• You must be logged in to view threads on this forum. Please sign up by clicking here to continue viewing content on the mighty South Sydney Rabbitohs.

Immigration

southsport

southsport

Grand Master
Joined
20 Sep 2013
Messages
13,508
Reaction score
1,941
From the Australian.

Article Image

Why voters don’t trust either side on immigration​

Would Dutton’s proposed 25 per cent cut to the permanent migration intake solve the housing crisis? Tell him he’s dreamin. But the opposition is gaining traction in this area as Labor bears the blame.
 
captainsutto said:
I can’t access all of that article but you could add barber shops, convenience stores & kitchens to Uber driving
Click to expand...
Agree, I think that baristas and waitresses could be included as well but to be fair at the cafe I frequent the owner says that aussies won't apply for the jobs. shrug.gif
.
 
We need the sword of Damocles to drive all of these invaders into sea.
Anglos,Scots,Irish and Welsh included!
That will fix em.Deutschland Uber Alles!🥵
 
southsport said:
Agree, I think that baristas and waitresses could be included as well but to be fair at the cafe I frequent the owner says that aussies won't apply for the jobs. View attachment 2478
.
Click to expand...


I wonder if the lack of job applications businesses owners get from the locals is a reaction to business owners who delight in paying a low wage which others happily accept.
Having worked in the food industry for decades i know this certainly applies to the “treatment “ of chefs
 
southsport said:
Sunriseâs Nat Barr has lambasted a key government minister live on air over a controversial decision that allowed several rapists on visas to stay in Australia. Picture: Sunrise

‘People raped children’: Nat Barr erupts​

.
Click to expand...
Where has Nat been for the last ten years?

Higher tolerance for rapists fighting deportation, but zero tolerance for facts​

David Crowe

ByDavid Crowe​

Updated May 29, 2024 — 3.09pmfirst published at 11.59am


Australians have been told many times that the country should have zero tolerance for rape, sexual assault and violence against women. But when Charles William Davidson had to answer for 59 sex offences against 26 victims, he was shown clemency instead.
Rather than being deported to the United Kingdom, where he was born 74 years ago, Davidson was allowed to remain free in the community.

https://prideoftheleague.com/javascript:void(0);​

Immigration Minister Andrew Giles has come under fire after a string of crimes allegedly committed by released detainees.
In fact, he was shown a “higher level of tolerance” for his crimes because he had spent many years with his family in Australia. No zero tolerance for him. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturned a government decision to cancel his visa.
That case is now making headlines – and Peter Dutton can see blood in the water.

The opposition leader says the immigration minister, Andrew Giles, must be sacked. Some press gallery journalists back that call. The government responds with boilerplate loyalty for the minister. Labor is being outflanked daily by newspaper headlines and Coalition attacks.
But the actual history of the past few years shows the tribunal has repeatedly allowed convicted criminals to stay in Australia under both major parties. The tribunal did it when Dutton was minister. It does it now Giles is minister. A key reason is that both major parties – not just one – have allowed the tribunal to show a “higher level of tolerance” for some of these offenders.

So the facts of the Davidson case, and others like it, take on crucial importance. And some of those facts are being wilfully overlooked.
The first is that the government tried at every point to deport Davidson. It revoked his visa after he was sentenced to 16 years in prison. It sent a lawyer to the February hearing to argue against the restoration of his visa. But it lost the case.

(The tribunal member who made the decision, by the way, is no friend of Labor. Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis was named to the tribunal in 2016 when George Brandis was attorney-general. He had made a small donation to the Liberal Party and had done legal work for a member of the Brandis family. When the former government extended his term in 2021, Labor said this was another “Liberal mate” getting a plum job.)
The second key fact is that the government rule on visa cases did not force the tribunal to let Davidson stay. The rule, known as direction 99, was signed by Giles in January last year and named community safety as a major factor in decisions. But it also talked of a “higher level of tolerance” for offenders with long ties to Australia. For the Coalition, this is the smoking gun that means Giles should be sacked.
The Coalition now talks of direction 99 as if it set an entirely new standard. It did not.
Direction 90, signed by Liberal minister Alex Hawke in 2021, also talked of a “higher level of tolerance” for criminals who have lived in the Australian community for most of their lives. Direction 79, signed by Liberal minister David Coleman in 2018, used the same phrase. So did direction 65, which was put in place under the Liberals in 2014.
Direction 99 introduced new wording. It said Australia “will generally afford a higher level of tolerance” for criminals who have lived here for most of their lives. It also added that the level of tolerance will rise with the length of time in Australia.
Directions 90, 79 and 65 said Australia “may afford a higher level of tolerance” for these criminals. They said the length of time in Australia was a consideration.
Another change is that direction 99 said the “strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia” should be one of the primary considerations on visa decisions, along with the protection of the community, the interests of children and any history of family violence. Earlier directions did not make ties to Australia a primary consideration.
Is this change in wording really a sackable offence for a minister? The key point is that Giles did not embark on the new idea of showing greater tolerance for criminals – he inherited this concept. Why was it modified? That was a broader government decision. Australia wanted to ease frictions with New Zealand about the deportation of criminals across the Tasman.
A third key fact is that the tribunal is not doing anything new. It has repeatedly overturned government decisions to try to deport criminals.

When Dutton was home affairs minister, for instance, the tribunal decided that an Iranian heroin dealer and ice manufacturer, known as YKZZ, should be allowed to stay. The tribunal cited direction 79 and the “higher level of tolerance” as an important reason. Was this decision in September 2019 a sackable offence for the minister at the time?
That decision is here.
During the same period, the tribunal decided that a Brazilian man found guilty of armed robbery and assault, and the subject of an apprehended violence order sought by his girlfriend, should have his visa restored. This decision in 2018 cited the “higher level of tolerance” in direction 65.
That decision is here.

In another ruling while Dutton was minister, the tribunal sided with a Nigerian heroin dealer, known as HMDS, and said he should be granted a visa despite the government’s refusal to do so. The decision, in early 2020, cited direction 79 and the key phrase about tolerance.
That decision is here.
The government is doing a poor job of defending itself. In a parliament full of barracudas, too many Labor ministers try to glide like jellyfish past every threat. Giles is under severe pressure and the parlour game in the press gallery is to speculate on when he will be replaced.
Even so, the truth is that both major parties set rules that allowed tolerance for rapists and other convicted criminals when many Australians expect zero tolerance instead. The Liberals have to answer for decisions on their watch. And it is up to Labor to assure voters it can bring this problem under control.


Gee the Libs are the absolute kings of hypocrisy
 
Kent Brockman said:
Where has Nat been for the last ten years?

Higher tolerance for rapists fighting deportation, but zero tolerance for facts​

David Crowe

ByDavid Crowe​

Updated May 29, 2024 — 3.09pmfirst published at 11.59am


Australians have been told many times that the country should have zero tolerance for rape, sexual assault and violence against women. But when Charles William Davidson had to answer for 59 sex offences against 26 victims, he was shown clemency instead.
Rather than being deported to the United Kingdom, where he was born 74 years ago, Davidson was allowed to remain free in the community.

https://prideoftheleague.com/javascript:void(0);​

Immigration Minister Andrew Giles has come under fire after a string of crimes allegedly committed by released detainees.
In fact, he was shown a “higher level of tolerance” for his crimes because he had spent many years with his family in Australia. No zero tolerance for him. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturned a government decision to cancel his visa.
That case is now making headlines – and Peter Dutton can see blood in the water.

The opposition leader says the immigration minister, Andrew Giles, must be sacked. Some press gallery journalists back that call. The government responds with boilerplate loyalty for the minister. Labor is being outflanked daily by newspaper headlines and Coalition attacks.
But the actual history of the past few years shows the tribunal has repeatedly allowed convicted criminals to stay in Australia under both major parties. The tribunal did it when Dutton was minister. It does it now Giles is minister. A key reason is that both major parties – not just one – have allowed the tribunal to show a “higher level of tolerance” for some of these offenders.

So the facts of the Davidson case, and others like it, take on crucial importance. And some of those facts are being wilfully overlooked.
The first is that the government tried at every point to deport Davidson. It revoked his visa after he was sentenced to 16 years in prison. It sent a lawyer to the February hearing to argue against the restoration of his visa. But it lost the case.

(The tribunal member who made the decision, by the way, is no friend of Labor. Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis was named to the tribunal in 2016 when George Brandis was attorney-general. He had made a small donation to the Liberal Party and had done legal work for a member of the Brandis family. When the former government extended his term in 2021, Labor said this was another “Liberal mate” getting a plum job.)
The second key fact is that the government rule on visa cases did not force the tribunal to let Davidson stay. The rule, known as direction 99, was signed by Giles in January last year and named community safety as a major factor in decisions. But it also talked of a “higher level of tolerance” for offenders with long ties to Australia. For the Coalition, this is the smoking gun that means Giles should be sacked.
The Coalition now talks of direction 99 as if it set an entirely new standard. It did not.
Direction 90, signed by Liberal minister Alex Hawke in 2021, also talked of a “higher level of tolerance” for criminals who have lived in the Australian community for most of their lives. Direction 79, signed by Liberal minister David Coleman in 2018, used the same phrase. So did direction 65, which was put in place under the Liberals in 2014.
Direction 99 introduced new wording. It said Australia “will generally afford a higher level of tolerance” for criminals who have lived here for most of their lives. It also added that the level of tolerance will rise with the length of time in Australia.
Directions 90, 79 and 65 said Australia “may afford a higher level of tolerance” for these criminals. They said the length of time in Australia was a consideration.
Another change is that direction 99 said the “strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia” should be one of the primary considerations on visa decisions, along with the protection of the community, the interests of children and any history of family violence. Earlier directions did not make ties to Australia a primary consideration.
Is this change in wording really a sackable offence for a minister? The key point is that Giles did not embark on the new idea of showing greater tolerance for criminals – he inherited this concept. Why was it modified? That was a broader government decision. Australia wanted to ease frictions with New Zealand about the deportation of criminals across the Tasman.
A third key fact is that the tribunal is not doing anything new. It has repeatedly overturned government decisions to try to deport criminals.

When Dutton was home affairs minister, for instance, the tribunal decided that an Iranian heroin dealer and ice manufacturer, known as YKZZ, should be allowed to stay. The tribunal cited direction 79 and the “higher level of tolerance” as an important reason. Was this decision in September 2019 a sackable offence for the minister at the time?
That decision is here.
During the same period, the tribunal decided that a Brazilian man found guilty of armed robbery and assault, and the subject of an apprehended violence order sought by his girlfriend, should have his visa restored. This decision in 2018 cited the “higher level of tolerance” in direction 65.
That decision is here.

In another ruling while Dutton was minister, the tribunal sided with a Nigerian heroin dealer, known as HMDS, and said he should be granted a visa despite the government’s refusal to do so. The decision, in early 2020, cited direction 79 and the key phrase about tolerance.
That decision is here.
The government is doing a poor job of defending itself. In a parliament full of barracudas, too many Labor ministers try to glide like jellyfish past every threat. Giles is under severe pressure and the parlour game in the press gallery is to speculate on when he will be replaced.
Even so, the truth is that both major parties set rules that allowed tolerance for rapists and other convicted criminals when many Australians expect zero tolerance instead. The Liberals have to answer for decisions on their watch. And it is up to Labor to assure voters it can bring this problem under control.


Gee the Libs are the absolute kings of hypocrisy
Click to expand...
Very little to do with Lib hypocrisy as I read it but rather the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be booted.

What is Albo doing about this?
.
 

Canada's mass unemployment lesson for Australia

Canada recorded the developed world’s fastest population growth last year, with the nation’s population growing by 1,272,000 people (3.2%) in 2023, driven by unprecedented net overseas migration of 1,241,000. Based on official labour force data, Canada’s population growth has continued to break...
www.macrobusiness.com.au www.macrobusiness.com.au
 
southsport said:

Canada's mass unemployment lesson for Australia

Canada recorded the developed world’s fastest population growth last year, with the nation’s population growing by 1,272,000 people (3.2%) in 2023, driven by unprecedented net overseas migration of 1,241,000. Based on official labour force data, Canada’s population growth has continued to break...
www.macrobusiness.com.au www.macrobusiness.com.au
Click to expand...
Who or what decides how many people come in to Australia?
I know we do need immigration, but how are the numbers set?
Is it the government, ie politicians to decide, or is it an independent body like the reserve bank?
I know which I'd prefer.
 
southsport said:
From the Australian.

Article Image

Why voters don’t trust either side on immigration​

Would Dutton’s proposed 25 per cent cut to the permanent migration intake solve the housing crisis? Tell him he’s dreamin. But the opposition is gaining traction in this area as Labor bears the blame.
Click to expand...
How could you trust this Nazi?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top