Jump to content
Petals

Assylum Seekers What do we do?

Recommended Posts

I do not want a slagging match with this thread, just honest debate.

 

Listening to this subject in the car a lot as the two major parties too and fro and the Greens add their pennyworth. I go to wondering, what should we do. Yes we feel sorry for people who do not have our lifestyle etc. The horror of living in PNG and on Nauru as put by the Greens and other do gooders. Well do gooders what should we do. Do we say sorry you can all come and then what. Do we have tent cities on our fringe as our infrastructure cannot handle the people who are already living here.

 

Do we tell our people who are on a waiting list for seven years for a public house that they have to go get a tent because now they will have no chance of getting a home.

 

Do we expand our over stressed hospitals and transport system to cope, who is going to pay for that.

 

Where are they going to work, people who are migrating legally are finding it difficult in the present job climate to get work where there are supposed to be shortages.

 

Do we want enclaves on our doorsteps.

 

Will you/me invite a family to live with us while they settle.

 

Its so easy to shout about human rights, but what about human rights of the residents of a country who are paying their taxes. Yes we should be compassionate but how compassionate can we be? Not very I think is the answer.

 

I really get most upset when politicians do not just be honest about this and the Greens are not helping, as what would they do? They really have not told us.

 

So just your thoughts since this is an emotive subject, people for and against. The people who are for what do you think we should do.

 

Read today in the Daily Pail that thousands are living in sheds in backyards in England probably they are here, who knows but do we want more of this?

 

Saturation is saturation.


Petals

:ssign15:taking no prisoners :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer tbh, but I think something has to be done, like it is now to stem he few of boats whilst a different solution is found. There will always be people and political parties disagreeing with what is proposed, but like you say.....what is their solution. I'll tell you what it is.........they don't have one that will work either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them home where some will face certain death or send them to the corrupt and very dangerous PNG.....hard choice.


Drinking rum before 11am does not make you an alcoholic, it makes you pirate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there is no solution but to try to stem the flow to a manageable number. Mainly because what they look at as being a good place to live will not be if we let thousands of people who require government assistance to settle here, we cannot look after our own disadvantaged people. Unfortunately our own disadvantaged are not being looked after properly. You only have to talk to our volunteers in the community who can tell of the misery of some older citizens and disadvantaged families to know where our tax dollars should be spent.


Petals

:ssign15:taking no prisoners :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that their will always be people far more disadvantaged than people in our own countries, do we just look away, turn a blind eye hoping they will go away ...or do we try and help at least some of them.


Drinking rum before 11am does not make you an alcoholic, it makes you pirate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not want a slagging match with this thread, just honest debate.

 

Listening to this subject in the car a lot as the two major parties too and fro and the Greens add their pennyworth. I go to wondering, what should we do. Yes we feel sorry for people who do not have our lifestyle etc. The horror of living in PNG and on Nauru as put by the Greens and other do gooders. Well do gooders what should we do. Do we say sorry you can all come and then what. Do we have tent cities on our fringe as our infrastructure cannot handle the people who are already living here.

 

Do we tell our people who are on a waiting list for seven years for a public house that they have to go get a tent because now they will have no chance of getting a home.

 

Do we expand our over stressed hospitals and transport system to cope, who is going to pay for that.

 

Where are they going to work, people who are migrating legally are finding it difficult in the present job climate to get work where there are supposed to be shortages.

 

Do we want enclaves on our doorsteps.

 

Will you/me invite a family to live with us while they settle.

 

Its so easy to shout about human rights, but what about human rights of the residents of a country who are paying their taxes. Yes we should be compassionate but how compassionate can we be? Not very I think is the answer.

 

I really get most upset when politicians do not just be honest about this and the Greens are not helping, as what would they do? They really have not told us.

 

So just your thoughts since this is an emotive subject, people for and against. The people who are for what do you think we should do.

 

Read today in the Daily Pail that thousands are living in sheds in backyards in England probably they are here, who knows but do we want more of this?

 

Saturation is saturation.

 

I could address loads of your points Petals but cba tbh(had a chong),but exactly how many asylum seekers are attempting to get to Aus each month?(i dont know,serious question btw).

Reading the Daily Mail on immigration is like reading king Herods book on baby care ,its useless,non factual or exaggerated to put it mildly


"The problem with neo conservative capitalism and it's insatiable greed for more wealth and disparity amongst the populace,is that it ended up being the catalyst for the great depression and modern recession"

 

Me,tonight:wubclub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could address loads of your points Petals but cba tbh(had a chong),but exactly how many asylum seekers are attempting to get to Aus each month?(i dont know,serious question btw).

Reading the Daily Mail on immigration is like reading king Herods book on baby care ,its useless,non factual or exaggerated to put it mildly

 

Last week alone we had 1200 arrivals by boat.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last week alone we had 1200 arrivals by boat.

 

Cheers PC,X 52 then?(roughly,besides those on other forms of transport) ok,you could get concerned a bit,but if thats an indicator of how many asylum seekers/refugee's are trying to enter Aus its surely not that many to be "that" worried about?


"The problem with neo conservative capitalism and it's insatiable greed for more wealth and disparity amongst the populace,is that it ended up being the catalyst for the great depression and modern recession"

 

Me,tonight:wubclub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a huge problem as the number seems to increase every month.

When you think of all these people having to be often rescued, housed, assessed etc it is stretching our resources to the point where our detention centres are bursting at the scenes.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "boats" can be stopped if all the agencies involved in refugee/asylum processed people quickly and not leave them in places like Malaysia/Indonesia/Nauru for months best case or years with no rights and being confined to a certain location etc.

 

That way no one will paying the smugglers to get people in on boats and people risking lives but I guess that is far too much of a common sense solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salma, that is the deterrence built into the system.

By not giving any advantage to boat arrivals and processing them offshore with lengthy detention this is meant to deter other peoples from coming illegally by boat.

 

The reality is if we went to softer, on-shore model with speedy assessment there would be a further explosion in numbers. It would probably quadruple very quickly.


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest littlesarah

The thing I don't understand is why there isn't the same outcry about the number of visa overstayers who have no legal right to be here. I also don't understand why people arriving by boat are treated differently from irregular air arrivals (many of whom arrive with false documents or who arrive on a visitor visa and then claim asylum).

 

Why not just shoot dead everyone who arrives by boat without valid travel documents? Problem solved - let's face it, many of them would die if they stayed in their own country, so the outcome is ultimately the same...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing I don't understand is why there isn't the same outcry about the number of visa overstayers who have no legal right to be here. I also don't understand why people arriving by boat are treated differently from irregular air arrivals (many of whom arrive with false documents or who arrive on a visitor visa and then claim asylum).

 

Why not just shoot dead everyone who arrives by boat without valid travel documents? Problem solved - let's face it, many of them would die if they stayed in their own country, so the outcome is ultimately the same...

 

You are right its not just the boats that are a problem. I do know though that with the over stayers they immigration department are very pro active, underfunded probably but they do a job that they have to do. When my daughter was at uni she worked in a restaurant that was raided and they carted the cooks off and deported them. This does happen on a daily basis and the airport are pro active as well. Of course lots get through but I am only one person and I know of two occasions personally where immigration took action against people. So if it happened to me it must be happening a lot more than we give credit for. Of course the people who come by plane etc have papers. The problem with the boats is that they have a penchant for getting rid of all their papers and we have no idea who they are or what they have been up to before they come.

 

The bottom line is that the country cannot be seen to be lenient, being lenient as UK has been has led to so many people coming over and knowing that they can get away with it.

 

Why for instance should people bother getting a visa if its so easy to just come over and stay here, why not just get on a plane and arrive. Its not that easy.

 

I am just fed up with the politics of it all and no solution to the problem because there is not one that suits all people. I believe that people who come legally should have precedence and that includes those who are waiting in camps to be allocated a country. So if the ones who are choosing to come by other means they should not moan about the conditions they are going to have to wait in or how long as those in the camps overseas are waiting years just for the opportunity to be rehoused. Yes there is a difference, the ones in the camps overseas have no cash to pay a smuggler.

 

Why are we happy to wait our turn at most things but when it comes to assylum they expect to be dealt with in front of others.

 

So many poor unhappy people in the world and we only have the standard of living we have because they are poor and unhappy.

 

As I said how many would actually invite them to come and live with them while they wait for asylum, not many, its the authorities who should deal with it. Well its not really if we are so sorry for these people we should do something about it on a personal basis, put them up, pay for them, pay for their English lessons etc. etc. Its so easy to criticise the gov but very difficult to really be objective about the problem.


Petals

:ssign15:taking no prisoners :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing I don't understand is why there isn't the same outcry about the number of visa overstayers who have no legal right to be here. I also don't understand why people arriving by boat are treated differently from irregular air arrivals (many of whom arrive with false documents or who arrive on a visitor visa and then claim asylum).

 

Why not just shoot dead everyone who arrives by boat without valid travel documents? Problem solved - let's face it, many of them would die if they stayed in their own country, so the outcome is ultimately the same...

 

The answer being air arrivals that arrive and claim asylum do not have the same political value. Nothing like the hordes invading the borders to get the usual politically inept in this country to sit up and take notice.

 

An old ploy and never fails. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asylum seekers are being used as political prawns by the main political parties for their own means.

In the process rational debate, decency and humanity in Australia has been discarded. Rudd has certainly lost my vote, while Abbott was never in the running.

 

It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the majority of those about to be ware housed in horrific conditions in both PNG and Nauru wil not eventually find their way to Australia.

Nauru will apparently ware house almost as many asylum seekers, refugees as there are people on the island. Clearly unsustainable in all but the short term until Australia decides the way forward.

 

The cost will run into billions, not just paying all costs concerning asylum seekers/refugees but the bribes agreed to. Repairing parts of these nations shattered infrastructure will not be cheap.

 

Not forgetting a possible High Court challenge into the legality of the entire process. The Court has a strong case but the cost would be substantial if the government holds ground.

The abuse of the power by a government in being able to introduce such a draconian policy should be a concern for all citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find the most frustrating is that us as taxpayers are funding the tents in Nauru and the PNG plans, we paid for the houses that were put on Christmas Island only for them to be set alight by refugees so now who is going to pay for the rebuild, you can bet it will be taxpayers again!

 

All for helping people but there must be a limit to it all. I think it needs to start with Indonesia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government's claim that the aim is to prevent the drowning of asylum seekers at sea, which is plainly nonsense. The way to prevent people drowning is to take away the need for them to get onto a boat in the first place.

 

Australia's hard line policy makes the nation hypocritical in terms of criticism with regards to the Human Rights violations and law. Countries such as Iran and Pakistan host millions of refugees awaiting settlement or a time when safe to return home.

It must appear on the world stage that such a rich country like Australia could indeed do more. At least on a temporary basis.

Certainly bribing some of the worlds poorest nations to do Australia's dirty work will unlikely go unnoticed.

Not with standing that nations like Italy have over 100,000 asylum seekers arrive by boat a year. They and other countries having large numbers arrive have not introduced such harsh measures. Australia identifies itself largely in terms of multi cultural identity these days, the extreme measures are hardly suggestive of either government policy or the shrill voices of numbers of the population, clearly making a racial issue out of the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it might be true that the numbers coming by boat are not huge compared to the number of visa over stayers etc, that's missing an important point. Since Rudd came into power originally and got rid of the coalitions border policies, look at the increase in the number coming. If people see that there's a good chance of getting in, they'll continue to come. And if nothing was done, the number would just keep increasing exponentially.

 

There also seems to be a lot of comment that PNG is not suitable for all these refugees - but ultimately the aim isn't to send lots of refugees there. The aim is to create a deterrent so that people won't bother to get on the boats in the first place - it's a pretty simple concept really.

 

I think the policy Rudd has now put in place is 100% the right thing to do. Take away any loopholes, any ambiguity - if you try to come on a boat you won't live in Australia. And when the influx stops, no more people will die at sea trying to get here, and we can go back to bringing in genuine refugees who do not have the means to pay for a boat trip, and who have not tried to jump the queue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the solution must involve Indonesia. This would consist of the building of reception centres run by the UNHCR who would be responsible for all aspects . Australia would have a fixed quota a year of approved refugees and other countries would be sought out to assist. New Zealand being the obvious could take a large portion of their 800 refugees a year. Perhaps The States may help out a take several thousand.

Anyhow a queue would be established and people would be made aware of how long they would wait until re settled. Those not willing to wait free to leave but loose their place in the queue. Any boat arrivals would be returned to Indonesia to await their turn. The more arrivals the longer the queue.

 

It should be remembered there is no queue for the refugees in the world's camps. Only some 80,000 are resettled in settlement countries.(USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, being the main ones)

Most asylum seekers can see the almost impossibility of winning the lottery of a placement abroad.

 

No wonder so many take the initiative and take the matter to hand. Only around 1% of the world's refugees are resettled. Some queue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst it might be true that the numbers coming by boat are not huge compared to the number of visa over stayers etc, that's missing an important point. Since Rudd came into power originally and got rid of the coalitions border policies, look at the increase in the number coming. If people see that there's a good chance of getting in, they'll continue to come. And if nothing was done, the number would just keep increasing exponentially.

 

There also seems to be a lot of comment that PNG is not suitable for all these refugees - but ultimately the aim isn't to send lots of refugees there. The aim is to create a deterrent so that people won't bother to get on the boats in the first place - it's a pretty simple concept really.

 

I think the policy Rudd has now put in place is 100% the right thing to do. Take away any loopholes, any ambiguity - if you try to come on a boat you won't live in Australia. And when the influx stops, no more people will die at sea trying to get here, and we can go back to bringing in genuine refugees who do not have the means to pay for a boat trip, and who have not tried to jump the queue.

 

The solution is for people not to get on boats in the first place. All huff and puff. Many if not most will get into Australia at some stage. Neither country Australia is sending boat people there have any desire nor the facilities for resettlement.

A refugee is genuine when been judged so under UNHCR guidelines. It really makes little difference if have money or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you determine that someone is a genuine asylum seeker and not just an economic migrant bypassing the system? Just because they are on a boat and say that they're an asylum seeker? Is that enough? Dunno, just asking.

Some have asked to be taken back to Sri Lanka when told they are going to Nauru and not Australia. They don't really sound like they're fleeing anything to me. Others happily go to Nauru/PNG, maybe they are, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "boats" can be stopped if all the agencies involved in refugee/asylum processed people quickly and not leave them in places like Malaysia/Indonesia/Nauru for months best case or years with no rights and being confined to a certain location etc.

 

That way no one will paying the smugglers to get people in on boats and people risking lives but I guess that is far too much of a common sense solution.

 

I'm sure the government would love to do this Salma but the rights of appeal and the checks that have to be undertaken are lengthy, to say the least. There would be more uproar if people were shipped back without every avenue available for them used to be able to mount a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing I don't understand is why there isn't the same outcry about the number of visa overstayers who have no legal right to be here. I also don't understand why people arriving by boat are treated differently from irregular air arrivals (many of whom arrive with false documents or who arrive on a visitor visa and then claim asylum).

 

Why not just shoot dead everyone who arrives by boat without valid travel documents? Problem solved - let's face it, many of them would die if they stayed in their own country, so the outcome is ultimately the same...

 

There is the same outcry. I've seen a few programs on TV where customs or whoever have tracked people down and deported them. One last week where they had found a Vietnamese guy had already been deported once and had managed to get another fake passport. They went to the house and when eventually let in, found 3 more on illegal papers and the guy they were looking for hid under the floorboards. None of them could speak English (or chose not to be able to), the house was owned by the guy's Sister who then tried to pretend she was married to him. That's just one case.

 

Imagine the blatant lies, fake documentation, language problems, rights of appeal they have to go through to get one person sent back and then consider the numbers coming in. Backlog is inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government's claim that the aim is to prevent the drowning of asylum seekers at sea, which is plainly nonsense. The way to prevent people drowning is to take away the need for them to get onto a boat in the first place.

 

Australia's hard line policy makes the nation hypocritical in terms of criticism with regards to the Human Rights violations and law. Countries such as Iran and Pakistan host millions of refugees awaiting settlement or a time when safe to return home.

It must appear on the world stage that such a rich country like Australia could indeed do more. At least on a temporary basis.

Certainly bribing some of the worlds poorest nations to do Australia's dirty work will unlikely go unnoticed.

Not with standing that nations like Italy have over 100,000 asylum seekers arrive by boat a year. They and other countries having large numbers arrive have not introduced such harsh measures. Australia identifies itself largely in terms of multi cultural identity these days, the extreme measures are hardly suggestive of either government policy or the shrill voices of numbers of the population, clearly making a racial issue out of the whole thing.

 

Not to say they wouldn't like to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "boats" can be stopped if all the agencies involved in refugee/asylum processed people quickly and not leave them in places like Malaysia/Indonesia/Nauru for months best case or years with no rights and being confined to a certain location etc.

 

That way no one will paying the smugglers to get people in on boats and people risking lives but I guess that is far too much of a common sense solution.

That's to easy Salma, common sense with the Australian government is really not a possibility.


Drinking rum before 11am does not make you an alcoholic, it makes you pirate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×