Going Hard on Illegal Migrants

The two workers I worked with came to Australia by boat. For some reasons, they tend to have an annoying sense of entitlement that I couldn't put a finger to. Perhaps it was the sufferings they went through to get here. Perhaps it was the free lodgings and food provided for a couple of years by the Australia government along with free training and even a small allowance to tide by the years during detention. I wasn't so sure. I always thought that the people who had it hard would find it easier to find contentment, or became more easy going, taking anything better than the previous as gifts of life. I guessed I was wrong. They could be unappreciative at times and there was a difference between fighting for rights and being unreasonably demanding. I didn't think they knew a line exist but in any case, it wasn't a right attitude to expect so much -almost like the Aboriginals have been reputed  to do so (at least they have grounds for it, arguably, pun not intended). Let's hope that mentality was not a representation of the asylum seeker population in general. I am not discriminating anyone. All of us are migrants to Australia, never mind how we arrived. Every one of us should be prepared to work our ass off to make it work out, not expecting favours from the others all the time. Or at the very least, learn how to ask politely instead of going, "You have to do this."

Balls. I could make myself leave my country because I was pissed enough having being told that way too often. They soon learnt, after making friends with my middle finger after a while.

So I was supposed to interpret this today: 


That critical blow must hurt. It was bad news for the guys, who were planning to get their wives and children to Perth. Especially for one of them, who had already lodged his application last year and awaiting a DNA test on his son. His migration agent really screwed him up big time by delaying his application process by a few months. He might have made it just before the new guide lines otherwise. So close. He told me this was posted on Facebook by one of his friends who came here as an IMA. He said that was bad - so I assumed he knew what was written there. I didn't feel like telling him what I interpreted from it because I didn't want to be responsible for riling him up. I rather someone else do it. I learnt my lessons well.

The immigration must have done enough data analysis to define the demographics of illegal immigrants who come to Australia by boat or other means. They are predominantly male and most of them have spouses and children. The intention of putting their lives at high risk sailing up to 2 weeks through the precarious seas was to get arrested by the Australian patrol, detained as refugees and then work out a way to get a permanent residency as an asylum seeker. With a permanent resident visa in the pocket, the next step would be bringing the family over. That was the idea. The immigration authorities knew their plans like the back of your hands and hit it where it hurts most. I'm not sure it is works on them but it would certainly have been for me. Without my family, what will be the point I am here? If I have to be alone, I would be in Vietnam, Panama or anywhere to make a living, not Australia. I wonder what they think, I'll soon find out.

On the front end, we thought it was hilarious the new Australian Government suggested buying up boats in Indonesia or something like that to stop illegal immigrants from coming. On the more serious side, they announced that new detainees would be deported to transferred to Papua New Guinea instead giving them permanent residency in Australia like the recent past. That may probably deter a good number of risk takers, if the news get there that is. I wasn't too convinced with the effectiveness of the new policy at first when I heard the announcement. If an asylum seeker is running for his life, wouldn't he be happy as long as he is given asylum in a peaceful and safe place? I thought it would be reasonable to assume so but I was dead wrong. My colleagues gave me a look of disgust when I suggested that and told me they rather not leave their countries. I was surprised but it soon dawned on me and I shot back, "Oh, I thought your lives were in danger." That was what they claimed when they gave their sob stories to the immigration officers. Apparently, despite running for their lives, there are still preferences where they'll prefer to stay alive. The immigration department apparently knew their stuff better than me and did just that.

Nothing, however, beats the way they dealt with this from the back. Stopping IMAs from bringing their families over may yield a significant result working in tandem with other measures. We'll see if that happens. As I am only a permanent resident of Australia, I wouldn't want to give my political views here if I could help it, much like how I would expect the PRs of Singapore to shut their mouths. Until then, if ever.

**edit: He told me gleefully he would simply need to get his Australian Citizenship, after which the government will have no way to stop him from bringing his family over. Sounds legit. I am really clueless on this claim. Let's wait and see


  1. I think this is a bold and responsible initiative by the Australian government.
    If you want a country prosper, you must stop them at all cost.
    1. Make sure they don't land on the shore.
    2. Keep them out at the sea.
    3. If boat sinks, carry out rescue, but sparingly, if you know what I mean. Some of them must die to create some death toll, so there is news for the press to announce to the world.
    4. Send a clear signal to the world that Australia will not be responsible for their attempt to enter Australian waters ILLEGALLY.
    5. Cut their bloodline. *** This is what Australian government wants to do. If they fail to cut them in the seas, they have cut them by ceasing to issue visas to their family members.

    This is cruel to illegal immigrants, but this is being responsible to Australian people.
    Why should the people be paying to house, feed, train and assimilate illegal immigrants into the mainstream population?

    The money should be spent on the people to create more jobs, better quality of education, better social and physical infrastructures and even long-term sustainable development.

    I still recall 1998 Jakarta Riot, when I was only 3 months to ORD. By higher order, I assembled my men to brief them the operation - catch all illegal immigrants hiding in the western zones. Day and night, we ran shifts to patrol and comb areas. The moment we spotted sampans, we radio Area HQ to request for aerial support to coordinate and view from the top, while my men will comb from ground.

    Guess how many illegal immigrants were caught?
    You won't believe it. More than 400. Many sampans were towed as well.

    Luckily, all 400 were deported back to Indonesia.
    Imagine we have tens of thousands like those fleeing to Australia by seas, there will be many refugee camps. This people will eat into your resources like parasites.

    1. From my understanding, the Indonesia seamen uses small boats in dire conditions on purpose. So that they could reach the shores (hopefully) but in a condition BAD ENOUGH for the coast guards to rescue them. I was told that there were cases where the sympathetic guards even told the people on board they were unable to rescue them because they were 'not in trouble', so the people on board destroy them boat and got rescued. It is rough out there. There isn't really a right or wrong in the issues. After all there are lives at stake. I guess those who dared, won. The recent 'cooling measures' by the government will only work to a certain extent because any policy has loopholes to be exploited. So long as Australia is not adamant in turning refugees away completely, it will never be resolved. Reduction or minimizing doesn't mean a thing here, as how we have been always told by the Singapore government that they are 'minimizing' foreign workers intake.

    2. Despite the illegal immigrants risked it, they were still deported back to Indonesia no matter what because Singapore government will never accept them, resounding the same message that was given to the Vietnamese refugees in the 70s.

      Going forward, it is applauding that the Australian government has plans to tackle issues with illegal immigrants. This is an enduring war. As you have said, Australia is not adamant. Recent years of souring relationship between Australia and Indonesia could make Australia more adamant. With US making a comeback to the Western Pacific, anchoring a US base in Darwin, this can certainly boost Australia's confidence to negotiate for more with Indonesia.

      The worrying part is that Indonesia's military spending has increased in recent years. Many will speculate the highest spender in SEA is Singapore, which is not true. The highest spender is Indonesia. That's why we are looking into F35 - also known as invisible and invincible striker - "You will never see me (on your radar), until you are blown up in the sky."

    3. @ a blessed Singaporean

      "3. If boat sinks, carry out rescue, but sparingly, if you know what I mean. Some of them must die to create some death toll, so there is news for the press to announce to the world."

      If you read enough of what I wrote, you will know I am all for writing the truth where possible however unpalatable it may be for others, or not very political correct.

      But I think it is a bit too much to create deaths in a sea rescue for several reasons.

      1. i believe however the Australian politicians or the civil services or the military personnel can be, the ethics of letting deliberately someone die can be too much in the long run,

      2. in australia particularly, directives that even suggest this cannot stay hidden for long. Paper cannot contain fire, especially in Aussie context.

      3. Drownings and death create more sympathy in Australian public and ammo for left wing than than refugee fear. Look at Tampas incident for Howard govt and Christmas Island drownings for Gillard govt.

      4. Even if the drowning happen at Indonesian waters ie less than 10 miles from the Indonesian coast, somehow the Australian can get blamed by people like in recent events. By right, the Indonesians should be responsible for the rescue and maybe the Australian authorities who received the distress call* did tell the Indonesian ppl where they where. But no one came to help and Aussie ships also cannot suka suka go into Indonesian waters to do stuff. So ultimately aussie govt kena blamed by the IMAs even though the Aussies not obligated to help since its Indonesians territory.

      * in case you don't know, in that most recent case of drownings off Indonesian coast it shows how sneaky the refugees are. When told by the crew to call for help, the refugees call their contact IN AUSTRALIA via mobile phone (so must be not that far off Indonesian waters to get reception!) and that contact called the Aussie authorities to give them the refugees number. The Aussies lan lan go and call that number and using the mobile phone location they worked out where the boat is. They told the refugees they will get help, but never actually said anything about Australian help, so I assume they may have notified the Indonesians instead, expecting them to do their obligation thing in their own territory.
      Except they didn't do anything. The so called leaking boat stay afloat for a long time, maybe 12 to 24 hours, staying still not going anywhere, then the crew decided to turn the boat back to Indonesia and managed to stay afloat the whole journey back until less than 500m off the beach the boat capsized because of big breakers. The boat is so close to the shore that a 6 year old boy can swim to shore (of course there are also bad strong currents so even big strong men can and did drown!
      Where did this info come from? These are from the IMA survivors own accounts broadcasted by the ABC who interviewed them in Indonesian and Syria. Furthermore the program is obviously pro-IMAs or refugees, but anyone who is awake can tell these IMAs are not your common variety people, but people who knows how to manipulate the media, but even if you think about what happened based on what they said, (which I don't believe they are telling even 50% truth) I can point out flaws that practically condem their stories.

    4. Btw nix

      IMAs has been known to sink their own boat to force the Aussie to pick them up


  2. They have learnt well from europe. Particular group in europe are breeding non stop to form a majority under democracy rule and will take over europe or part of it one day especially now they have free movement, they can all move and settle in a particular state, thus forming the majority and convert the state into certain rule. Any country should guard their borders against people with bad intentions.

  3. First of all, the term "Illegal Immigrant" is technically wrong, to describe asylum seekers.
    Lets take emotions out first and look at facts.

    (1) People who are being persecuted and are in fear of their lives, have a basic human rights to try to survive. That is the basis of modern society and what "human rights" are about.

    (2) Under International laws, asylum seekers HAVE to leave their place of fear, and find their own way, to a safer country, THEN they can ask for help. Because there is such a thing as borders, people cannot invade another country to help. (This is a fact. that I have researched).

    This is what UN signatories are supposed to do. That is why it is technically "illegal" for Australia to say "you cannot come here to seek asylum", because trying to reach Australia to seek asylum IS the proper process.

    The politicians want to paint the picture that the "legal" way is to first escaped to a UNHCR refugee camp, get registered, then UN will assign them to Australia.

    Guess what ? UNHCR Camps are also in some other people's country, and they chose the area to make it easier for refugees to run to.. What is the point of putting a UNHCR camp in Australia where most refugees will die before they can even ask for help.

    I think the method of trying to survive should not be used to discriminate.(This is not a fact, but my opinion)

    It is like telling people trying to run from a burning building, that they cannot use the "Entrance" as an "Exit" because it is not right. That they cannot jump from wndows, they must form a queue for the exit doors. Otherwise, we will not provide them medical assistance when they "jump queue" and break a window...

    When you are in such a situation, you obviously will make decisions based on which gives you and your family the best chance of survival, together.

    I guess in their case, their lives "may be in danger" but is not in "immediate danger". So it is like in a building where the fire is somewhere further away, not already burning your ass. so you still have time to take your valuables, plan your route, drive your car away from the building if possible.

    Like the Indonesia racial riots - imagine you are one of those Chinese in a place where you, your spouse, your kids, can be killed, just because you are Chinese. What would you do ? Your choices are "find somewhere in Indonesia that you can hide safely" or "Run away first".

    Or rather, I would use the analogy that your neighbours are getting killed, try to jump over your fence or run into your house to escape from the murderer.
    You can decide whether you want to help them or not. Singapore decided not to help.

    If we want to say "too bad you are born in a country where you can die easily, but please don't come here", then the same "too bad you are born into a country where it is more blessed and attracts me" must equally apply.

    It is lucky that Australia is not like European countries where asylum seekers can WALK across the border.

    1. I am not sure if you realised but:

      1. Many of the recent IMA are Syrian, Lebanese, Afghan or Sri Lankans. many of them FLEW to indonesia, ( a few went by sea). There are many UNHCR camps along the way alot closer to their home countries than Australia. There are no political persecution in Indonesia for these people, except they are there as visitors and cannot stay long term if they try to claim asylum.

      2. As you may know they arrive by boat since you cannot board any airplane to australia without a proper entry visa. All of them pay big money to get on the boats, some borrow using their family as collaterals. Not a few hundred dollars but tens of thousands of US dollars per person.

      3. If you are truly on the run then you are not fussy where you go like Nix wrote, but not they don't want to go to US or EU or Canada the big three group of settlement countries they want Australia as Australia offers the best pension and benefits of them all and allow them to form their own enclaves without interference from the government.

      4. If you think about showing pity to those who are truly persecuted you should even more pity to those are already confirmed refugees stuck in the next 5 -10 years in a UNCHR camp all over the world waiting for their turn to get settlement into countries not always of their choice. Thanks to these queue jumpers who are not all true refugees and somehow have the money and the passport to get to Indonesia but later got ' lost', the rest of the confirmed UNHCR certified REFUGEES have to wait longer in the relatively more dangerous camps compared to Manus island who have Internet and a small weekly pocket money given to them!

      That's why I call them IMA, SGs would have called them economic migrants.

      FYI the camps in Australia are not run by UNCHR. The camps are run by Australian government which are the de luxe camp 100 times better than UNCHR camps and are better than SBMT CAMPat Nee soon in first 4 weeks of BMT with no book out.

    2. @ Calamari

      I agree to -> the term "Illegal Immigrant" is technically wrong, to describe asylum seekers.

      However, there is a vast difference between AS (asylum seeker) and IM (illegal immigrants). AS must have a very compelling political reason. War and natural calamity is not included. Edward Snowden is an example.

      By right, the asylum seekers should contact the consulate, high commission or embassy to seek asylum in his/her own country, who may be rejected.
      By left, the asylum seekers can also come to the host country to seek asylum, if he/she manages to leave his/her own country.

      @ XYZ,

      " The camps are run by Australian government which are the de luxe camp 100 times better than UNCHR camps and are better than SBMT CAMPat Nee soon in first 4 weeks of BMT with no book out."

      I agree. Exactly! These refugees are parasites. The more they should never be let into the mainland.
      This poses serious domestic security concern e.g. crime rate. What if a handful of them are religious extremists?
      This also poses financial issues. Who is paying? The Australian people, the taxpayers.

      If there is anything that the Singapore government did right, for sure not accepting and deporting the illegal immigrants is one.

    3. @ A Blessed Singaporean

      Actually "Illegal Immigrant" is an accurate description of who they are regardless of they are claiming asylum or not.

      And until they are proven to be truly qualify as refugee under UN definition which is very very specific, they cannot be given asylum

      [A]ny person who: owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country

      This is quite ironical since this definition originally used since 1951 was just after WW2 and yet does not include fleeing from war. Many people try to use the definition of refugees as including those running away from war but the UN have never ever endorsed this inclusion in their definition (there are others who try to include them but not UN)!

    4. Well, legally, if they are not true asylum seekers, Australia can deport them back.
      There is no real reason that just because they "ask for asylum", it must be granted.
      That is why there are case officers to assess whether their danger is real or not.

      First of all, I do not personally know or work with people who know these boat people, so I will reserve my judgement. I trust that the officials have more experience and know how to do their job well without being affect my "politics" and all.


      Some countries like iraq and afghanistan, we have no embassy - so they can't seek asylum from there.

      From here :


      more people arrive by air than by boat. in 2011, over 50
      percent of asylum seekers arriving in australia arrived by air.
      nearly all people arriving by boat have been found to be refugees,
      compared to only 44 percent of air arrivals actually being granted
      refugee protection.

      asylum seekers arriving by boat make up a small fraction of
      australia’s annual permanent migration intake.
      in 2011, 11,491 asylum seekers arrived in

      less than half were boat arrivals. 90 percent of these boat arrivals became refugees.

      but it is true, that those may be older statistics, as this article shows an exponential increase in the last couple of years :


      I would think, instead of locking them up so long and spending more money, spend those money in more officers to check. Give them some welfare to start, and they can start working faster and hopefully pay back the taxes.

      all provided they are found to be actual asylum seekers.

      Oh and this : http://www.news.com.au/world/ten-myths-around-asylum-seekers-arriving-on-boats-in-australian-waters/story-fndir2ev-1226676024840

      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.

      If they are rich, they can try taking plane - because they don't need to go through detention and even if they are not genuine asylum seekers, they just fly back home.. maybe try again next time eh...

    5. @ Singapore Calamari

      Some quick comments:

      1. Like I said, please quote "facts" from UN, UNCHR and governmental sources. You will find lobby groups and charities writing certain things as facts in seen from a limited point of view without a wider perspective.

      2. It is a common misconception that you can seek asylum only through embassies. This is not true. You can seek asylum in any UN or UNHCR agencies as well. Plenty of UNHCR camps in Syria, Jordan, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan

      3. The main differences in treatment of IMAs (by boat) and People with flew into Australia then claim asylum is that you don't spent millions of dollars and risking hundreds of Australian lives trying to save IMAs from drowning or chasing them around the Indian Ocean. Also people who came in by planes have visas and papers, IMAs don't so often have to rely on thrid party for varification. I agree that close to 90 percent of IMAs are granted asylum, though I am sure the bar is set much much lower than skilled migration and thus a lot of them were given the benefit of doubt (judging by what they say and do after being granted asylum). Furthermore this implies that those who are NOT granted asylum failed to pass over a very low bar!

      4. If they are truly sure they qualify for asylum and are in immediate danger of life, they can go to US embassies and EU embassies, I can't see them explaining why they are "choosy" about where they want to go

      5. "If they are rich, they can try taking plane - because they don't need to go through detention and even if they are not genuine asylum seekers, they just fly back home.. maybe try again next time eh..."

      Many of them are not rich but they are definitely not poor (most are lower middle or middle class in the home country). As you know you cannot board a plane going to Australia unless you show the airport counter the entry visa (which they check with DIMA electronically) and obviously they would not have qualified to get a visa (even a tourist one) and have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to boat smugglers (cheaper to buy air ticket)

  4. Btw

    Regarding fire deaths in a crowded place, it is not due to people not knowing how to get out of the place, it is because people do not know how to leave the place in an orderly fashion when fire injuries are not imminent. They panic and then the crush and the disorderly way resulting in people falling done and blocking the exit tat result in the tragedy.

    Every story is the same no matter where, except maybe Japan

  5. @ XYZ,

    Indeed, there will always be a handful of scheming illegal immigrants who will resort to various contacts and mass media support to solicited sympathy and aggravate an already sensitive issue.

    Back to my point,
    "3. If boat sinks, carry out rescue, but sparingly, if you know what I mean. Some of them must die to create some death toll, so there is news for the press to announce to the world."

    Leader does not make popular decision, but right decision. When your men understood your right decision, it becomes a popular decision.

    Illegal immigrants don't flee in tens or hundreds. They flee in thousands!
    If several boats overloaded with thousands of refugees suddenly capsized, can you save them all who are trying to stay buoyant in the sea?

    As Nix and you have mentioned, these boats were deliberately chosen because the conditions are seriously in a very bad state.
    If you are the commander of your small vessel (e.g. Navy or Coast Guard) and your vessel's max load is 200. Assuming you have a crew of 30, including yourself. Technically you can load 170 refugees. If you want to try your luck, risking not only your crew of 30 and 170 rescued refugees, you probably want to save another 50 more refugees, pushing the load to 250.
    Then again, you only managed to save 220 refugees, hopefully your vessel doesn't sink.
    Otherwise on the safe side, 170 refugees will technically give you a safer bet that your vessel doesn't sink.

    When I mean "sparingly", I am implying you should try to do within your limits, without risking or endangering your crew.

    Imagine I am the commander of the vessel, the lives of these refugees are not my primary concern.
    To me, I am vested with the authority and the duty to protect my country, my men (my crew under my charge) and the people of Australia.

    1. What if these refugees imposed themselves as pirates, armed and proficient in combat?
    As a commander, I cannot put my crew into harm's way.
    Likewise, I am sure the Australian commander will not permit too.

    2. How is a crew of 30 going to control 170 refugees on board your vessel?
    Do you know these are not your primary school boys who understand your language.
    These are refugees, of which hundreds do not understand English.
    Maybe a handful still can converse with your in broken English.
    If you are lucky, you might get one or two who can speak to you in comprehensible English.
    The ones who can speak to you in IELTS English of 7 to 9 are probably in Australia working as professionals.
    This is the real situation on the ground.

    3. There is no Australian directive or UN convention or International Protocol that states that I must rescue refugees as many as my vessel can load.
    In other words, I can choose to rescue 10 or even 20.
    As a commander, it is up to me to decide what is the comfort level that my crew of 30 can safely control. If my crew can control 50 refugees, then 50 is the max, not 170.

    Therefore if thousands of refugees are trying to seek help out in the sea, then the bad news is clear.
    Some must perish, not because I choose to, not you choose to, not Mother Nature, not by Act of God, but their choice.
    If they made this choice, then they got to accept it.

    I know my statement is cruel, but as I have said, the right decision is not always popular.
    It is not popular to the refugees, but it is popular as the commander, my duty is to protect my crew, my country and my people.

    You must understand what is call of duty. You must never let emotion or sympathy overrides you.

    Likewise, if I recall correctly, you are a nurse.
    If there is a pandemic and your hospital can only accept 1,000 patients, then the 1,001 must not come. Emotion must not override the duty of our profession.

    1. Perhaps I wrote too much and you may not pick up the main point

      1. Australians may have more ethics than you think even the politician
      2. The policy of inadequate rescue will not stay hidden for long in the Australian politics; it will always be leaked

      As the job of an Australian politician (in his/her own view) is not to serve the country but to make sure they get re-elected, the politicians cannot afford to have this kind of let-them-drown-abit policies which is political suicide. The Australians voters will never forgive them.

      Furthermore the more drowning there is the more left-wing-do-gooders-we-can-let-them-all-come-in politicians and activists can milk public sympathies to the max.

      There are plenty of website that try to persuade people like SG Calamari with pages calling some ideas as MYTHS and trying to say what the Australian govt is illegal. Most of them (like Refugee council Australia, Amnesty etc) are run by lobbyists and activists with vested interest. If you actually read the website of UNCHR or the Australian UNCHR agency, they make very little mention about the IMAs in Australia and what the news media is printing as attributed to UN spokesperson is certainly not reflected in these website (ie the UN mostly say they will look into allegations and if the allegations are true then they will investigate, but they rarely say they agree with the allegations!!!!).

      Anyway there is a lot of information claimed by pro-refugee activists as Myths. These people often twist the facts to make it look like the government itself is doing illegal things.

      BTW the patrol boats also carry life rafts and the long-range survellience planes can drop inflatable rescue rafts

      PS some of the recent IMAs look like then can get IELTS level 7 if you listen to them on TV.... :)

      @SG Calamari
      Oh, FYI: while the UN Charter of Human rights includes the right to claim asylum, there is nowhere in the UN charter or written by UNCHR that says the so-called refugees can arrive in Australia by any (including illegal) means to claim asylum.

      If you want to counter the argument, please quote from the UN or UNCHR website, not some activist website.

    2. It is true the "entry" is illegal, but according to this : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

      they are considered "illegal entry" but they have not broken any Australian or International Law.

      This "illegal" term is used to describe someone arriving without a visa.

      After more digging, yes, I agree that Refugee Convention does not condone illegal means to entry. (Legal or not being defined by the receiving country's law.)

      Also, the Australian Parliament House website :

      Also says :

      Asylum seekers irrespective of their mode of arrival, like others that arrive in Australia without a valid visa, are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non-citizens’. However, the term ‘unlawful’ does not mean that asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.[10]

      As to how many of them are real refugees and how many are fakers, I really have no personal feel. I only do hope that the authorities are doing their jobs properly.

      But I am more concerned about the huge number of legal immigrants fighting me for my job..

      and the larger number of MLC taking over the whole world - spitting and shitting everywhere (Singapore, HK and Australia included), wearing pyjamas for walks in the neighbourhood park (yes I have seen them)... HAHAHA...

    3. You should also be worried about the IMAs coming in and we have to spend more than $1Billion housing these refugees in camps plus all the pensions we pay them while they are not working and supposed to be upskilling themselves plus deploying military personnel to rescue or monitor them

    4. IMA still low in numbers at the moment. I feel the govt is too generous in their welfare and pensions... Probably to compensate for the fact that there is compulsory detention.

      Like I said before (may or may not be feasible, I don't have the answer) - spend less on detention and likewise spend less on welfare.

      Their bar is obviously low - they don't have to prove skills, or IELTS, etc. they have to prove they are in danger. I think the bar is the same whether the come by boat or by plane.

      And yes, I agree the fact that we have more welfare is probably an attractive Option for them.

      I read a book, written by a current SBS Radio Journalist who was a refugee before. He interviewed a smuggler during Howard's time and the smuggler actually did suggest turning back the boat...

      He then got contacted by DIMIA, AFP, etc.. and 6 months later, Howard turned back the first boat.

      I remember the transcript that the people smuggler said on SBS radio (and written in the book) something along the lines of - Are you caucasians really afraid of breaking the rules ? Just turn back 1 boat, and the boats will stop coming...

    5. @ Singapore Calamari

      According to the government, the confirmed refugees released into community are given same welfare as an Aussie resident BUT

      they are allowed immediate access to social security compared to skilled migrants who have a fixed waiting period (now up to 2 years) when they arrived to Australia

      they can access government funded refugee support program not for general population plus short term assistance funds from governmental agencies

      The IMA camp detainees are given camp living at a relatively better conditions than SAF BMT conditions including internet access computer access etc. Also given allowance to buy small items about $50 per week per person.

      Since I don't eat out much at all, I figure A$50 per week per person for grocery on top of cooked meal 3 times a day plus food and clothing and bedding provided already is not too bad. Maybe I don't have a life or lived simply but this is the info available out there

      see http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees


      there is no truth to claims made in emails recently circulated throughout Australia that refugees are entitled to higher benefits than other social security recipients
      refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents—they do not receive special refugee payments or special rates of payment
      given the circumstances in which refugees come to settle in Australia, they are exempt from the standard waiting period that applies to migrants seeking to access social security payments or concession cards
      refugees also receive short-term assistance from DIAC under the Humanitarian Settlement Services program, aimed at helping them settle effectively once they have received permanent residency
      DIAC also provides funding to assist asylum seekers living in the community through the Asylum Seekers Assistance Scheme and Community Assistance Support Program. This assistance is provided through NGOs such as the Australian Red Cross. The financial component of such assistance does not exceed 89 per cent of the DHS Special Benefit (which would currently amount to $438.41) and 89 per cent of DHS Rent Assistance (which would currently amount to $71.79). Limited assistance in the form of services is provided in order to assist asylum seekers living in the community to meet basic needs such as access to health and community services
      DIAC also provides funding through NGOs such as the Australian Red Cross aimed at ensuring that people placed in community detention are appropriately supported. The financial component of such assistance does not exceed 70 per cent of the DHS Special Benefit (which would currently amount to $344.82). Assistance provided also includes access to housing, health and community services and social support networks
      asylum seekers in immigration detention centres do not receive DHS equivalent payments or percentages of such payments. They are entitled to a range of services, including access to health care, religious facilities, television, library services and other educational and entertainment facilities, clothes, footwear, toiletries, hygiene products and other personal items. Detainees also have access to the income allowance program, through which they are allocated points that can be exchanged for small items at the facility shop
      provision of services such as those outlined above are consistent with the Government’s immigration detention values, specifically value number 7—Conditions of detention will ensure the inherent dignity of the human person
      further, the assistance to refugees and asylum seekers described in this Background Note is longstanding and has bi-partisan support. Such support is consistent with the overall obligation and commitment by Australia to provide protection for refugees and resolve refugee situations.

  6. "IMA" and/or "asylum seekers" are a difficult and controversial topic. There is no right or wrong. I have personally met and spoke with some. The reality is some flee for their lives; and others are really economic-migrants taking a huge risk by assuming "asylum-seeker status". Each individual's case is unique, so it is hard for strangers like ourselves to make prejudicial judgement on any of them. IMHO, it is up to the immigration judge to decide, i.e. if they are so lucky as to make it alive to that stage.

    That said, I agree with how A Blessed Singaporean analyzed the situation at the initial point-of-contact. I agree with his definition of "call of duty." E.g. The airplane decompression instruction is always "...make sure to put the oxygen mask on yourself first before attempting to help someone else put on theirs" -- because if one cannot assure one's own safety, one is of limited help to others. That's the reality on the ground, at the initial point-of-contact.

    For sure, we would all like to be nice and supportive people who give others a chance of survival, but the rules of the game change depending on the situations. E.g. Nurses are trained differently for triage in a normal Emergency Room Situation vs in a Mass Casualty Site. In the former situation, we save those with the highest risk of death first; in the latter situation where it is unlikely that we can save all casualties due to limited medical resources, we save those with the best chance of survival first so as to keep the death-toll low and hopefully those whose minor injuries are treated may help to assist the other casualties. [Note: I hope this example does not come as a shock for the non-medically trained folks. Yes, we are trained to let some die if the situation is such.]

    1. "Nurses are trained differently for triage in a normal Emergency Room Situation vs in a Mass Casualty Site"

      Exactly. You still try to assess all of them but doesn't mean you treat them the same in a normal emergency compared to mass casualty

  7. @ XYZ,

    Perhaps we could look at things from another perspective.

    If these illegal immigrants do enter Australia and they behave themselves, don't cause trouble, that's OK because there will more good people in this country.
    What if they do actually stir trouble, it is actually not a bad thing after all. LOL you may wonder why I think this is good.
    Firstly, these immigrants are of a different skin colour compared to mine. If they cause trouble, the White Australian will target them and think we yellow skin are better off.
    If more of them cause trouble, the better for us yellow skin.
    Whether they become a target or not, that will depend how well they behave themselves.

    1. @ A Blessed Singaporean

      Refugees or IMAs rarely have the necessary skillset required by Australian Govt and many will spend years being non-productive on pensions/aids.

      I am not saying we should not help refugees but we should be able to dictate who comes in and how many so that adequate resources are available for them (and all Australians) to skill-up, rather than dumping them in big cities competing with other locals who are already have problems to stay afloat.

      As the Sydney riot experience shows about 7-8 years ago, you can be living in Australia for decades but if things don't go their way, the Caucasian Aussies is very happy to blame non-Caucasians for all their troubles. This includes Lebanese and Vietnamese 2nd generation Australians who have lived in Australian for 20 -30 years speaking with an Aussie accent.

      Yellow skin, black skin, olive skin, we are all "foreigners coming to take over our jobs and our houses and land" to these people.

      We may be going the right thing, but try suing and fighting for justice when you are on a life support machine.

      The newspapers screaming Chinese Mainlanders making property prices skyrocketing doesnt help.

      News about some Sri Lanka Tamil refugee molesting a blind woman on a train getting caught on CCTV doesn't help.

      When one outsider come to commit crime here, we all get wacked by the media and most of public opinion.