ga('send', 'pageview');
John Passant

Site menu:

February 2014
« Jan   Mar »



RSS Oz House



Subscribe to us

Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.


Site search


Keep socialist blog En Passant going - donate now
If you want to keep a blog that makes the arguments every day against the ravages of capitalism going and keeps alive the flame of democracy and community, make a donation to help cover my costs. And of course keep reading the blog. To donate click here. Keep socialist blog En Passant going. More... (4)

Sprouting sh*t for almost nothing
You can prove my 2 ex-comrades wrong by donating to my blog En Passant at BSB: 062914 Account: 1067 5257, the Commonwealth Bank in Tuggeranong, ACT. More... (12)

My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. (0)

My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. (0)

Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. (0)

Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)

Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole

Sick kids and paying upfront


Save Medicare

Demonstrate in defence of Medicare at Sydney Town Hall 1 pm Saturday 4 January (0)

Me on Razor Sharp this morning
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace this morning for Razor Sharp. It happens every Tuesday. (0)



Some facts on asylum seekers from the Australian Parliamentary Library

Jane Phillips from the Social Policy Section of the Parliamentary Library last year prepared a background note that rebuts the bipartisan lies about asylum seekers.

Here is her introduction to this February 2013 paper:

The magnitude and complexity of the issues arising from the flow of asylum seekers and refugees globally poses huge challenges for the world’s destination countries, including Australia. These countries universally struggle to maintain a balance between controlling national borders and offering protection to millions of displaced people.

When the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was established in 1951, there were approximately 1.5 million refugees internationally.[1] At the end of 2011 there were an estimated 42.5 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, including 15.2 million refugees (10.4 million under UNHCR mandate), 895 000 asylum seekers and 26.4 million internally displaced persons (IDPs). Almost three quarters of the world’s refugees under UNHCR mandate, approximately 7.1 million, remained in protracted situations at the end of 2011.[2]

The Australian Government has recognised the magnitude of these global trends noting that the numbers of people seeking asylum in Australia are small compared to those seeking asylum in Europe and other parts of the world.[3]

Australia has a long history of accepting refugees for resettlement and over 750 000 refugees and displaced persons, including thousands during and immediately after World War II, have settled in Australia since 1945.[4] However, despite this long-term commitment, there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation in the public debate in Australia particularly around the terms asylum seekers, refugees, ‘illegals’, ‘queue jumpers’ and ‘boat people’ which are often used interchangeably and/or incorrectly.

The purpose of this background note is to present information (in a simplified format) that may help address some of the popular misconceptions that surround asylum issues. It includes information on asylum claims, unauthorised arrivals and irregular migration in Australia and Europe.

To read the truth and some facts for a change about refugees here is a link to the full paper Asylum Seekers and Refugees: What are the facts?



Pingback from Some facts on asylum seekers from the Australian Parliamentary Library | OzHouse
Time February 23, 2014 at 11:11 am

[…] Feb 23 2014 by admin […]

Comment from Kay
Time February 24, 2014 at 8:58 am

This paper contains so many internal contradictions, it is clearly a most unreliable and biased paper. It blandly states: “There is a view that asylum seekers, particularly those who arrive in Australia by boat, are ‘jumping the queue’ and taking the place of a more deserving refugee awaiting resettlement in a refugee camp. The concept of an orderly queue does not accord with the reality of the asylum process.” And further on: “Successful onshore applicants (boat and air arrivals) usually only make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of refugees and other humanitarian entrants accepted by Australia each year—usually in the region of 17 to 20 per cent.”

But then, the figures clearly show that in 2009-10 that proportion had risen to 32.9%, and in 2011-12 the proportion was at 51%. So with the cap on refugee set at 13,000 per year over the past 10 years, clearly the boat and air arrivals have automatically reduced the number of refugees accepted under the humanitarian intake. Hence, the boat and air arrivals have in fact become “queue jumpers”! The intake for 2012-13 has been increased to 20,000 – good move. So if the boat/air arrivals can be reduced, the humanitarian intake should improve.

I find the Report by the Refugee Council of Australia 2012 a better paper – just the facts without all the contradictory value-added, biased crap!

Comment from John
Time February 24, 2014 at 11:59 am

There is no queue. You go and live in refugee camp and find that out. The limit on refugee intake and its linking to the number of asylum seekers – a bipartisan policy of cruelty – has no policy underpinning other than attacking asylum seekers and demonising them. The logic of all this is the murder of Reza.

Comment from Lorikeet
Time February 24, 2014 at 12:42 pm

When one of my relatives worked in Immigration, he had problems with people trying to jump his processing queue. He said they phoned up every day, holding him up from his work. In the end he accelerated their claims just to get a bit of peace.

A woman who came to Australia as a refugee from Somalia told me that around 8 to 10% of so-called asylum seekers are not genuine.

Regarding air arrivals, I think some people who come to Australia on work visas probably claim asylum because they know the government will never give them Permanent Residency or Citizenship, because they want to allow their corporate mates to abuse them indefinitely.

I believe a queue should be formed in UN and other refugee camps. Those who have been there the longest should be the first out.

Comment from Kay
Time February 24, 2014 at 4:49 pm


Your comment is just the usual unsubstantiated, muddle-headed mumbo-jumbo. If there is a capped number of refugees per year, then the higher the number of boat/air arrivals, the fewer the number of humanitarian intake refugees that can be resettled here. Simple mathematics! Is that too complex for you? The Parliamentary Library paper demonstrates that obvious fact quite clearly! Whether you choose to use the word “queue jumper” or not, it is an indisputable fact that the greater the number of boat/air arrivals assessed to be refugees and resettled in Australia, the fewer the number of UN-camp refugees that can be resettled in Australia. As I said, simple mathematics! You may not agree with the policy of a refugee intake cap, but you can’t deny the mathematics. And that is why many many people oppose boat arrivals – very little to do with racism.

Comment from John
Time February 25, 2014 at 9:09 am

OK, I will make it simple for you, ‘I’m not a racist but’ Kay. Why is there a cap and why link it to asylum seekers?

Comment from Kay
Time February 25, 2014 at 9:46 am

Why is there a cap? I’m not in government, but probably it is an economic consideration, given that most boat people end up living off social security, at least for some years after their arrival. There are many calls on the economy – health, education, pensions, other assistance to the community. None of these can be fully accommodated by the Budget.

Why link it to asylum seekers? Once again, probably the mathematics of the economy leading to the cap.

The majority of the population probably believes that ‘charity begins at home’. There are many deserving Australians, and many worthwhile programs, to be funded before most Australians would think we are in a strong enough position to open our doors to strangers who will be a further drain on the economy. Even if your simplistic plan to “tax the rich” were to be enforced, most Australians would have other, local priorities for that money before spending it one unlimited refugees.

I don’t have a concern about the colour of the people in our community – despite your ridiculous, unsupported simplistic assertions that I am “racist”. But I do have a concern about the the import to Australia of the violence of the Shia/Sunni schism, and the threat to democracy and our peaceful way of life posed by fundamentalist Islam. And most Australians share that concern. That is one reason why I would prefer to accept into the country refugees from Africa, who are themselves fleeing from genocide and Islamist violence.

Comment from John
Time February 25, 2014 at 3:08 pm

The cap and link exist solely to excuse the brutal treatment of refugees. There is no rationale for them other than that. Lots of Germans supported the Nazis too; that doesn’t make an inhuman policy right.

And by the way your comments about fundamental Islam reveal your racism and the fact you are just another puppet of the liars in government. The biggest threat, but not the only one, to peace, the most violent ideology on the planet, is US imperialism and its personification, is the war criminal Barack Obama.

Comment from Kay
Time February 25, 2014 at 3:49 pm

Yes, the usual insulting bullshit from you – no logical development of ideas. Just socialist ideology and illogical mumbo-jumbo. But it cheers me that if you are the best the socialists have to offer, the country is well and truly safe from socialism!

BTW, just in case you didn’t know, many peoples around the world, of all colours, follow Islam. To be concerned about fundamentalist Islam cannot therefore be “racist”. Anti-Islam maybe, but “racist”? – no. Go look at a dictionary, for heavens sake! But, heck, it is your favourite epithet! Don’t let a few untidy facts interfere with your raves. And you do seem to be obsessed with the Nazis! They get thrown into the mix just about every time someone challenges you.

Comment from John
Time February 25, 2014 at 7:03 pm

Ah the old ‘I am anti-Islam therefore not a racist’ argument. You are the classic racist fearful of the other, doing the work of the conservatives. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. Go and play in Wilders sandpit.

Comment from Kay
Time February 26, 2014 at 5:36 am

Ah yes – you can’t actually address the issues, so you retreat to insults. And you wonder why no one has any respect for you! Pathetic!

Comment from John
Time February 26, 2014 at 7:50 am

I agree. Totally.