How the UK sees rudds decision.

[flag of convenience]

It appears to me that this thread is a decent example of how the assylum seeker issue is playing out in the wider world. What I mean by that is you have a majority of people who feel the current system is wrong, and a lot of people are abusing it and want to see change. On the other side you have a very vocal minority of individuals who have a great deal to say about why places like Australia and UK should just let anyone in who manages to get to their shores.

 

My personal view on this is that really Australia should not have many true assylum seekers, because to get to Australia many of the people in these boats have passed places like Japan, China, Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam etc etc etc. Why is it if they were seeking assylum that they didn't go to those places? The answer, is because they are a in a large proportion a group of chancers, who are economic migrants seeking a back door in.

 

The majority of people in the UK are sick of this abuse of the system. I would imagine decent tax paying individuals feel the same in Australia.

 

You are always going to get the bleeding heart dafties and their extremist views on this issue. They are of course incredibly vocal, and love to throw accusations of racism and the rest to anyone who doesn't share their view, but the reality is that the majority of people are fed up with immigration abuse. Something has to be done and I for one congratulate Australia for taking a proactive stance on the subject.

 

Rather than denounce those ( in a tabloid uninformed fashion) by suggesting those with which point out a reflective and humane approach to the matter by name calling them bleeding heart dafties is unbecoming not to say ill informed and rather suggests a lot about you.

 

You perhaps shouldn't confuse the UK with Australia, with those pointing out the legal obligations of Australia,(not to say moral) with the constant barrage of anti foreigner sentiment of sections of the UK society. It's fine not having an insight or an understanding to any degree on the matter but to label those that do as dafties does deserve a retort. If you had been keeping up to speed it would be apparent that asylum seekers are not accepted by countries not a signatory to the UNHCR Convention. As such countries en route have no obligation to take in asylum seekers although some house a million plus.

[flag of convenience]

Could you give me an example of where anyone here has said that?

 

Part of the problem is that people who hold the kind of position you do frequently fail to grasp the other side of the argument, and misrepresent it in the way you just have. I'm not sure why it's the case that the most intolerant also seem to be the ones who struggle to understand any opposing position, but there it is.

 

The majority of people, at least in the UK, have concerns about the extent of immigration within the context that the government needs greater awareness and control of the issue, but it is not the case that the majority are 'sick of the abuse'. In reality, the British public as a whole have a sensible, balanced approach to this issue.

 

Thankfully none I know in London share most the views expressed on here. It would turn me off ever going to that country if I thought that was the norm.Where do some of these folk come from to hold such right wing views. The mindset is set and rational discussion is with regards this difficult subject is hardly going to find a place on this forum.

[CrozierFamily]

Lol. Took about 10mins to prove my point.

[flag of convenience]

Lol. Took about 10mins to prove my point.

 

Your point being?

[littlefoot]

Your point being?

 

I think the point was that people who disagree are likely to say so. It's not much of a point.

 

The rest of it was just ill-informed squawking about made up things.

[Paul1Perth]

 

Not sure if I agree there FOC. I wonder whether in light of Australia's enormous superiority over the rest of the world in terms of mineral wealth, ingenuity, controlled banking, work-life balance and levels of humility, whether it needs the rest of the world at all. Maybe Australia is the world, so to speak. A compendium of all that is good about the world, without the crap bits like recessions, environmental issues and racial tensions. A bit like Narnia, (well hey, the witch is gone right?) but with BBQs.

 

You missed the beaches and nice weather, other than that your pretty right.:wink:

[Paul1Perth]

The convention also requires that no refugee is expelled on entry to a contracted country unless they are seen as an issue of national security or a danger to public order. Those arriving by boat are clearly neither

 

How would anyone know that until they have been processed? They could fit into both categories.

 

Rudd's policy, to my mind, is in clear violation of Australia's commitments

 

That may well be but judging by the comments on just about any web or news site you are in the minority. Most people are right behind it.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Paul1Perth

[flag of convenience]

How would anyone know that until they have been processed? They could fit into both categories.

 

 

 

That may well be but judging by the comments on just about any web or news site you are in the minority. Most people are right behind it.

 

1 That's why asylum seekers are processed to ascertain if they meet the criteria or not.

 

2 Government usually abides by the laws it signs. As such the correct procedure would be to either rectify or leave or negotiate with others, not to allow and indeed promote a populist backlash to influence decision making that is likely to end in tears.

[Paul1Perth]

1 That's why asylum seekers are processed to ascertain if they meet the criteria or not.

 

2 Government usually abides by the laws it signs. As such the correct procedure would be to either rectify or leave or negotiate with others, not to allow and indeed promote a populist backlash to influence decision making that is likely to end in tears.

 

Rudd's solution with PNG doesn't take them outside the law or the treaty they signed and they are negotiating with others, as you say.

 

I agree with your first point I was replying to someone who seemed to suggest that asylum seekers would not pose a threat to National Security or the law of the land.

[littlefoot]

Rudd's solution with PNG doesn't take them outside the law or the treaty they signed

 

Yes it does, as established earlier in this very thread.

 

I was replying to someone who seemed to suggest that asylum seekers would not pose a threat to National Security or the law of the land.

 

That wasn't what I said at all. I was pointing out one of the ways in which you're wrong about the first point you made. Australia has a duty to accept asylum seekers, except where they pose a threat to national security or a danger to public order. As you helpfully pointed out, it's impossible to make that call until they have been processed in the country they arrived at. That country is Australia.

[Paul1Perth]

Yes it does, as established earlier in this very thread.

 

 

 

That wasn't what I said at all. I was pointing out one of the ways in which you're wrong about the first point you made. Australia has a duty to accept asylum seekers, except where they pose a threat to national security or a danger to public order. As you helpfully pointed out, it's impossible to make that call until they have been processed in the country they arrived at. That country is Australia.

 

I don't think it was established at all. It's just someone's opinion.

[flag of convenience]

Good to see Fiji come out and oppose the Rudd solution on PNG anyway. If only to think that smaller island nations, like Vanuatu and the Soloman Islands, may think long and hard before signing up to such folly.

[Mullso]

Funny PB. Most UK people I've spoken to about Australias border protection policies usually say something like "wish we had politicians with some balls". Having a bigger bit of sea around you than the channel would help too and I suppose the French don't really help.

 

Didn't know you spoke for the whole of the UK btw, think you might be over estimating yourself a bit there.:cool:

 

I agree with Paul1Perth - UK should have done this years ago !

[flag of convenience]

I agree with Paul1Perth - UK should have done this years ago !

 

Including running immigration at record levels? Doubt if many in UK would go along with that.

[Sir Les Patterson]

Good to see Fiji come out and oppose the Rudd solution on PNG anyway

 

Oh yes, that hotbed of democracy :laugh:

Edited July 30, 2013 by Sir Les Patterson

[Parley]

Some of the scaremongerers may not know that PNG already takes refugees, and some have settled there and taken up citizenship.