Australia's Leftist government allows dangerous "excursions" for illegals from immigration detention centres
A Darwin MP has called on Immigration Minister Chris Bowen to suspend some asylum seeker excursions in Darwin. It is alleged a 28-year-old Iranian man inappropriately touched several young girls girls at the waterfront wave pool on Wednesday while he was on a supervised excursion.
The member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, says the Immigration Department should stop allowing detainees to visit places like swimming pools, in the interests of public safety. "The safety of my community, in particular young children, is absolutely paramount and situations like this can not be allowed to occur," she said. "He (Mr Bowen) needs to stop these pool visits immediately in light of these allegations."
Federal Opposition Immigration spokesman Scott Morrison says the excursions should be stopped. "The minister should be very much reviewing what the practices are where detainees are allowed to mix in the general community, particularly single males," he said.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has rejected the calls. "It is appropriate that people in detention from time to time participate in community activities," he said.
The Immigration Department says the excursions for asylum seekers being held at detention centres in Darwin are carefully supervised by security staff.
Spokesman Sandi Logan says the alleged wave pool incident should not make people worried if they see other asylum seekers on excursions. "This is very much an extraordinary circumstance," he said.
"It is not one that I would want the community to think in any way ... was indicative of the sorts of clients we have in detention."
The Iranian man was arrested by Northern Territory Police last night and is being questioned today.
SOURCE
Revealed: The 74 illegal immigrants who should have been sent home from Britain years ago and are costing the taxpayer millions
British taxpayers have spent millions of pounds housing 74 illegal immigrants who should have been deported years ago, it emerged this week.
Immigration Minister Damian Green revealed that each immigrant has been held for a minimum of two years. Nineteen have been on the deportation list for more than ten years, while one has been in Britain for 20 years beyond his legal right to remain.
It is unclear whether the 74 have been housed in detention centres or in prisons, meaning the cost of keeping them in Britain ranges from £6million to an eye-watering £22.5million.
Forty cannot be removed because they refuse to tell immigration officials which country they are originally from or because they do not have passports.
A spokesman for watchdog the Taxpayers' Alliance today called the figures 'staggering'. Jonathan Isaby said: 'Taxpayers will be shocked to learn that the Government is spending tens of millions of pounds of their money each year simply to keep people in removal centres who should have been deported years ago.
'Once a decision to deport has been made, the case should be processed quickly - within days or weeks, certainly not months and years. The system is clearly failing and ministers should urgently review its operation.'
The statistics, unveiled by Mr Green in Parliament earlier this week, also reveal:
* It costs £110 a day to house someone in a detention removal centre
* Almost one in three of the 74 is using human rights legislation while they fight in the courts to remain in the country
* Thirteen have been here five years longer than they should
* Ten should have left the country eight years ago
* Nineteen have been here more than a decade. Of these, one has been detained for 20 years and another two for 17 years.
Conservative MP Priti Patel today called for the Government to urgently address the situation.
She told the Daily Express: 'The British public will be deeply concerned to see so many foreigners staying in Britain for these incredible lengths of time at huge cost to the taxpayer when they should be deported. 'Human rights laws need urgent reform.'
A UK Border Agency spokesman said: 'Detention is a necessary part of the process. We always seek to remove as quickly as possible but if detainees give false or incomplete information it delays their return and extends their detention.'
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment