Labour set to re-open procecessing camps offshore

[Harpodom]

I'm at work so can't elaborate, but u are right in your posts about finances and ASAS.

 

who are you referring to?

[Ellie 2]

Here's your quote:

I wish I had had the same kind of accommodation when I came to Australia as those boat people. We didn't riot and burn our accommodation but I reckon that would have been the best thing for it.

 

If my response was irrelevant, could you at least elaborate on what the above post means?

 

I was referring to living accommodation not to monetary help which your reply was all about.

[Harpodom]

I was referring to living accommodation not to monetary help which your reply was all about.

 

fair enough, so what are you saying about accommodation then?

[Ellie 2]

fair enough, so what are you saying about accommodation then?

 

 

Simple that the accommodation provided by the government for the boat people is of a much higher standard than they provided to the migrants they brought here many years ago.

[rikyuu]

I have never been in and hope to never be in the situation where I need to be a refugee, although I've been in a few shocking housing situations that I was glad to get out of and was glad to be just about anywhere else, these do not compare to what these refugees must be coming from.

 

If I could just try to image being in one of these war torn countries, or where there's famine, plague or my families life is under threat daily, I believe I would be glad of the relative safety of a processing centre, where I knew my family wasn't going to die needlessly and we'd have shelter and meals on the table each day.

 

These are the simple things that in fact thousands of people already living in Australia don't actually have. There are places here, that we chose to ignore, where peoples houses are barely inhabitable, their family's lives are at risk each day, their kids are threatened, attacked, stabbed, their properties are attacked, fire bombed, bricked, they can't afford food on the table, they have no hope of getting work. But we chose to ignore those here, it's too much of an issue to deal with. They don't have a choice, they don't have somewhere they can go to to be safe with food on the table, they never will have, it will be a life of perpertual dispair.

 

At least the asylum seekers who are coming from even more desperate situations are getting the option of relative safety, food and health care whilst they are being processed and there is hope that they will be housed and supported into work at the end of it and highly unlikely they'll be sent back. Each one will be spoken to, reviewed and if legitimate, helped into Australian society, in a way that many Australians in povery will never know.

 

So I believe, that considering their situation and the way the system is open for abuse at the slightest show of weakness, that it is being dealt with the best way it can.

 

We could choose to house and financially support everyone who came here claiming asylum without question, whilst they are reviewed. But how many people would come then? And why stop there. Why wait until they've made the hazardous jouney here. Why don't we set up offices in these countries and process everyone in their own country and ship them over here. Who decides how far to go? Who decides how much effort peoples lives are worth? Australia is probably big enough to house a billion people and has lots of money, should we save the whole world from proverty and war? The fact is, a lot of the world is a dangerous place, run by dangerous people. Humans can be very cruel and selfish, far beyond what animals are capable of and certain environments in the world are also cruel and not fit to live in. But people continue to live and procreate in these areas, in the hope of survival and perhaps something better one day. But I don't think we can save them all.

[Guest Andy]

I have never been in and hope to never be in the situation where I need to be a refugee, although I've been in a few shocking housing situations that I was glad to get out of and was glad to be just about anywhere else, these do not compare to what these refugees must be coming from.

 

If I could just try to imaging being in one of these war torn countries, or where there's famine, plague or my families life is under threat daily, I believe I would be glad of the relative safety of a processing centre, where I knew my family wasn't going to die needlessly and we'd have shelter and meals on the table each day.

 

These are the simple things that in fact thousands of people already living in Australia don't actually have. There are places here, that we chose to ignore, where peoples houses are barely inhabitable, their family's lives are at risk each day, their kids are threatened, attacked, stabbed, their properties are attacked, fire bombed, bricked, they can't afford food on the table, they have no hope of getting work. But we chose to ignore those here, it's too much of an issue to deal with. They don't have a choice, they don't have somewhere they can go to to be safe with food on the table, they never will have, it will be a life of perpertual dispair.

 

At least the asylum seekers who are coming from even more desperate situations are getting the option of relative safety, food and health care whilst they are being processed and there is hope that they will be housed and supported into work at the end of it and highly unlikely they'll be sent back. Each one will be spoken to, reviewed and if legitimate, helped into Australian society, in a way that many Australians in povery will never know.

 

So I believe, that considering their situation and the way the system is open for abuse at the slightest show of weakness, that it is being dealt with the best way it can.

 

We could choose to house and financially support everyone who came here claiming asylum without question, whilst they are reviewed. But how many people would come then? And why stop there. Why wait until they've made the hazardous jouney here. Why don't we set up offices in these countries and process everyone in their own country and ship them over here. Who decides how far to go? Who decides how much effort peoples lives are worth? Australia is probably big enough to house a billion people and has lots of money, should we save the whole world from proverty and war? The fact is, a lot of the world is a dangerous place, run by dangerous people. Humans can be very cruel and selfish, far beyond what animals are capable of and certain environments in the world are also cruel and not fit to live in. But people continue to live and procreate in these areas, in the hope of survival and perhaps something better one day. But I don't think we can save them all.

 

Australia probably is big enough to house a billion people, not that it has the resources but what happens when they have a billion people living there and then another billion want to join them, the only way for it to be sorted in my opinion is to find the root problem in the original country wherever that may be and sort that out, surly that is easier than the situation all over the world at the moment.

[Harpodom]

I have never been in and hope to never be in the situation where I need to be a refugee, although I've been in a few shocking housing situations that I was glad to get out of and was glad to be just about anywhere else, these do not compare to what these refugees must be coming from.

 

If I could just try to image being in one of these war torn countries, or where there's famine, plague or my families life is under threat daily, I believe I would be glad of the relative safety of a processing centre, where I knew my family wasn't going to die needlessly and we'd have shelter and meals on the table each day.

 

These are the simple things that in fact thousands of people already living in Australia don't actually have. There are places here, that we chose to ignore, where peoples houses are barely inhabitable, their family's lives are at risk each day, their kids are threatened, attacked, stabbed, their properties are attacked, fire bombed, bricked, they can't afford food on the table, they have no hope of getting work. But we chose to ignore those here, it's too much of an issue to deal with. They don't have a choice, they don't have somewhere they can go to to be safe with food on the table, they never will have, it will be a life of perpertual dispair.

 

At least the asylum seekers who are coming from even more desperate situations are getting the option of relative safety, food and health care whilst they are being processed and there is hope that they will be housed and supported into work at the end of it and highly unlikely they'll be sent back. Each one will be spoken to, reviewed and if legitimate, helped into Australian society, in a way that many Australians in povery will never know.

 

So I believe, that considering their situation and the way the system is open for abuse at the slightest show of weakness, that it is being dealt with the best way it can.

 

We could choose to house and financially support everyone who came here claiming asylum without question, whilst they are reviewed. But how many people would come then? And why stop there. Why wait until they've made the hazardous jouney here. Why don't we set up offices in these countries and process everyone in their own country and ship them over here. Who decides how far to go? Who decides how much effort peoples lives are worth? Australia is probably big enough to house a billion people and has lots of money, should we save the whole world from proverty and war? The fact is, a lot of the world is a dangerous place, run by dangerous people. Humans can be very cruel and selfish, far beyond what animals are capable of and certain environments in the world are also cruel and not fit to live in. But people continue to live and procreate in these areas, in the hope of survival and perhaps something better one day. But I don't think we can save them all.

 

again take a look at the track record of Woomera, a detention centre on Australian soil.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woomera_Detention_Centre

 

what hope is there that human rights will be upheld in a remote prison in the Pacific?

[rikyuu]

again take a look at the track record of Woomera, a detention centre on Australian soil.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woomera_Detention_Centre

 

what hope is there that human rights will be upheld in a remote prison in the Pacific?

 

it appears it was overcrowded due to the number of new arrivals, which is possibly related to the fact that it was on-shore processing which seems to increase new arrivals more than off-shore processing. Due to the over crowding, some didn't get proper medical attention. The rioting and publicity it got worked because it makes many people want to chose the later options in my post. Again, there are people already here in over crowded homes, without proper medical care in situations that don't comply with human rights. If they riot, they get locked up.

[Harpodom]

it appears it was overcrowded due to the number of new arrivals, which is possibly related to the fact that it was on-shore processing which seems to increase new arrivals more than off-shore processing. Due to the over crowding, some didn't get proper medical attention. The rioting and publicity it got worked because it makes many people want to chose the later options in my post. Again, there are people already here in over crowded homes, without proper medical care in situations that don't comply with human rights. If they riot, they get locked up.

 

big difference being, these people are automatically locked up

[rikyuu]

Australia probably is big enough to house a billion people, not that it has the resources but what happens when they have a billion people living there and then another billion want to join them, the only way for it to be sorted in my opinion is to find the root problem in the original country wherever that may be and sort that out, surly that is easier than the situation all over the world at the moment.

 

yes indeed, fix the problem at the source, that's what I always learnt as an engineer. Several big issues to sort out though including; governments, economy, society, geographical environment. Very tough things to resolve. We can't even get rid of our own 'leader'!

[Harpodom]

yes indeed, fix the problem at the source, that's what I always learnt as an engineer. Several big issues to sort out though including; governments, economy, society, geographical environment. Very tough things to resolve. We can't even get rid of our own 'leader'!

 

and hopefully by now we must have learnt from the mistakes of previous conflicts like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that we cannot/should not attempt to police the world

[rikyuu]

big difference being, these people are automatically locked up

 

 

ok, so we go with the later options in my initial post, but how far should we go, what are lives worth? There's a lot of suffering around the world, not just the ones who make it here by boat, why should we only consider them?

How much of your income and standard of living are you willing to sacrifice to give these desperate people a chance? Or would you only go so far as long as it didn't have a notable impact? Would you be prepared to move into a one room tin house, cycle to work, eat basic food, go to a well for water, have no eletricity, heating, luxuries, clothing and little heath care? I know we don't have to go that far to help a few people, but I'm asking why we don't reduce our standard of living significantly and help everyone? It can't just be a convenience thing can it? Just do enough so it seems like we're helping the ones who make it here in boats, but not too much so it impact us, our economy or our rising property investment values?

[Harpodom]

ok, so we go with the later options in my initial post, but how far should we go, what are lives worth? There's a lot of suffering around the world, not just the ones who make it here by boat, why should we only consider them?

How much of your income and standard of living are you willing to sacrifice to give these desperate people a chance? Or would you only go so far as long as it didn't have a notable impact? Would you be prepared to move into a one room tin house, cycle to work, eat basic food, go to a well for water, have no eletricity, heating, luxuries, clothing and little heath care? I know we don't have to go that far to help a few people, but I'm asking why we don't reduce our standard of living significantly and help everyone? It can't just be a convenience thing can it? Just do enough so it seems like we're helping the ones who make it here in boats, but not too much so it impact us, our economy or our rising property investment values?

 

I don't know how to support the worlds poor, but I do know that locking up people purely by virtue of the fact they arrived here by boat is immoral and shows total disregard for their human rights. That is what I object to.

 

As you're taking such a 'blue sky' look at the issue of dealing with the world's poor, why not consider the savings associated with not invading other countries with the aim of regime change? Saving which could be diverted to distribute wealth to poor countries.

 

I know, it sounds ridiculously simple to the point of being absurd, but its no more absurd than your faux suggestion.

[wakeboard1980]

Whhhooossshhhhh, are you that slow.

 

Either that or you have the smoke and mirrors out again and we can't keep up.

[Perthbum]

Facts.

 

Refugees want the same things we all do — a chance at a comfortable life in peace and free from persecution.

 

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951, which means that a person is able to seek asylum in Australia by boat or plane, with or without documents.

They are breaking no laws under the Refugee Convention of 1951. Moreover, 84% of asylum claimants are found to be genuine refugees. There are 50,000 illegal visa overstayers in Australia every year, most of them from Western countries.

 

In the last 34 years (from January 1, 1976 to April 30, 2010) a total of 23,024 people arrived by boat in Australia seeking asylum. That’s an average of 677.1 asylum seekers a year. At this rate it would take 149 years to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground with asylum seekers coming by boat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Perthbum]

Australia probably is big enough to house a billion people, not that it has the resources but what happens when they have a billion people living there and then another billion want to join them, the only way for it to be sorted in my opinion is to find the root problem in the original country wherever that may be and sort that out, surly that is easier than the situation all over the world at the moment.

 

 

What is a sustainable population for oz is a separate debate, Australian cities are among the most spread out and least densely populated in the world.

quote.

 

Australia provides 13,750 places to refugee and humanitarian entrants each year. These make up just 6.6% of the places in our overall permanent immigration program in 2010 — the lowest it’s been since 1975.

In 2009, the Department of Immigration granted 4,338,227 permanent and temporary visas. Refugees and humanitarian entrants made up just 0.31% of all visas granted for the year. Clearly, refugees are not a population problem.

[wakeboard1980]

big difference being, these people are automatically locked up

So you have highlighted the Woomera issue, that has been closed down due to the issues there, and the fact that it was the Howard government that set it up. People getting automatically locked up, who started that?

[Guest]

Facts.

 

Refugees want the same things we all do — a chance at a comfortable life in peace and free from persecution.

 

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951, which means that a person is able to seek asylum in Australia by boat or plane, with or without documents.

They are breaking no laws under the Refugee Convention of 1951. Moreover, 84% of asylum claimants are found to be genuine refugees. There are 50,000 illegal visa overstayers in Australia every year, most of them from Western countries.

 

In the last 34 years (from January 1, 1976 to April 30, 2010) a total of 23,024 people arrived by boat in Australia seeking asylum. That’s an average of 677.1 asylum seekers a year. At this rate it would take 149 years to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground with asylum seekers coming by boat.

 

 

That's an astonishingly low figure when you think about the acres of news-print, the hours of rolling news and the amount of political grand-standing that gets attached to this subject.

[Guest]

So you have highlighted the Woomera issue, that has been closed down due to the issues there, and the fact that it was the Howard government that set it up. People getting automatically locked up, who started that?

I dunno, The Romans?, Neolithic man (parking a Mammoth at the cave entrance)?, The Fruit-Inspectors in The Garden of Eden?

[wakeboard1980]

Are the refugees worse off in the conditions they are put in on Australian soil or PNG or Nauru? Surely word has got back to them about where they will be sent when they have to be rescued or intercepted coming over on their people smuggling boats. The conditions that they are kept in may not be suitable for us on here but if they really are that bad then why do they continue to spend their lifes savings/hard earned money to get on the boats in the first place, knowing that that is where they will end up?

[flag of convenience]

Simple that the accommodation provided by the government for the boat people is of a much higher standard than they provided to the migrants they brought here many years ago.

 

The standard of accommodation is nothing special....although some working in the area don't do too badly at all...depending at what dentention centre of course. May well be better than after the war, when folk had to work for the govt for two years and the camps in the bush...but then they were not detention centres.

 

The big problem being when the asylum folk are released there is all too little support offered and too little in payments to suistain them find a suitable place to live. Hence you have overcrowding or in cases the development of slum landlords. In fact the formation of a new under class may well be the result of ill thought out policies....

The task of giving assistance falls into the hands of ill funded community agencies.

[wakeboard1980]

[/b]

I dunno, The Romans?, Neolithic man (parking a Mammoth at the cave entrance)?, The Fruit-Inspectors in The Garden of Eden?

 

In Australia?

[Perthbum]

Are the refugees worse off in the conditions they are put in on Australian soil or PNG or Nauru? Surely word has got back to them about where they will be sent when they have to be rescued or intercepted coming over on their people smuggling boats. The conditions that they are kept in may not be suitable for us on here but if they really are that bad then why do they continue to spend their lifes savings/hard earned money to get on the boats in the first place, knowing that that is where they will end up?

 

just shows how desperate they are to escape the "hell hole" they are escaping from if they are willing to live in a mozzie infested ****-hole just off australia.

[flag of convenience]

Are the refugees worse off in the conditions they are put in on Australian soil or PNG or Nauru? Surely word has got back to them about where they will be sent when they have to be rescued or intercepted coming over on their people smuggling boats. The conditions that they are kept in may not be suitable for us on here but if they really are that bad then why do they continue to spend their lifes savings/hard earned money to get on the boats in the first place, knowing that that is where they will end up?

 

AS most if not all will end up in Australia eventually and if they are in deed in search of asylum the location of the detention centre in unlikely to matter whether it is in OZ or off shore. Nauru govt has stated they will accept 1,500 persons, PNG has yet to put a number on places.

Not sure what they intend to do at this point because the govt doesn't know itself. Unlikely Australia will be able to buy any other countries off in the region. East Timor was this governments first faux pas....Óf course Nauru and PNG may if the money is right agree to up their numbers.

Most countries looking at the size and wealth and the moral highground government's'at times like to take here...will be more than content to leave Australia to it.

[Guest]

In Australia?

 

Ummmmmm, is it evil British imperialists?