Visa dishonesty a sign of the Times... AN Iranian refugee to Australia yesterday appeared in court on charges of stabbing a man to death at a crowded mall. Horrified witnesses claimed the man, an Australian resident since being granted a protection visa in 2010, allegedly stabbed his victim repeatedly with a large knife. The accused killer, Kazem Mohammadi Payam, arrived in Australian waters in 2009. Officials say he carried no identification, yet he was still granted a protection visa the following year. Until 2013, when then-prime minister Socialist Kevin Rudd finally restored measures that would deter unidentified arrivals from obtaining Australian residency, discarding visas was a common ruse used by claimed asylum seekers. Having used visas for flights to Indonesia, they were thrown away for the final leg of the journey to Australia. The reason for this was simple. Without identification it was that much more difficult for immigration officials to determine if the claimed asylum seekers were genuine refugees or simply economic opportunists. Coached by people smugglers, asylum seekers quickly worked out how to game the system, telling convincing stories that secured many their residency. The flaws in this system were exposed many times, most notably in the case of Ali al Abassi, also known as Captain Emad, who was able to gain residency as an asylum seeker despite being the kingpin of a people smuggling racket. Requiring legitimate identification from claimed asylum seekers is a vital security precaution for Australia, and also a strong deterrent to those attempting to reach our country through dishonest means. Even Socialist Labor, which for so long oversaw a massive increase in asylum seeker arrivals, eventually saw the sense of this. Yet some still deny Australia’s right to know the true backgrounds of those seeking asylum. The New York Times recently slammed Australia’s attempts to secure our borders, claiming that Australia is “pursuing draconian measures to deter people without visas from entering the country by boat”. Aside from this being an intrusion into the sovereign affairs of another nation, the New York Times is clearly ignorant of the circumstances surrounding many asylum seeker arrivals. It isn’t that arrivals didn’t or don’t have visas. It is that the documents were deliberately discarded prior to reaching Australian territory. In other words, the very first act committed by these arrivals upon reaching their potential new home was one of dishonesty, intended to thwart background investigations. The Times continued: “The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, said recently that “something strange happens” in the minds of Australians when it comes to asylum seekers who arrive by boat without a visa. On the contrary, there is nothing strange at all about wanting to know in detail the background of potential immigrants. The US requires similar checks, as do most other nations on Earth. Presentation of a visa or other identifying documentation is simply standard procedure. In fact, Australia’s policy is remarkably close to the New York Times’s own policy on office visitors. It is not possible to just show up at The New York Times Building in midtown Manhattan and then stroll around, unknown and unannounced, through the paper’s editorial floors. Anyone attempting to barge into the Times without reason to be there would be swiftly removed by security. It could be said that “something strange happens” in the minds of New York Times security staff when it comes to unknown and unidentified intruders. Australia will retain the same rights for our borders as the Times does for its reception desk. If arrogant New Yorkers don’t respect that, they are welcome to shove it...!!
Posted on: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:04:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015