Burn the Asylum: “you can’t do this, detention is illegal!”

Illegal Immigrants Should Be Given Amnesty, Says Tory Muslim Nadhim Zahawi

Conservative Party Annual Conference

Islamisation express:  “Economically, a one-off amnesty would make sense,” he said. “There are an estimated 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK…..

Asylum jihadists burn the asylum:

Nothing exemplifies the absurdity of suicidal liberalism run amok than the recent Swedish riots.

“Asylum seekers” and illegal aliens given shelter, welfare and health benefits by Sweden over the past 30 years, are now showing their ingratitude by assaulting Swedes and burning their cars, shops and homes and buildings for no reason.

Same in Sydney:

“You can’t do this, detention is illegal!” 


Relatives and supporters of five asylum seekers who took part in the 2011 riot at the Villawood detention centre have expressed disgust and dismay at the jail sentences of between 14 and 22 months handed down to four of the men.

Same in the U.S.:

How to integrate in Norway:

Islam, Rape and Theology | FrontPage Magazine via Mullah

Norway, she lectured, was steadily becoming “a multicultural society,” and Norwegian women, if they didn’t want to wind up being brutally ravished in an alleyway by some Pakistani gang, should choose their wardrobes appropriately. Period. …

And the never ending Homo Promo:

Saudi Arabian Women’s Conference… With Not a Woman In Sight

3 thoughts on “Burn the Asylum: “you can’t do this, detention is illegal!””

  1. I would have thought that “Illegal Alien” spoke for itself. They have broken the laws of the UK and as such are criminals. You shouldn’t be able to enter or stay in the UK if you are a foreign criminal, so this asshole can stuff his amnesty!

  2. Carr complains that tribunals Rudd stacked are too soft on boat people
    Andrew Bolt

    JUNE 29 2013

    Labor is now blaming the very tribunals it stacked for letting in too many boat people:

    Up to 90 per cent of people who arrive by boat are considered genuine refugees, but [Foreign Affairs Minister Bob] Carr said his “impression” was that now, as arrivals spiked, most were economic migrants…

    “There have been boats where 100 per cent of them have been people who are fleeing countries where they’re the majority ethnic and religious group,” he said…
    Senator’s Carr’s Foreign Affairs Department would provide courts and tribunals with large folders of “objective information” about the source countries for refugee cases…, which would mean tribunal members and judges would “have less discretion on whether [refugees are claiming] persecution”.

    ”We need to be more hard-edged about this,” he said.

    But guess who was Prime Minister when these tribunals were stacked with members more likely to grant refugee status? From May, 2010:

    The two members of the Rudd Government’s Refugee Review Tribunal say they operate under a “culture of fear”, with their jobs under threat if they reject too many claims.

    They believe two members have already lost their jobs for being too tough, and more could follow when the next round of appointments (and dumpings) are announced next month…

    Neither member dared to let me identify them, but both confirmed what former RRT member Peter Katsambanis told me this month – that RRT members have been told not to reject too many appeals against Immigration Department decisions to send asylum seekers home.

    The members say five RRT colleagues reapplying for their jobs were recently grilled by the selection panel about their low rate of accepting claims of asylum seekers (known as the “set aside” rate).

    One was allegedly told: “We expect to see an improvement.”

    Both members, like Katsambanis, say the four-man panel which decides on RRT appointments includes a refugee activist with a conflict of interest.

    John Gibson is also president of the Refugee Council of Australia and works as a lawyer for asylum seekers who are turned down by the RRT.

    And in June 2010:

    The 25 RRT members who were reappointed last week have, over the past three years, rejected appeals by asylum seekers in 62 per cent of cases.

    In contrast, the 18 RRT members who were sacked rejected 78 per cent of appeals. What’s more, the toughest four RRT members were all sacked.

    Here are some of the people who will replace them. There’s Charlie Powles, a Refugee and Immigration Law Centre solicitor, and Anthony Krohn, a Melbourne barrister who has worked for many asylum seekers and the Refugee Advice and Casework Service.

    Add to them the director of the Brisbane Catholic Archdiocese’s Centre for Multicultural Pastoral Care; a solicitor for the refugee advocacy group Southern Communities Advocacy Legal Education Service; and a solicitor for Sydney’s Immigration Advice and Rights Centre. Notice a pattern?


    Reader Samantha Whybrow, a former visa officer at our High Commission in Sri Lanka, writes:

    I hope you can spare time to read of my frustrating experiences as a visa officer at the Australian High Commission in Colombo, Sri Lanka….

    I should say from the beginning that I am not a disgruntled ex-employee who was sacked. I made a decision to resign from the department due to a difference in ethics on the issues I describe below.

    In February 2012 the Regional Director for DIAC in South Asia …. told me “it does not matter if even 90% of humanitarian claims turn out to be false because the numbers are so small.”…

    At the time of his statement I had just spent at least 30 minutes in a meeting with him detailing the strong concerns I held with regard to the integrity of the humanitarian visa programme.

    These concerns arose from interviews I had conducted with spouses/family members of humanitarian visa recipients that strongly indicated a visa had been granted on the basis of false information given to the department.

    I had previously presented my concerns to diplomatic staff at the High Commission, to then Deputy Secretary (Jackie Wilson) on her visit to Sri Lanka around November 2011, as well as to then Minister Chris Bowen (whom I met … in February 2012).

    In my interviews with family members of people granted humanitarian visas (who were then applying for visas themselves) I asked why their family member had gone to Australia.

    In a large number of cases I was provided with responses such as, “the gem business was not good”, “I don’t know”, “business was not good”, “our children are in Australia”, “Australia is giving visas for Sri Lankans”.

    When I compared these statements with the statements the humanitarian visa recipient had made to officials in Australia I found extraordinary contradictions that lead me to strongly believe the (humanitarian) claim had been fabricated.

    In one case a woman informed the department in her claim that she had been beaten in front of her husband, yet her husband stated no such events ever took place and they just didn’t want to live in Sri Lanka anymore so when his wife got a tourist visa to see their grandchild their daughter told her to apply for a visa to stay.

    In another extraordinary case a woman claimed she had been thrown in jail for some time and had to escape, yet her family told me no one in the family had ever been bothered by the police or security forces at all and certainly had never been in jail.

    One man told the department he had been a member of a political party and beaten because of this, however his wife (who was also his cousin and thus knew him from childhood) informed me he had never belonged to any such party and had never had troubles with the government.

    In a concerning number of cases the wives of humanitarian visa recipients informed me they had no idea where their husband was or what he was doing in the preceding three years coinciding with the escalation in conflict.

    These wives provided very limited information regarding their husbands’ whereabouts and activities during that time, leading me to question whether they were the spouse at all and creating great concern amongst staff that they were concealing illegal activities.

    There were many more such instances.

    Over a period of two and a half years I continued to report these instances to senior (immigration) staff at the High Commission. I continued to get frustrated that no one in higher authority gave me direction in how to investigate the matter further or what to do about it. I was told to keep a list although no one ever asked to look at my list.

    I was informed by senior staff in the High Commission that I shouldn’t get so worried and that the police had to deal with this sort of frustration all of the time in the course of their work…

    In the mean-time, while I was coming across a large number of suspect claims, I was also continuing to refuse any application for asylum that came from Sri Lankans still living in Sri Lanka—having been informed that it was not politically expedient to be granting visas to people still living in their home country.

    [The] comment that it wouldn’t matter if 90% of humanitarian claims were false (because the numbers were so small) was made in February 2012. Over the next few months I believe almost as many or more Sri Lankans arrived in Australia to claim asylum than in the previous three years combined despite an overall improvement in the country situation.

    I believe that situation was entirely foreseeable given the understanding amongst the applicants I spoke to that Australia had ‘visas for Sri Lankans’ and that the department was not interested in investigating claims that appeared—on the basis of new and relevant information—to be false.

    I also believe it is likely that this type of scenario is not isolated to Sri Lanka.

Comments are closed.