lied about their origins or past records).
For those who advocate "community detention" it is of note that at least 5 people of Middle Eastern descent are currently fugitives from the law in Melbourne, and the police suspect that they are being harboured by their ethnic groups. There is nothing to say that once said "asylum seekers" are placed in community detention that they dont just claim to be a legal migrant or Australian born citizen of the same ethnicity and vanish into their own cultural enclaves.
(And this is before we consider why if they had reached Indonesia without being apprehended [The biggest country of the Islamic religion in the world] they didnt just stay there)
inb4 tldr
Last edited:
