Send us your bombers

From the SMH today:

Quote:

---

A man arrested over a bomb plot in India and claiming to be member of the Jihad Movement has won a High Court case against Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone.

The High Court ruled a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal did not allow the man, known as Naff, procedural fairness.

It quashed the tribunal's decision to refuse Naff refugee status and ordered it to redetermine his application for a review of the case.

---

Now, it's great that the system allows people another shot if there was some 'unfairness' in the process. In this case, the woman from the tribunal said she would write to the guy asking for clarification of a few inconsistencies in his application but then never did and consequently he was rejected.

However, why is someone who has done a runner after being arrested for planning to blow something or someone up and admits to being a member of a Jihad group even given consideration for asylum? What's his reason: "if I go back to India, where I am a member of a Jihad group and me and my buddies like to play with explosives, I might get arrested and beaten up, so please can I stay here"?

The court case didn't even go into whether or not he was an appropriate person. He gets another go simply because someone couldn't be asred to write to him like they said they would. I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense to me.

I do believe that someone of note said "The law is an ass". I for one won't disagree. ;)

Just say No !:mad:

Where has all the common sense gone in the world....:(

HH.

He brought the case to court to determine whether or not proper procedure had been followed to determine his suitability for refugee status, NOT to determine his refugee suitability.

Regardless we shouldn't be wasting our time or money.

Maybe we should shout him a free trip to the Hicks Holiday Resort in Cuba!

Sorry, but I cannot agree withyou. The issue is whether or not to just allow any minister to make any decision they like without following proper procedure. I want all the ministers to be forced to follow the law regardless of their own personal prejudices. Yes, the law is an ass but it all we have beteen us and them.

But common sense would suggest this is the right call and all decisions are open to scrutiny so why waste more effort and money. Wouldn't the time be better spent saying flat out no to this bloke and then asking Amanda to review the processes around closing cases with incomplete actions?

Got to agree with Bob.

If we start bypassing the law, (no matter how much of an ass it is), then we are no better than the other side. We are fighting for justice so how can we deny that to others.

Ministers as well as everone else must be held accountable to the law, any attempt to bypass it only results in an eventual loss of our own freedom.

Remember that our freedom is not lost by any single action but by creeping regulation that removes one tiny bit at a time.

I think this is an example of an immigration lawyer working the legislation. The guy could have appealed against the rejection but instead they used a technicality to have it overturned so that they can try again. If he gets rejected, then he can still appeal. Who is paying for it all?

Why is a man who admits that he was arrested for attempted terrorism and who admits he is a member of a group that wants war on people not of his religion even allowed off the plane? It's not like Immigration has to prove these things - he is using them as his reason for application!!! That should be enough to slam the door in his face.

Lord, forgive the bleeding Liberals they know not what they do.....:D

I think what's needed is a balance between common sense and blindly following the law which we all seem to agree is flawed.

HH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HappyHammer

I think what's needed is a balance between common sense and blindly following the law which we all seem to agree is flawed.

HH.

---

Or better still, the rules should be changed so that certain pre-existing parameters must be met.

Sounds good Bob, who do we send the emails to?

HH.

Your local MP of course. Preferrably, the next time you vote. Sends a much stronger message. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Willson

Your local MP of course. Preferrably, the next time you vote. Sends a much stronger message. :)

---

Sure but it's not specific enough to this issue.


Here's a draft feel free to comment...:o

Dear TBA,
<O:p</O:p
I recently read a Sydney Morning Herald article an excerpt of which is below;
<O:p
"A man arrested over a bomb plot in India and claiming to be member of the Jihad Movement has won a High Court case against Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone.

The High Court ruled a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal did not allow the man, known as Naff, procedural fairness.

It quashed the tribunal's decision to refuse Naff refugee status and ordered it to redetermine his application for a review of the case."<O:p

I am appalled that this application is receiving any further consideration or consuming any more time and tax payers money. It seems obvious that this individual is not a suitable candidate for Refugee status. This situation seems to have been caused by the inadequacies of the immigration service in not sending a communication which should have said "Your application has been denied for what should be very obvious reasons".

Another consequence of this issue is that we tighten the law and impact genuine assylum seekers which is not my desire. However I would like to know what has been done to close this loop hole to enable our money to be better spent and to enable me to sleep well knowing undesirable assylum seekers are being turned away.



yours sincerely, HappyHammer.