Coalition to Deny Asylum Seekers Government Help to Navigate Migration Process

[icyfroth]

A Coalition government will harshen its stance against asylum seekers even further, denying those who arrive by boat the right to free government advice and help with lodging appeals.

The Coalition's scrapping of taxpayer-funded assistance for asylum seekers, to be announced on Saturday by opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, will save the budget about $100 million over the next four years.

Even under the harsh border protection policies of former prime minister John Howard, such protections existed for asylum seekers, but Mr Morrison said they had gotten ''out of hand'' with the ''deluge of boats'' under Labor.

An Abbott government would not prevent refugee advocates from giving free legal advice to asylum seekers, but taxpayers would no longer be paying for it, Mr Morrison said.

''This level of support is not provided to those who currently legally arrive in Australia,'' Mr Morrison said. ''They have to pay for it themselves.''

Click Here To Read Whole Article

Oooh Waaah!

That's going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

[i-need-a-martini]

Ironically the same does not apply to those that fly in and then claim refugee status once they get here  Nor does it apply to those who overstay their holiday visas to claim refugee status.

[*crikey*mate* · Accepted solution]

"The key to our position here, it's been a strong and consistent position for 10 years now, is that people who come illegally by boat will not be granted permanent residency," Mr Abbott said.

I don't understand "who come illegally by boat". It is not illegal to seek Assylum in Australia, even if arriving by boat.

sorry about the large text, it won't go back to regualr size, it just decided to do that.

I agree with the TVP's. Sort of like 3 year good behaviour bonds and/or return to destination of origin once it is safe to do so. I have no problem with that. The whole idea is to provide sanctuary for those in danger. Once the danger is over, let them go home and return under legal methods. (I say legal, as if they are no longer in danger etc, then they cannot legally claim assylum) If their motivation for seeking sanctuary here is safety, then I have no problem denying permanent residency,

As for "no right to appeal" I have no problem with that either. We're not a selfish country, we don't just deny people assistance because we're not very nice people or because we feel like it. If they appeal and are denied, then that's how it is, they need to accept no for an answer, not consume resources that are already stretched so thinly and not even covering the needs of our citizens.

Here's the thing, we just can't help everybody. It would be great if we could, but we just can't. From what I understand, we are in enormous debt at the moment, so actions need to be taken to reduce that debt and that will no doubt require cutbacks in many areas.

I believe that those opposing the coalition's proposals on this matter are either being played and not looking at the big picture, or are playing on people's emotions in a desperate attempt to besmirch the opposition.

The bottom line is, the spending has to stop. If any party decided to reduce spending in areas such as Health, Education, Pensions etc, the outcry would be no different as they are equally emotive topics.

If Australia doesn't start following some basic Economic principles (regardless of who is in power) then we will end up being the Assylum Seekers ourselves. We cannot survive on debt. Eventually people want their money back and they stop wanting to give you more.

We need to cut the spending. We need to reduce debt. We need to remain a strong country, not only for our own citizens, but so that we can continue to help others into the future.

The difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich invest first then spend what's left over. The poor spend first and invest what's left over. Whilstever Australia is in debt, we cannot invest. We need to reduce/eliminate debt and build capital, or we won't even be able to provide Basic Human Rights for ourselves, far less help other people as well. It's as simple as that.

Human Rights - pfft - it seems we throw those two words around so discriminately, eh? Who is crying out for the Human Rights of the homeless people in our society? Who is crying out for the Human Rights of our elderly? Just because they are already in Australia, doesn't mean that their lives are not in danger.

It is illegal to sleep under a bridge regardless of whether you are rich or poor.

[izabsmiling]

---

@chinchuckchick wrote:

You are comparing someone who has committed a criminal offence..

Really?? So you know they are guilty?

---

It helps  to follow the discussion sometimes .

@Podster wrote:

Iza, if, for instance a person invaded your home and was taken to court, would you fund their defence?

If I saw them I would know...

[izabsmiling]

Crikey Mate wrote: 

I believe that those opposing the coalition's proposals on this matter are either being played and not looking at the big picture, or are playing on people's emotions in a desperate attempt to besmirch the opposition.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe that some ,like the Coalition forget that we can only do what our and international law and all that we as a Country are signaturies to permit.....regardless of what we want and or say or tell people we can and will do.

No one including our PM and furure PM's are above the Law

[*crikey*mate*]

Then I say that you don't understand what International Law is. I say that you don't understand the nature of Treaties etc or exactly what being a signatory is.

Another thing that you seem to not understand is that we cannot pay for it. Tell me, how do you recommend that we pay for it? Increase taxes? Borrow even more money?

The concept of "what we are entitled to" is a wonderful concept for fairy tales, but it is time that we faced reality. When debt is your apple, it soon becomes poisonous.

And I wish that you would proof read your posts, as I am finding it extremely difficult to decipher them. I can guarantee that your chances of constructing coherent sentences will increase by a factor of ten if you do so.

[i-need-a-martini]

So I am a Syrian refugee who has been lucky enough to make it to Australia.

Why am I here? I am a stateless Syrian Kurd (denied citizenship in my own country since the 1960's) who took part in protests against the Ba'th government. As a result, every member of my family was killed and only I was lucky enough to escape with the help of the UN. But not before I was imprisoned and tortured. 

I managed to make my way slowly south through other strife ridden countries. I had heard that if I cointinued south I will make it to Australia, one of the safest countries in the world. I had never heard of Australia before. 

I lived in a military ruled country since I was born in 1983 and it appears there will be no change to this even if the US bombs the bejeezers out of the country.

I no longer have a family and most of my friends are gone. I no longer have property as my house was raided and burned just before I escaped. The land that I used to own (cause who knows who owns it now) was always problematic as the area was hit with a drought in the 80s and never quite recovered. I no longer have money as my bank accounts were confiscated.

Since arriving in Australia I have fallen in love and married. I have 2 children. We have never managed to save any money because it is difficult holding down a job with a TPV. But we manage to pay the rent and feed the family.

Once the US bombs Syria and replaces the Ba'th governemtn with a holding government, Australia will deem Syria a safe country again. MY TPV will be denied and I will be returned 'home'. My wife who arrived a decade earlier has a permanent Australian visa and my children are Australian citizens.

I do not believe I should be forced to leave the safe country I am in now in order to return to a country where I have nothing. NOTHING. Whilst the threat of being returned home once the 3 years TPV is up has made me forever anxious and depressed about my future, my dearest wish is to live in Australia with my family and friends until I grow old and die.

Who can I turn to in order to overturn the governments decision?

[izabsmiling]

It isn't my problem how we pay for it.I just know that someone on a discussion board saying pfft to  the Human Rights Act doesn't negate it especially where the actions of our Government is concerned.They must consider it ...to negate something our Government has signed up to abide by ..there are steps they may need to take first.

The emotion is being used and employed where those things are ignored.

I would expect some to see the legalities more so than I do.

[*crikey*mate*]

Martini, that is an emotional scenario, and I agree, it is sad.

But a country cannot operate on emotion. A country MUST operate on fact.

The facts are, Assylum Seekers are granted refuge for their safety.

The sole purpose of Assylum is safety.

It is not an invitation to fall in love with somebody and start a family.

The process of seeking Assylum is not some new age dating agency.

We need to keep the objectives in mind without being swayed by the emotions.

Once it is safe to do so, they need to return home and then if they want to, apply for entry into Australia by appropriate methods.

I would be in favour of ensuring adequate training/skills development and education(where applicable) whilst an AS is here. This way when they do return to their country, they will have the skills and education to rebuild their lives. Alternatively, they could also have the skills base required to make their application for residency in Australia more likely to succeed. I don't believe that remaining in Limbo so to speak will help them long term. I do believe the humane (?) (sorry can't think of a better word) thing to do is to keep their skills and education current.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

It isn't my problem how we pay for it.

---

I thought that the above was worth repeating. ^^^^^

The rest of that post is incoherent and unstructured. You need to be clear in enunciating what you are talking about, not mash together vague generalizations in the hope that you will convince someone that your opinion is informed.

[**meep**]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Ironically the same does not apply to those that fly in and then claim refugee status once they get here  Nor does it apply to those who overstay their holiday visas to claim refugee status.

---

Arent you in support of stopping people smuggling trade?  I am sure I saw you posting that was the reason you supported the current Lab  policy.

Do you have any  specific information as to how many  visa overstayers are granted refugee status?

Majority of those who are classified as "overstayers", simply request to have their stay extended and there are some who do end up applying for permanent residency under the skilled migration  program.  While they wait to have their claim processed, they are not entitled to any government assistance.  If children are involved, they are not entitled to free education.  I am not sure what the current costs are but as of a few years ago, public primary school fee was $4000 + pa.   I actually have no problem with people who overstay their visas and are granted permanent residency under the skilled migration program.  It has no effect on the intake under our humanitarian program.

So no permanancy/stability under any circumstances and if we don't like them for whatever reason we can deport them without appeal.

from the Govt website:

Successive temporary visas can be applied for upon conclusion of the term of the visa unless the Minister allows an application for a permanent protection visa to be made