Border Force fiasco – how would NZ respond?

128 comments on “Border Force fiasco – how would NZ respond? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. One Anonymous Bloke 1

   29 August 2015 at 8:25 am

   One third of the protesters are just the sort of rent-a-crowd mob who oppose any kind of Police state, and the rest are misinformed.
   • Descendant Of Sssmith 1.1

     29 August 2015 at 8:29 am

     I would have thought we should all oppose any kind of police state or do you think that there is some sort of benevolent police state
     • freedom 1.1.1

       29 August 2015 at 9:13 am

       Descendant Of Sssmith, OAB is quite obviously paraphrasing John Key’s recent remarks about TPPA protesters.
       • Descendant Of Sssmith 1.1.1.1

         29 August 2015 at 11:27 am

         Ahhh. Sadly I take little notice at most times of what John Key says.
         • freedom 1.1.1.1.1

           29 August 2015 at 11:34 am

           Excellent advice! Should be broadcast as a public service message to aid sustainable societal sanity.
           • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1

             29 August 2015 at 11:56 am

             I also don’t take much notice of what Key says and thought OAB was getting in before the RWNJs like BM 😈
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     29 August 2015 at 2:58 pm

     One third of the protesters are just the sort of rent-a-crowd mob who oppose any kind of Police state, and the rest are misinformed.

     Simply brilliant ha!
2. Tinfoilhat 2

   29 August 2015 at 8:53 am

   Perhaps if we look back to some of the comments on this site during the xenophobic bashing during the release of information regarding house purchases by those with ‘Chinese sounding’ names we might get an idea of how the NZ public might react ?
3. JanM 3

   29 August 2015 at 9:20 am

   I think that would be a step too far, as many people would imagine it impacting on them personally, unlike many of this lot’s nastier policies which are happening to ‘them’, i.e the poor and dispossessed
4. adam 4

   29 August 2015 at 9:36 am

   To answer the question “Would have done it in NZ? In the same position, would we stand up?”

   If we look to the past, especially over water – we rolled. The anti democratic practices in Canterbury – we rolled.

   On the good news front – Ireland.

   https://www.facebook.com/WorkersSolidarityMovement/posts/1201412869884524:0
5. RedLogix 5

   29 August 2015 at 9:47 am

   Protest scheduled for next weekend is targeted to shut down the ‘Stasi’ police state passport checking operations at all Australian airports and borders.
   • dukeofurl 5.1

     29 August 2015 at 9:57 am

     Whats police state about that ?
     Passports are what is required for international travel, not domestic.
     • RedLogix 5.1.1

       29 August 2015 at 10:09 am

       And so are visas. More especially while a passport and visa is required to enter a country, a visa is what determines the terms and conditions of your stay.

       I guess I’m asking the question – if we accept that it’s is ok to check for these things at the border – what is fundamentally different about checking for them inside the country?
       • freedom 5.1.1.1

         29 August 2015 at 10:37 am

         if you have to ask that question, chances are you won’t understand the answer
         • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.1

           29 August 2015 at 10:55 am

           Go on – give it a go.
           • freedom 5.1.1.1.1.1

             29 August 2015 at 11:19 am

             Sorry Red, not going to play this game. 🙂
             but I will borrow from some words of others.

             ‘First they came for the over-stayers, and I did not speak out—
             Because I was not an over-stayer.

             Then they came for the unemployed, and I did not speak out—
             Because I was not unemployed.

             Then they came for the low wage workers and I did not speak out—
             Because I was not a low wage worker.

             Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.’
             • RedLogix …

               29 August 2015 at 11:36 am

               OK fair enough. You obviously have strong enough feelings and ideas on this to make a comment, but now you don’t want to back yourself.

               Because logically if you don’t think a nation-state should have the authority to determine and enforce it’s border control regulations – specifically it’s visa terms – then really you should just say so.

               Or if you DO think it’s reasonable for a nation to impose visa’s – but you don’t like the way they were going to go about enforcing them in Melbourne – then I can’t see what is so hard about saying that either. I’d likely agree with you.

               Or is there something else I’ve missed?
               • weka …

                 29 August 2015 at 12:02 pm

                 how about a link explaining what the protest is about?
               • marty mars …

                 29 August 2015 at 12:05 pm

                 I think the key is this

                 “The ABF then issued another statement saying: “To be clear, the ABF does not and will not stop people at random in the streets … the ABF does not target of the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity”.”

                 which is untrue.

                 Border checking is more loved by the authorities because then you can sort them at the border based on what??? race, religion and ethnicity. Much harder when inside the borders – but the principles are the same – look for those different looking/sounding ones and just ‘check’ their documentation. This practice has a long history and it never works well for those inside the tent or outside it imo.
                 • RedLogix …

                   29 August 2015 at 12:19 pm

                   Border checking is easier because the numbers are far smaller and you can afford the resources to just process everyone regardless.

                   Once inside the country visa control is much harder because of the sheer numbers involved.

                   As it happens I’m heading into Melbourne this afternoon. I’m here on a SCV444 visa category like many other kiwis. If I was stopped and asked for evidence of this the chances are I wouldn’t be carrying my passport, so this would be an administrative challenge right there.

                   And in nations like Aus and NZ we certainly aren’t accustomed to carrying documents around all the time, and being challenged to produce them by officials. I do understand the connotations and I am aware of how I would likely feel in the not neglible chance it were to happen to me.

                   On the other hand from it’s own data the ABF damn well knows it’s got a significant overstayer (visa fraud) problem in Melbourne. Are we arguing they should just turn a blind eye and not enforce them because it’s ‘too hard’?

                   In which case why bother issuing visas in the first place? Why bother with passports? What is the justification for borders at all?
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 12:23 pm

                     No, Red. People are arguing that this particular operation was stupid and racist (and it’s been made plain why they think that). YOU are the one trying to make the argument about border protection in general. Why not say what you mean and make your case?
                   • marty mars …

                     29 August 2015 at 12:26 pm

                     “What is the justification for borders at all?”

                     I cannot see any justification personally – the reason they are enforced is to ensure the resources of an area are available for the elite and when that stops working the elite change the borders. Of course island nations and so on have physical boundaries that are borders. Indigenous peoples have seen this in action all over the place since year dot.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 12:30 pm

                     and yet most cultures for human history have devised ways of allocating how resources can be used by geography. This makes sense to me, especially if we look at the issue from an ecological point of view. There are only so many humans that can live on an area of land sustainably. Beyond that is either species overshoot and collapse, and/or ecology collapse.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 12:45 pm

                     @weka

                     What is racist about checking visas?

                     And if you insist it is racist to check them on the street, then why is it NOT racist to check them at the border? What is the difference?

                     @marty

                     Which is a fair answer. I really don’t mind you making that case.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:00 pm

                     What is racist about checking visas?

                     You should ask poor and working class Blacks in the USA what’s racist about being stopped by police and having their car searched or persons frisked.

                     Police have a right to ensure people aren’t carrying weapons or contraband, right? Nothing racist with that…
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:03 pm

                     I cannot see any justification personally – the reason they are enforced is to ensure the resources of an area are available for the elite and when that stops working the elite change the borders.

                     Wrong. Borders are enforced because governments actually realise that a limited amount of land has limited resources and thus can only support a limited number of people.

                     Then there’s the cultural chaos that happens when a local population become the minority by an immigrant population (I’m Māori can tell you about that).

                     Then there’s the chaos that happens when a population expands faster than the infrastructure can be expanded to support them. Result is not enough food, declining housing and social tension often leading to violence.

                     We don’t have free movement of people because it doesn’t friggen work thus we have borders and we control them.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:06 pm

                     @CV

                     Police have a right to ensure people aren’t carrying weapons or contraband, right?

                     Well that is part of their job description. If you think they should stop doing these things, then make a case.

                     But otherwise the best way to stop racist targeting is for the police to simply stop and search everyone.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:07 pm

                     “What is racist about checking visas?”

                     I haven’t said that checking visas is racist, please stop making shit up. Then, tell us how the police in Melbourne were going to check visas in a way that wasn’t racist. I’m really curious to know that.

                     Then read what CV said, because he addresses the actual point, which is that the state carries out policy in racist ways.

                     I’m gobsmacked that that has to be spelt out tbh.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:09 pm

                     Well that is part of their job description. If you think they should stop doing these things, then make a case.

                     But otherwise the best way to stop racist targeting is for the police to simply stop and search everyone.

                     Why should I have to make a case for the protection of universal civil liberties?

                     And do you really think if everyone’s civil liberties are infringed upon equally by the authorities, its all OK?

                     RL, that’s not the way it EVER happens.

                     How often do you think the cops in the US pull over an old Taurus driven by a black man, compared to a new Mercedes driven by a white guy in a suit.

                     How often do US police shoot a white person running from them compared to a black person running from them?

                     Running is a sign of guilt, right?
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:25 pm

                     “But otherwise the best way to stop racist targeting is for the police to simply stop and search everyone.”

                     Would you prefer the police to have more funding to do this or that they drop some of their other work?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:26 pm

                     Why should I have to make a case for the protection of universal civil liberties?

                     What universal civil liberties?

                     No-one’s allowed to break the law.
                   • McFlock …

                     29 August 2015 at 4:28 pm

                     Red, you’re required to have a visa to be in Aus.

                     Imagine you didn’t. Bit were still stopped at every streetcorner and your papers were checked for no reason. And if you weren’t carrying your papers, you were detained until your identity was verified.

                     Yeah, nah.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 4:47 pm

                     @McFlock

                     Well what I do carry with me at all times are a Drivers License and a Medicare card. Surprising how often I need them.

                     So from there I’m sure any electronically connected ABF Officer could do a fast lookup for my current visa status within seconds.

                     If you didn’t have them, then probably I’d get asked for my address, my employer, bank card, phone number, where I was staying or some such. If I could give sensible answers I doubt I’d be detained.

                     Your question is – should be have to carry identity documents with us at all times? The answer is, pretty much for all sorts of practical reasons it is the case by de-facto already.

                     Would I enjoy the experience? Of course not – such intrusion is naturally unwelcome. Would I consider it a cost worth paying to reduce immigration and visa fraud? Harder to tell, I don’t have a fixed idea on that just yet.
                   • marty mars …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:24 pm

                     @ draco

                     no not wrong at all

                     what happened and is still happening to Māori is colonisation and that mate is a little bit more than just immigration.

                     sure fear colonisation all you like but immigration is not the same thing.

                     btw I’m consistently amazed by how you go from distrusting govt to trusting them depending upon whether it fits your argument or not…
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:38 pm

                     Your question is – should be have to carry identity documents with us at all times? The answer is, pretty much for all sorts of practical reasons it is the case by de-facto already.

                     No, it’s really not. One, we don’t have to carry documentation unless we are engaged in a specific activity (eg driving). That’s a basic civil liberty right there and not one to be given up lightly.

                     Two, I don’t always take my wallet with me when I go out, so it’s not defacto, but this relates back to One, there is no penatly nor enforcement.

                     “In which case why bother issuing visas in the first place? Why bother with passports? What is the justification for borders at all?”

                     That’s just stupid. Obviously the visa system enables all sort of things including checking at airports, but also applying for jobs etc. You seem to be arguing all or nothing, which is one good reason why you ideas shouldn’t form the basis of civil liberties protection.

                     The other stuff about stop and question is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff and it’s hard to see how it would work. Put a check point at every train station? That would require either compulsory carrying of documentation, or a huge bureaucracy to process the people who didn’t have any. If I get caught driving without a licence I just have to present it within x days to the nearest police station. I’m betting the ratio of stops to people without licences on them is pretty low.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:58 pm

                     @weka

                     Of course there is no mandatory requirement to carry ID at present. And like most people I’d hugely prefer it to stay that way.

                     But in practise most people do carry something with them, most of the time. As I said before, for all sorts of quite ordinary transactions you need ID.

                     Here’s one – a few months back we spent a really interesting day in the Federal Parliament building in Canberra. And to gain admission required a similar security process to an airport. You need a Medicare care for every doctors and chemist visit.

                     You need shitloads of ID to get a phone or power connected. More to rent a place. Or to apply for a job. Did I mention the library? It’s pretty much an unfortunate fact of modern life that you need ID for any commercial transaction beyond a simple cash purchase.

                     So while in principle I agree with the civil libertarians here – in practise most of us carry ID most of the time – and the world has not come to an end. Even it is a tad irritating at times.

                     Obviously the visa system enables all sort of things including checking at airports, but also applying for jobs etc.

                     Immigration Officers probably used to be able to do an effective job by targeting workplaces. But there is reasonable evidence to suggest that isn’t so effective anymore. Too many dodgy employers and illegals colluding to evade the law.

                     Clearly people are not willing to accept carte-blanche mass checking of visa and residency status across the board. But equally the problem is not going away either, and if we look past Australia and New Zealand – it’s not hard to find countries with far more draconian regimes than we are used to.
                   • McFlock …

                     29 August 2015 at 7:25 pm

                     it’s not hard to find countries with far more draconian regimes than we are used to.

                     This is true.

                     It is not a reason to copy them, though.

                     What next – bringing back the Dawn Raids? After all, it’s only a minor inconvenience, and most people would have their ID at home, anyway… they’d also be a damned sight more successful than announcing an inner-city dragnet of random stops ahead of time.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 7:35 pm

                     @ Red, I live in the country and would only take my wallet out the door with me if I was going to town or the dairy. The rest of the time I don’t. I’d say that’s true for many people here.

                     You’re still missing the crucial distinction between lots of people carry ID a lot of the time and everyone has to carry ID or they will be punished. For you the freedom is a nice to have you are willing to give up to get rid of the nasty immigrants. For me the freedom is something crucial to the commons and I would fight to retain it.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 7:47 pm

                     It is not a reason to copy them, though.

                     Australia and NZ have relatively easy borders to manage. I’m not sure how smug and judgmental we should be about other nations with far more difficult borders and immigration challenges.

                     Nor, in the light of what is happening in Europe, have we much grounds for complacency.

                     The clumsy and bungled ABF thing in Melbourne was an easy and fat target for ridicule. Clearly the idea of stopping people at random in the Melbourne CBD was never going to fly. But equally we cannot so lightly dismiss the fact that in the absence of effective border control, Australia and NZ would be very, very different places.

                     Somewhere in between these two extremes we are going to have a lot more debate in the coming years.

                     Anyway – I’m off. To Melbourne for the evening ironically enough.

                     @weka

                     Of course there is no mandatory requirement to carry ID at present. And like most people I’d hugely prefer it to stay that way.

                     So you read this as me not being able to tell difference between voluntary and mandatory carrying of ID? Where did I go wrong?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     29 August 2015 at 8:58 pm

                     no not wrong at all

                     what happened and is still happening to Māori is colonisation and that mate is a little bit more than just immigration.

                     You were wrong then and still wrong now. When immigration overwhelms the native population, as Europeans did with Māori, then we have colonisation and that is what would actually happen with the free movement of people.
                   • marty mars …

                     29 August 2015 at 9:46 pm

                     nah you are incorrect – they are different processes but I do find it interesting that, like the righties, you think immigration leads to colonisation – incorrect as that is – maybe this will help

                     I have to say, I really love it when white people compare the migration of non-whites (immigrant minorities) to wealthy countries to the colonization of other lands by whites as if those two concepts were simply reversals of the other (kind of like when white folks bring up “reverse racism”). They are no such thing: One involves wealth, power, and privilege, and the other – more often than not – involves escaping a place with few opportunities for one where there is (at least theoretically) more opportunity and freedom, and often very little power at all.

                     http://jilliancyork.com/2009/08/28/because-colonialism-and-immigration-are-basically-the-same-thing/
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 10:39 pm

                     It seems like an important distinction, but…

                     Open borders doesn’t just mean the migration of non-whites/poor people. In NZ I’m willing to bet that the biggest influx would be middle class Europeans and USians as much as anyone. People who could afford a plane ticket for a start, who already speak English, and many who already know people here. We already have far more people from those places wanting into NZ than we are willing to take, including many who have visited here as tourists or on working visas who would have stayed if allowed.

                     The other thing is that there seems to be this implication that there would be some kind of balancing out with open borders. How does that work?
                   • marty mars …

                     29 August 2015 at 11:08 pm

                     Perhaps we need to address the idea that the nation states within borders are immutable and unchanging – as in the people there want to keep it the way it is and ‘always has been’ verses the reality of continuous change as people come and go.

                     Personally it seems to me that the situation we are in now cannot accept the new reality – something will have to give/change/adapt – I think that will have to be us – the western world.

                     There are no easy answers and the clock continues to tick with the effects of climate change and cheap energy kicking in – I find I can’t move much from, “what if they were us”.
               • freedom …

                 29 August 2015 at 12:13 pm

                 sticks and stones blah blah blah Redlogix

                 You do realise you just supplied the perfect example of why I will not be playing (any further)
                 “Because logically if you don’t think a nation-state should have the authority to determine and enforce it’s border control regulations – specifically it’s visa terms – then really you should just say so. ”

                 1: I never said any such thing
                 2: mm no, number 1 pretty much covers it
                 • RedLogix …

                   29 August 2015 at 12:22 pm

                   This is a debate forum. Shit or get off the toilet.
                   • freedom …

                     29 August 2015 at 12:47 pm

                     If you learn from history you don’t have to repeat it. No amount of circular debate will change that fact.
                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhrYjRrDGIQ
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:17 pm

                     Freedom, you haven’t actually engaged in any debate.
               • weka …

                 29 August 2015 at 12:21 pm

                 “I guess I’m asking the question – if we accept that it’s is ok to check for these things at the border – what is fundamentally different about checking for them inside the country?”

                 Because most people assume that once they’re inside the country they have civil liberties.

                 Because the state is institutionally racist.

                 Because there is no way to check visas by looking at someone other than by looking at someone. As opposed to say looking at everyone’s paper work that gets off a plane.

                 How about you explain how visas could be checked on the street if not by looking at someone. Or do you think that it’s a good use of the police’s time to stop people randomly (what % of people in Melbourne would have dodgy visas), and how would you make that blind?

                 I’m also curious as to how stopping someone on the street would be a useful way to check their visa. Do you carry your passport and entry documentation with you at all times?
                 • RedLogix …

                   29 August 2015 at 12:36 pm

                   Because most people assume that once they’re inside the country they have civil liberties.

                   Does this include the ‘civil liberty’ to commit visa fraud – or overstay?

                   Do you carry your passport and entry documentation with you at all times?

                   No and as I replied to mm above obviously this may be an issue.

                   On the other hand maybe the ABF could use some other ID I always carry like a driver’s license, or Medicare card (both with photos) as a first pass. I’d imagine they could cross-check that information with their own database pretty quickly.

                   The core question is – is the act of being stopped and questioned at random in streets an inherently ‘police state’ characteristic. And if so how is it so different to the fact that in the two years I’ve been here I must have been stopped while driving to check for alcohol, license and warrant at least a dozen times?
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 12:41 pm

                     “Does this include the ‘civil liberty’ to commit visa fraud – or overstay?”

                     Please point to where someone has said that.

                     “The core question is – is the act of being stopped and questioned at random in streets make this a ‘police state’. And is so how is it so different to the fact that in the two years I’ve been here I must have been stopped while driving to check for alcohol, license and warrant at least a dozen times?”

                     May as well cut to the chase and just go for dawn raids.

                     It’s not the core question. You want to make it the core question, but I think you should just come out with it and say what YOU think instead of projecting your views onto others. eg if you believe that Australians should carry citizenship ID by law, then just say so.

                     For many of us here the core question is why people end up illegaly immigrating and what are the ethical ways for the state to respond to that. You are focussing on how to catch illegal immgrants and appear to be advocating a reduction of civil liberties and human rights to do so.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 1:11 pm

                     You are focussing on how to catch illegal immgrants and appear to be advocating a reduction of civil liberties and human rights to do so.

                     State power enforcing any and all illegal acts involves the reduction of ‘civil liberties’ to some degree.

                     One of the important roles of politics is to define the balance between the individual rights and the right of society to impose it’s rules and norms.

                     So my question remains – if we accept that overstaying visas IS illegal – then what is an acceptable way to go about enforcing this?

                     You’ve ruled out dawn raids, random stopping in the streets and you’d probably object to ABF visits to workplaces as well. So either you are arguing that the problem is too hard and we should just give up on enforcing them – or you have some alternate ideas that would be an acceptable balance between enforcement and liberty?
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 1:26 pm

                     “So my question remains – if we accept that overstaying visas IS illegal – then what is an acceptable way to go about enforcing this?”

                     FFS Red, answer your own questions. Go on, I dare you.

                     “You’ve ruled out dawn raids, random stopping in the streets and you’d probably object to ABF visits to workplaces as well. So either you are arguing that the problem is too hard and we should just give up on enforcing them – or you have some alternate ideas that would be an acceptable balance between enforcement and liberty?”

                     Nah, today I’m standing up and saying the police action in Melbourne is ill conceived, probably racist, and stupid. R0b has asked use to consider what would happen in NZ. I’d be interested in talking about that. I’m not interested in developping Australian state and police policy on immigration control, not least because it’s deeply complex and related to a whole bunch of race issues specific to that place which would require a much more detailed conversation than we are having here. If you think that superficial actions like street control are useful and valid, make the argument. If you want to say what you think should happen, have at it.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 2:21 pm

                     @weka

                     I’ve made a clear case that IF you accept the case for border controls, then logically you also have to accept some loss of civil liberty in the pursuit of enforcing them.

                     Everyone else has loudly denounced things like random street checks and dawn raids. Which leaves the traditional approach of investigating workplaces, which is probably not as effective as it once used to be – but at least it’s conducted out of sight and doesn’t cause most people much discomfort.

                     But given that border control generally is becoming a more stressful issue for all nations, it is fair to ask where does the left want to go on this?

                     At one end of the scale we could argue to simply abandon them altogether as marty has done. In a more ideal world I could actually get my head around this.

                     Or we go down the ‘fortress island’ route which by accident of geography NZ has the luxury of being able to assume as a default position. By virtue of isolation and small size NZ does not have a significant overstayer issue. Certainly not one to justify random street stops and checks.

                     But it’s not the same in other places. Border and visa control varies considerably around the world. When I was working in Russia some years back, I literally had to make a trip to the city visa office every 72 hrs to get a stamp. Or try making a visa mistake when entering the USA. And as you rightly point out, Australia does have it’s own unique context, different to NZ’s.

                     The days of our forefathers being able to roam the planet with no bureaucratic constraints are over. Indeed since WW2 the trend has been for the barriers to only be raised. And in that context I suspect it is only a matter of time before visa checks generally become more intrusive and will impinge on civil liberties more than we would like.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 2:27 pm

                     I’ve asked multiple times for you to state what YOU think (instead of simply asking questions). In the absence of you doing so, I am now going to surmise that you are in favour of decreasing civil liberties as necessary as much as necessary in order to control illegal immigrants.

                     Other people have put up arguments about how to address migration problems, which you appear to be completely ignoring in your synopsis of the issues.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 2:50 pm

                     @ weka

                     In my reply at 2:21 I have stated what I think. That immigration control and visa issues are becoming more challenging and not less. Any realistic expectation is that nations will respond to this with more intrusion in our lives not less.

                     It’s worth remembering that that once upon a time the idea of police randomly stopping drivers was considered pretty horrible, yet with the right legal checks and balances, combined with better police tactics and training we’ve become accustomed to them. It hasn’t been the end of the world.

                     Dealing with the wider issues and causes of uncontrolled immigration is a wider and perfectly fine debate. But that was not what the OP focused on.
               • dukeofurl …

                 29 August 2015 at 12:37 pm

                 Why dont we have street checks to see if individuals are complying with their parole conditions. There could be a few, very few on release from prison which may be outside their curfew.

                 Then there is taxes, lets stop people and check they are up to date with student loans and their taxes.
                 A golf club on saturday would be a interesting result !
                 I bet you would march in the streets to stop street checks on taxpayers!

                 Do you now see the absurdity of your reductio ad absurdum argument.

                 The state requires compelling reasons in a free and democratic society to impose its police powers.
                 Checking border documents at the border meets that need, walking the streets on a friday night isn’t one.
                 • weka …

                   29 August 2015 at 12:43 pm

                   spot on.

                   In NZ we should start with benes. Street checks to make sure they’re not high, or shop checks to make sure they’re not spending the state’s money on luxuries. Better yet, just make them all have IDs and eftpos cards that allow only certain kinds of transactions.
                 • RedLogix …

                   29 August 2015 at 1:01 pm

                   Checking border documents at the border meets that need, walking the streets on a friday night isn’t one.

                   That blatantly evades the issue.

                   If you are ok with checking visas at the border; but someone chooses to commit an offence by overstaying or breaking the terms of that visa – then what?

                   How do you think the state should go about responding to this?

                   @weka

                   Not a good comparison. Overstaying is a crime; benes spending money on ‘luxuries’ is not.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 1:21 pm

                     “If you are ok with checking visas at the border; but someone chooses to commit an offence by overstaying or breaking the terms of that visa – then what?”

                     Answer the question yourself Red. You are the one blatantly avoiding the issue. Just state plainly what you think.

                     Myself, I don’t care that much if someone is overstaying or breaking the terms of their visa. Sure, the state should be trying to do something about that, but not by targeting people on the street (which is what this thread is about). There are class and ethnicity issues on why some people are allowed in and some people aren’t and so sneak in or overstay. I’m in favour of border control, but you aren’t arguing border control, you are arguing for increased surveillance to catch criminals. Those increases will be abused and will lessen civil liberties.

                     As for benes, it’s illegal to take drugs and yet benes are the ones being targeted by the state, because. The comparison is around how we lessen civil liberties in an attempt to target certain classes of people, a point you appear to have missed.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 1:34 pm

                     Myself, I don’t care that much if someone is overstaying or breaking the terms of their visa.

                     If someone gets a six month tourist visa, but just disappears with the assurance that the state will do little or nothing to enforce it – then you’ve pretty much negated the purpose of your border control.

                     It’s like having parking meters on the streets, but no-one to actually enforce them.

                     you are arguing for increased surveillance to catch criminals. Those increases will be abused and will lessen civil liberties.

                     As a general argument that’s pretty weird. Of course all state power reduces civil liberties to some extent and can be abused. But we also accept that this does not justify eliminating (or in this case neglecting) them either. On the balance they deliver a greater good than evil.

                     The comparison is around how we lessen civil liberties in an attempt to target certain classes of people, a point you appear to have missed.

                     Well if you have evidence that there are ‘certain classes’ of people who are more likely commit visa fraud then now would be a good time to point to it.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 2:59 pm

                     If someone gets a six month tourist visa, but just disappears with the assurance that the state will do little or nothing to enforce it – then you’ve pretty much negated the purpose of your border control.

                     I haven’t suggested that the state do little or nothing, you just made that up.

                     “you are arguing for increased surveillance to catch criminals. Those increases will be abused and will lessen civil liberties.”

                     As a general argument that’s pretty weird. Of course all state power reduces civil liberties to some extent and can be abused. But we also accept that this does not justify eliminating (or in this case neglecting) them either. On the balance they deliver a greater good than evil.

                     I haven’t suggested eliminating or neglecting. You just made that up. You can’t claim that on balance they deliver a greater good until you state what you think should happen. All you have said so far is (a) decrease civil liberties if necessary and (b) that’s going to be ok. Thank god we have actual civil liberties protectors.

                     “The comparison is around how we lessen civil liberties in an attempt to target certain classes of people, a point you appear to have missed.”

                     Well if you have evidence that there are ‘certain classes’ of people who are more likely commit visa fraud then now would be a good time to point to it.

                     No, but I can point to certain classes of people who are likely to have their civil liberties infringed more than others in the attempt to control immigrants and visitors. But of course you are arguing that that is ok, because we have to catch these criminals.
                   • Bill …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:22 pm

                     @RL

                     You’re taking into account that an over-stayer will be unable to access social welfare, or to get a legitimate job or somewhere to live and may well experience difficulty in doing something so simple as opening a bank account? (Not that they’re likely to need one given that they’re probably going to be destitute and living right on the fringes.)

                     I’ve been in a country for an extended period where I was unable to access services that were taken for granted by that country’s citizens. Trust me, to say ‘it ain’t an easy way to live’ would be a gross under-statement of the reality.

                     I guess I’m with marty mars on this one. fuck the border controls or the state controls. If you or I or anyone turns up somewhere and the local population is willing to incorporate us into their society*, then that should be that.

                     * there are thousands upon thousands of societies in NZ.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:27 pm

                     “If you or I or anyone turns up somewhere and the local population is willing to incorporate us into their society*, then that should be that.”

                     And if they’re not, what happens?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:37 pm

                     I haven’t suggested that the state do little or nothing, you just made that up.

                     Actually, weka, you have – by insisting that they don’t do anything within the borders of the state.

                     If you or I or anyone turns up somewhere and the local population is willing to incorporate us into their society*, then that should be that.

                     That’s just it Bill, we’re not hence the border controls, visas and other laws.
                   • Bill …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:48 pm

                     @ Weka

                     If ‘we’re’ not, then we do as we do at present and continue to seek a society where we ‘fit’. Given, as I said, that there are thousands of societies in NZ, one will likely be found.

                     There’s an obvious caveat to what I say. The reality, as we all know, is that the societies within NZ have suffered from a process of homogenisation and ‘none’ of them are particularly empowered or coherent at present.

                     But since we’re talking ideas and possibilities in the face of an onerous and largely unaccountable – I’d argue illegitimate – state apparatus…
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:49 pm

                     @Bill.

                     I’ve no quibble with your experience. Being an ‘illegal’ is rarely any fun.

                     But the context in Melbourne is a little different. Not too hard to find illegal employment at below minimum wages, and all the ‘social support’ you need to get by. No bank accounts, all cash, no taxes no questions.

                     Of course it undercuts other employers who play by the rules.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:53 pm

                     “Actually, weka, you have – by insisting that they don’t do anything within the borders of the state.”

                     Where have I said that? Link please, so I know what you are referring to.

                     edit, I’ll save use all the bother. Here is where I explicity say the opposite,

                     Myself, I don’t care that much if someone is overstaying or breaking the terms of their visa. Sure, the state should be trying to do something about that, but not by targeting people on the street (which is what this thread is about).
                   • Bill …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:59 pm

                     @ RL.

                     Illegal work is always a possible option. Helps if your single, young and fairly fit. But that doesn’t deal with the debilitating effect of always having to look over your shoulder, of being seriously precarious and being intelligently very reluctant to even seek medical care should the need arise.

                     What’s a lowly paid and highly exploited job worth when you have nothing to go with it?

                     I doubt anyone would wish it on anyone. And yet states want to vilify and persecute those in such a position. It’s basic class war in all its ugliest forms. See, the ‘illegal’ with a spare million or ten isn’t an illegal, are they? And yet, they may well contribute far, far less to the country they’re in than the piss poor illegal does.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 3:59 pm

                     “If ‘we’re’ not, then we do as we do at present and continue to seek a society where we ‘fit’. Given, as I said, that there are thousands of societies in NZ, one will likely be found.”

                     Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you meant that a rohe could decide eg Dunedin, or St Clair, or whatever. Are you meaning more that there will be people within any given commnity that ok with the immigrants living there? What happens within that community when some people say no we don’t want x people living here?

                     There’s an obvious caveat to what I say. The reality, as we all know, is that the societies within NZ have suffered from a process of homogenisation and ‘none’ of them are particularly empowered or coherent at present.
                     

                     Not sure we were ever that empowered or coherent. Back in the day before there was a state in NZ, British and European people already living here didn’t exactly behave well necessarily. And before that, iwi had protocols for deciding who could live where. You couldn’t just upsticks and go and live where you wanted. I think open borders is a very modern idea that doesn’t quite deal with issues of resource use or local governance. Worth exploring though.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     29 August 2015 at 4:18 pm

                     @weka

                     My apologies.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 4:22 pm

                     @Bill

                     It’s basic class war in all its ugliest forms.

                     And are not illegal’s working for $10 per hour in a war with working people on the minimum wage of $23 per hour?

                     Indeed are we not all at war with Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese or African workers who will do our jobs for 1/10th of what we are paid?

                     This war is somewhat moderated by the presence of borders and immigration controls, but not eliminated.

                     If you want to talk about the root causes of this economic warfare, and the means to eliminate it – I’m all ears. But in the meantime please excuse me if I don’t drop shields while the phasors are blasting hot.
                   • Bill …

                     29 August 2015 at 4:45 pm

                     I’m not at war with Indian workers or Chinese workers or even illegal workers here in NZ. If the state didn’t deem them ‘illegals’ then they could be unionised, yes?

                     As for the disparity in international rates of pay and conditions, they are locked in (figuratively and practically) by borders, not ameliorated by them.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:01 pm

                     I’m not at war with Indian workers or Chinese workers or even illegal workers here in NZ.

                     Yes you are. Just as unionised workers are always at war with non-unionised scabs.

                     I agree that is what borders achieve, indeed they do ‘lock in’ to some extent the disparities in incomes and conditions.

                     So when you argue for the dismantling of the nation-state and it’s borders, political and economic – I’d love to know how you would see these disparities playing out?

                     My impression is that in the absence of any constraint, either at the global or nation-state level – big money capitalism would merely drive incomes and conditions down to the lowest possible denominator.

                     At least slaves had to be fed, clothed and looked after reasonably well to get any productivity out of them. But in a world of billions of disposable bodies I doubt we’d even get that much consideration.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:02 pm

                     @ Draco, no worries.

                     @ Red

                     “And are not illegal’s working for $10 per hour in a war with working people on the minimum wage of $23 per hour?”

                     Funnily enough, the people I know who are concerned about their wage rates and job availability are looking at Western European and US workers on legal visas but who are ‘taking’ jobs because NZ employers are offering such crap emplyment conditions (no contracts, low pay). So this has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

                     “Indeed are we not all at war with Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese or African workers who will do our jobs for 1/10th of what we are paid?”

                     I’m also not at war with those people. I’m at war with the people that create the conditions that means those people will settle for Australia/NZ because there’s nowhere else to go. The West wanted globalisation, so we have it, and the West makes great use of overseas slave labour, so we can hardly turn around and blame the people that have been making our cheap shoes and electronics. Unless we think they should be kept in their place.

                     “If you want to talk about the root causes of this economic warfare, and the means to eliminate it – I’m all ears. But in the meantime please excuse me if I don’t drop shields while the phasors are blasting hot.”

                     Illegal immigrants aren’t ammunition or soldiers, they’re collateral damage.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:04 pm

                     “At least slaves had to be fed, clothed and looked after reasonably well to get any productivity out of them.”

                     Red, sometimes your ignorance is astounding.
                   • marty mars …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:07 pm

                     “Illegal immigrants aren’t ammunition or soldiers, they’re collateral damage.”

                     That is the point – well made weka

                     plus that slaves comment from red shows he know nots – slaves ffs /shakes head slowly
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:18 pm

                     @weka

                     I’m not defending slavery for a moment. It was a brutality from one end to the other. (And at the same time a constant feature of all human life for thousands of years.)

                     But a slave was usually a relatively expensive investment and it made no sense to disable them. They needed feeding, clothing and shelter if they were to ever repay the cost sunk into them.

                     Yet ironically enough in the modern world, we think ourselves free, yet our employers who lay claim to all our labour – are charged with fewer obligations towards us than a slave-owner of old might undertake.

                     So given a ‘market’ of billions of poor, desperate and often powerless bodies to be exploited – just how much obligation do you imagine unconstrained global capital might feel towards us all. Can you tell me how the rush towards gross extremes of wealth and poverty would play out?
                   • Bill …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:01 pm

                     @ RL

                     Given the length of this un-nested exchange, I think I’ll make this my last comment. Maybe we can pick up the theme some other time.

                     Just want to say that in the absence of the modern nation state, the market economy falls. Suddenly all that economic power becomes impotent in the absence of a state enforcer/arbitrator. Sure, there is the possibility of private or corporate run militia keeping ‘us plebs’ in our place for a while, but it would a losing end game for the current ‘masters of the universe’.

                     edit – the alternative to states and market economies is, of course, democracy – sadly, an overly misused and abused term/idea.
6. Kevin 6

   29 August 2015 at 11:32 am

   If FJK is comfortable with it? Not a chance of a protest.
7. weka 7

   29 August 2015 at 11:59 am

   So what was the original police operation for? They were going out in force to make sure citizens are behaving themselves? Or is this some anti-terrorism thing?

   Victorian Police release a statement saying the public transport system will “be at its safest … as a diverse team of transport and enforcement agencies take to the streets as a part of Operation Fortitude”.

   The operation will involve Metro Trains, Yarra Trams, the Sheriff’s Office, Taxi Services Commission, Victoria Police and the Australia Border Force (ABF).

   Transit and Public Safety Command Acting Superintendent Campbell Mill says police will be showing strength in numbers.

   “While we are all separate organisations, we all have something in common — a responsibility to keep our community safe,” Acting Superintendent Mill says.

   “In order to do that, we need to ensure that people are behaving appropriately.”

   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-28/timeline-of-how-operation-fortitude-unravelled/6733252
   • RedLogix 7.1

     29 August 2015 at 12:06 pm

     Well just a tad further down on the same page weka is the following statement:

     The ABF releases its statement on the operation, saying it will speak “with any individual we cross paths with” and warning officers will be checking people’s visa details.

     “You need to be aware of the conditions of your visa; if you commit visa fraud you should know it’s only a matter of time before you’re caught out,” ABF regional commander for Victoria and Tasmania Don Smith says.

     I guess there are at least three questions here.

     One is – does Australia (or any other nation) have the legal and moral right to issue visas?

     And if so – was operation an appropriate way to go about enforcing them?

     And if not – then what alternative approaches do you think would be acceptable?
     • weka 7.1.1

       29 August 2015 at 12:16 pm

       Are you saying that the primary objective of Operation Fortitude was to check visa/immgration?
       • RedLogix 7.1.1.1

         29 August 2015 at 12:58 pm

         Well it looks like the reason why the ABF were involved.
         • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1

           29 August 2015 at 3:05 pm

           RL do you believe that it will stop there. Do you believe that the authorities will exercise their powers lightly or judiciously.

           In some other countries where this is done, if your “papers are not in order” (as judged by the officer at the time) you will be frog marched off into an interrogation centre until your status can be “properly determined.”

           The ability for this to turn into a mechanism for intimidation and repression is huge.

           This is the whole concept behind the US Fourth Amendment.

           British troops were seizing and searching everything and everyone they wanted under the authority of a “General Warrant.”

           18th Century Americans thought that was pretty shit, and went to war over it and related issues.
           • RedLogix 7.1.1.1.1.1

             29 August 2015 at 3:18 pm

             RL do you believe that it will stop there. Do you believe that the authorities will exercise their powers lightly or judiciously.

             Authorities already have an enormous range of power available to them. More than enough to abuse. Yet the force (even weakened as it is these days) of democratic accountability generally ensures these powers are used judiciously.

             Of course the example you give is a terrific example of the abuse of a power in the absence of effective accountability. What 18th Century Americans went to war over was the right to establish their own democratic mechanisms in order to stop the abuse of the power.

             But note carefully – to this day their own Police still retain the right to stop and search. Obviously Americans are generally ok with police actually having the power and while I’m not pretending to be an expert in US law, I’d guess that there are whole rafts of legal conditions attaching to it’s use.
             • Colonial Viper …

               29 August 2015 at 3:21 pm

               Yes, middle and upper middle class whites are generally quite happy with the conduct of the police forces in the USA. If the authorities over reach their powers, those are the same types of citizens who have the means to be able to seek legal redress from the government.

               If you are poor, English your second language, aren’t educated, and don’t have access to the privileges that you and I assume for granted – how do you think that normally goes?
               • RedLogix …

                 29 August 2015 at 3:43 pm

                 Badly of course.

                 So what is your response? Yell ‘police state’ and shoot all the cops?

                 Or get some proper lawyers on the job?
             • weka …

               29 August 2015 at 3:22 pm

               “Obviously Americans are generally ok with police actually having the power”

               Except in Ferguson etc. You are bascially making a white man’s argument.
               • RedLogix …

                 29 August 2015 at 3:42 pm

                 What they are unhappy with is the abuse of the power.

                 I don’t see many Americans arguing for the police not to be able to perform their legally authorised jobs.
                 • weka …

                   29 August 2015 at 5:07 pm

                   The state currently enables racism that routinely kills black people. I suggest you listen to them about what they are arguing for because I don’t think it’s what you suggest.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:39 pm

                     Of course black America is deeply unhappy with the racist abuse of institutional power that convicts, imprisons and kills so many of them.

                     But I’m all ears for a link demonstrating a major groundswell of black Americans arguing for the dismantling, or neutering of their legal system and police forces as the best way to deal with it.

                     I’m trying to draw a really simple distinction here between the legitimate existence and purpose of authority – and the abuse of that authority.

                     Arguing that because power can corrupt implies that all power is wrong – is like arguing that because some people kill that all humans are killers. It’s an argument that deliberately omits the fact that both power and people are more than just corruption and death; that we have other greater virtues which ultimately transcend our failings.

                     Authority is to many people a vile word, but we have yet to devise any functioning world without it.
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:45 pm

                     A whole bunch of strawpeople there of your own making, I suggest you take it up with them.

                     I still think that your simplification of what black people in the US think is wrong. There are not just two options here.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 5:53 pm

                     I was trying to respond to your comment above:

                     “Obviously Americans are generally ok with police actually having the power”

                     Except in Ferguson etc. You are bascially making a white man’s argument.

                     I get they have every reason under the sun to loath a racist police force that abuses its power – but I had already clearly acknowledged that point.

                     So when you say “Except in Ferguson” what was I supposed to understand by that?
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:03 pm

                     That the racist policeforce is a deeply embedded tool of the state and the white population. That we resist decreasing civil liberties for very good reasons (the state can’t be trusted). That your argument that it’s ok to decrease civil liberties in order to deal with illegal immigration either doesn’t take that into account or doesn’t care. Your argument is that the state and/or the police use their power judiciously. That’s not true if you are black. It’s a red herring to then start talking about technical differences between power and corruption, given they are so deeply entwined and self serving.
                   • Bill …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:11 pm

                     @ RL

                     Only immutable or illegitimate authority be vile 😉

                     And it just isn’t so hard to imagine a world that would function just fine with authority that was neither illegitimate nor immutable and could never be immutable nor illegitimate. Back to that grossly misunderstood and abused term I used up in the endless thread above – democracy.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:27 pm

                     @weka

                     It’s a red herring to then start talking about technical differences between power and corruption, given they are so deeply entwined and self serving.

                     If that is your view then if you are going to condemn the corruption then I’m compelled to assume you are condemning the power as well. Given how you are arguing for them as deeply entwined and inseparable.

                     Suddenly it’s no longer a ‘technical argument’. Because now it seems you are making a case for the demolition of all legal and police authority.

                     My position is simpler and very conventional. As with all human tools, legal power and authority is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. Yet without these tools we cannot construct and maintain the fabric of our complex societies, that used judiciously and fairly, authority generates far more good than evil.

                     The challenge is not the unthinking opposing of authority – but the mastery of it’s skillful use.

                     If we accept that Australia has the legal authority to enforce visa conditions – and yet random checks on the street are not an acceptable method of doing it – then what are your criteria for something you do find acceptable?
                   • weka …

                     29 August 2015 at 6:48 pm

                     I’m not opposed to the existence of the state. You are confusing me with other people here I think.

                     The challenge is not the unthinking opposing of authority – but the mastery of it’s skillful use

                     Really? Because I see you wanting to hand tools to people in authoritty who will consolidate their power and abuse it. Who already do.

                     If we accept that Australia has the legal authority to enforce visa conditions – and yet random checks on the street are not an acceptable method of doing it – then what are your criteria for something you do find acceptable?

                     I’m assuming that the authorities in Melbourne intended to stop people on the basis of how they looked. So one criteria would be don’t have policy that’s carried out on such a basis. Because in the hands of pretty much any group of people that belong to the dominant cuture, that’s going to reinforce racism and lead to abuse.

                     If Australia really has such a big problem with illegal immigration that it’s considering such protocol, it’s time to taihoa and rethink the whole situation. What I hear you arguing is that instead of that, let’s just do the racist thing and the thing that will lessen civil liberties across the board because we are on some inexorable march towards more and more state control anyway.
8. Gabby 8

   29 August 2015 at 1:14 pm

   Do the Aussies not keep records on who enters on visas, and how long they can stay? Randomly stopping people seems a fairly inefficient way of checking. What happens when the stoppee says ‘Fuck off, I don’t have a visa’?
   • RedLogix 8.1

     29 August 2015 at 1:21 pm

     Do the Aussies not keep records on who enters on visas, and how long they can stay?

     Yes of course they do. That is how they know they have a problem.

     Randomly stopping people seems a fairly inefficient way of checking.

     Got a better idea? It’s the same way they check for drunk drivers so while it’s inefficient in one sense, it’s not unprecedented.

     What happens when the stoppee says ‘Fuck off, I don’t have a visa’?

     If you are in the country illegally – then what do you expect? A sweet smile and a polite talking to?
     • weka 8.1.1

       29 August 2015 at 1:29 pm

       “It’s the same way they check for drunk drivers so while it’s inefficient in one sense, it’s not unprecedented.”

       Are you saying that the Melbourne police intended on stopping every person leaving the train station? What’s the equivalent of the breath test?

       “What happens when the stoppee says ‘Fuck off, I don’t have a visa’?

       If you are in the country illegally – then what do you expect? A sweet smile and a polite talking to?”

       Actually it’s an entirely appropriate question. Were they intending to arrest people? Is there a legal obligation to provide evidence of visa/immigration status when stopped on the street? If not, what happens when someone tells the police to eff off?
       • RedLogix 8.1.1.1

         29 August 2015 at 1:49 pm

         http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/border-force-could-you-be-stopped-by-an-official-20150828-gja9gq.html

         Border Force officials have a range of powers to enforce migration laws, including the power to compel a person to produce such documents as visas and tax file numbers to check whether they are an unlawful non-citizen.

         On the other hand this is balanced by the requirement that:

         But the Human Rights Law Centre’s executive director, Hugh de Kretser, said all such powers could only be exercised if the official had a reasonable suspicion someone had breached a migration offence.

         What of course constitutes ‘reasonable suspicion’ is open to interpretation. Clearly just stopping someone because they look Asian is not good enough. Stopping people in the streets at random is not how the ABF normally works, and traditionally they have targeted people working illegally. Whether or not that approach is still considered fully effective is hard to tell.

         On the other hand, there is an enforcement argument that to avoid the accusation of racist ‘targeting’ they could just stop everyone and check – as they do with drunk driving.
         • weka 8.1.1.1.1

           29 August 2015 at 2:00 pm

           Your first quote doesn’t answer the question. Go back and read it again.

           “On the other hand, there is an enforcement argument that to avoid the accusation of racist ‘targeting’ they could just stop everyone and check – as they do with drunk driving.”

           Who is making that argument?
           • RedLogix 8.1.1.1.1.1

             29 August 2015 at 2:33 pm

             I did.

             In the bad old days cops could just hang out down the road from a pub and pretty efficiently target drunk drivers. But this was deemed ‘unfair’ – so they changed tactics to just stopping everyone at a checkpoint.

             No-one much likes it (and here in Vic I encounter one of them around once every two months) – but we accept the trade-off in civil liberty for a gain in road safety.

             Clearly people in Melbourne and NZ don’t see the cost of immigration and visa fraud as worth the liberty cost of being stopped and questioned in the street. (Although oddly enough they accept a far more intrusive checking every-time they pass through an international airport.)

             But I’m not at all sure this makes the issue go away. Because the pressure on the state to manage immigration and apply the law is only increasing.
             • weka …

               29 August 2015 at 3:05 pm

               Why was it unfair?

               Pub goers vs people of colour or accent, I can see why you would make the comparison /sarc

               If you can’t see the difference between what happens at an airport and what was about to happen in Melbourne, I probably can’t explain it to you. Which just leaves us with freedom’s point and not going to play.

               You still haven’t said what you think should happen.
               • RedLogix …

                 29 August 2015 at 3:38 pm

                 If you can’t see the difference between what happens at an airport and what was about to happen in Melbourne, I probably can’t explain it to you.

                 Because on one level you can’t. If you strip away all the bureaucratic and legal artifice – it’s just a matter of distance.

                 The difference is that we have all grown up with the expectation that there will be a whole lot of civil liberty intrusion at a border. In fact arrival halls, customs areas and transit lounges are appalling places of legal limbo where your legal rights and civil liberties are massively curtailed.

                 Most people think that the important thing is the passport. It’s not, it’s only a pre-cursor to entry. And it’s only relevant at the moment you pass through passport control.

                 What is critical is the visa. That is what actually gives you the right to be in the country and it sets the terms and conditions you have to abide by. The problem for law enforcement is visa fraud in big countries like Australia is an increasing problem and very hard to deal with.

                 But if every attempted measure to address this enforcement issue is going to be shouted down as ‘police state’ – with no-one willing to state the criteria for what they think would be an acceptable process – then no I don’t have any answer you’d be happy with.
                 • Molly …

                   29 August 2015 at 4:11 pm

                   What if you are an Australian citizen – who understandably enough – does not walk around with a copy of an official birth certificate on them?

                   Would it be reasonable for them to say – “Don’t have a visa mate. Born in Australia” and then expect the questioner to leave it at that?

                   If that is the case, then the most rational response to any random questioning on the street would be – “I’m an Australian citizen – don’t need a visa” – especially if you are an overstayer.

                   If you have never travelled overseas or got a driver’s licence – your only official document is a birth certificate. And we all know how easy it is to get a copy of those….

                   Your primary assumption – which is erroneous – is that random stopping will be an effective means of addressing the weaknesses of immigration and border control.

                   That is not true.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 August 2015 at 4:35 pm

                     ABF Officers are a bit smarter than this.

                     At no point did I suggest that random stopping is the only or necessarily most effective way to deal with the challenge. That’s YOUR assumption.

                     And I’ve consistently asked for any better suggestions anyone might have – but even that gets shouted down as well.
             • weka …

               29 August 2015 at 3:09 pm

               and while you are at it, please answer my earlier questions re the comparison with alcohol check points: are you suggesting that the police stop every person coming out of the train station and ask them about their visa? What’s the equivalent of the breath test?
     • Gabby 8.1.2

       29 August 2015 at 1:47 pm

       If I say to you, ‘Fuck off, I don’t have a visa,’ can you tell whether I’m in the country illegally?
       • RedLogix 8.1.2.1

         29 August 2015 at 1:51 pm

         If you do say that, then I’d suggest you have just created grounds for ‘reasonable suspicion’ in the mind of the officer.
         • weka 8.1.2.1.1

           29 August 2015 at 2:02 pm

           try running that past any number of communities whose people get routinely unfairly harassed by police and see what happens.

           If I lived in Melbourne and I got stopped by police today I’d refuse to answer their questions unless they had a good reason to stop and question me. Of course I’m white and can pass for middle class and have a kiwi accent so I’d probably get away with it.
         • Gabby 8.1.2.1.2

           29 August 2015 at 2:12 pm

           Reasonable suspicion of what?
           • weka 8.1.2.1.2.1

             29 August 2015 at 2:22 pm

             that someone had breached migration rules. It’s in the quote/link upthread.
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1.3

           29 August 2015 at 3:07 pm

           If you do say that, then I’d suggest you have just created grounds for ‘reasonable suspicion’ in the mind of the officer.

           Reasonable suspicion has always been the legal grounds for gaining a court warrant to authorise the conducting of a search of a premises or persons.

           Australia seems to want to go down the old well worn road of utilising a “General Warrant” to go on fishing expeditions against people it does not like.

           That’s the end of liberal democracy for you right there.
           • RedLogix 8.1.2.1.3.1

             29 August 2015 at 4:06 pm

             Reasonable suspicion has always been the legal grounds for gaining a court warrant to authorise the conducting of a search of a premises or persons.

             Immigration Officers work to a different set of rules. At a border control they have very broad and sweeping powers around detaining and questioning people, and not constrained much by the need for Court Orders.

             It does raise an interesting question – are those powers legally diminished or different outside the context of a border control ? I don’t know for certain, but I suspect not.
             • RedLogix …

               29 August 2015 at 6:08 pm

               More helpful information:

               Could ABF officers request visa information from people in the Melbourne CBD?

               ABF officers may in some circumstances be able to request details of a persons immigration status if they were in the Melbourne CBD. This is largely from existing powers under the migration act that would allow officers to require a person who they “know or reasonably suspect” is a non-citizen to present evidence of their lawful immigration status, or to provide details of their identity.

               These kind of “compliance checks” have happened in the past, as noted by the former immigration communications manager Sandi Logan. But in previous instances compliance checks were undertaken in much more limited ways, and often when there had been a tip-off about concerns at a particular location about immigration statuses.

               In the event ABF officers were deployed around the city to conduct visa checks, it’s difficult to see how they could “reasonably suspect” that a person was a non-citizen in order to request their visa details without any existing information to support that view.

               But if a lawful search resulted in finding that a person was in breach of their visa conditions and should not be residing in Australia, it is possible they could be taken into immigration detention.

               http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/28/australian-border-force-melbourne-cbd-six-things-you-need-to-know-explainer

               So in principle it appears that ABF Immigration Officers have potentially more power than Police Officers – but that by convention they restrict themselves to exercising them at border controls or in a limited manner outside of that context.
9. Gabby 9

   29 August 2015 at 2:49 pm

   But nobody who lives there permanently has a visa. Maybe I look ‘foreign’.
10. Bill 10

    29 August 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Anyone mentioned the ‘Dawn Raids’ in relation to how NZ or NZ-ers might be expected to react?
11. marty mars 11

    29 August 2015 at 3:11 pm

    In the first sentence of the post is the term ‘human rights’.

    As red has noted above when borders, or to be frank immigrants/refugees, get policed we can expect some lowering of our civil liberties – OUR civil liberties – but as we’ve seen the human rights of those immigrants/refugees are not given due consideration – that’s why we can have 71 dead in a truck and 200 dead on the water and these are daily occurrences, daily deaths and misery. We can blame the traffickers and the exploiters of these poor people but the policies we put in place allow them to flourish and allow them to take advantage of desperation, and we know the line is blurred when governments pay off the traffickers to take the immigrants/refugees somewhere else – to die or live in even more misery.
12. Colonial Viper 12

    29 August 2015 at 3:13 pm

    At the end of the day I can see western democracies becoming more illiberal, more authoritarian, and feeling much more like East Germany in atmosphere and attitude. Keep your head down, stay out of the spotlight, don’t draw attention to yourself. In case.

    Fucking brilliant civilisation we’re finishing up as.
    • Bill 12.1

      29 August 2015 at 3:33 pm

      It’s the natural final resting point of social (faux) democracies – an inevitable crystalising of their inherent authoritarianism.
    • b waghorn 12.2

      29 August 2015 at 5:59 pm

      And serco will be there to make sure it all runs efficiently!!
    • miravox 12.3

      29 August 2015 at 9:41 pm

      “feeling much more like East Germany in atmosphere and attitude”

      And language – Australian Border Force sounds all a bit militaristic doesn’t it? Perfect for an organisation that sets up stupid plans using heroic names like ‘operation fortitude‘ to interrogate the public exiting their trains.

      Did the Immigration Dept get extra powers (apart from operating outside the physical areas of immigration) with the brawny new name?
      • Colonial Viper 12.3.1

        29 August 2015 at 10:01 pm

        yes the languaging is very important…reflects the growing thuggery in the elite mindset
      • miravox 12.3.2

        29 August 2015 at 10:06 pm

        The language is very militaristic indeed…

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude
13. philj 13

    29 August 2015 at 4:44 pm

    How do you know when you are on a very slow slippery slope? When will you know we are in a police state?
14. Paul Campbell 14

    29 August 2015 at 8:57 pm

    BORDER FORCE!!
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/5/12/1399858482330/dogforce720.jpg?w=700&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=38a2300fd482239735111b4ebe7250b1
15. Paul Campbell 15

    29 August 2015 at 10:13 pm

    Moar BORDER FORCE!!

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/207abc3068e3b0eb8037df00d7c5dcafea76d6a4/0_0_2400_5590/master/2400.jpg?w=645&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=b28801576c0ab676fee18752024c7b1a

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS