Are you 'comfortable' with Australia's handling of Tamil asylum seekers at sea?

[Harpodom]

Just as an aside, at the bottom of every article about Australian immigration and asylum in the Guardian, you'll see this phrase:

 

The immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has been contacted for comment.

 

Says it all really. And you couldn't get him to STFU when he was in opposition!

[Danny842003]

Firstly few abscond. We are not in UK where different measures and situations occur. If as you claim your wife to be was a boat person, (UK possibly of Vietnamese origin, perhaps) It could be assumed you would take a little more enlightened view of the matter being discussed in the Australian context.

 

I would also be delighted to learn how you are able to ascertain from your great distance as well, as to the status of those in Australia in search of asylum? Such powers of detection the service would likely snap you up.

 

No she isn't a pomm of viet decent. I don't think many Viet boats made it as far as the UK would be a cracking effort if they managed to navigate around the Horn of Africa as I doubt they had the toll

fare for the canal.

She is Ozzie of viet origin. My view is enlightened at no point have I said people do not deserve the chance to come to oz or the uk if they truly need asylum. But I'm not naive enough to think a total open door policy is the answer.

My great distance to Australia as we speak is currently 0 meters, so not that great either.

[Danny842003]

It's not all about you or even referring to you. Not sure why you thought it was to be honest? A purely general comment, on the level of repetitive regurgitation of posts by certain posters. Fully anticipated and hardly an issue of any great significance though. It is a forum after all.

 

Well the original quote was referring to me hence my comment.

[Harpodom]

No she isn't a pomm of viet decent. I don't think many Viet boats made it as far as the UK would be a cracking effort if they managed to navigate around the Horn of Africa as I doubt they had the toll

fare for the canal.

She is Ozzie of viet origin. My view is enlightened at no point have I said people do not deserve the chance to come to oz or the uk if they truly need asylum. But I'm not naive enough to think a total open door policy is the answer.

My great distance to Australia as we speak is currently 0 meters, so not that great either.

Who is advocating an open door policy?

 

I know that some on the far left can give that impression, but in truth any sensible person would agree that there have to be measures in place to prevent 'economic refugees' being granted refugee visas, and of deporting those whose claims fail. But why must the process take place in offshore detention? Surely it would be cheaper to do it in Australia, not to mention ethically and legally more robust [the events surrounding the death and subsequent murder investigation of Reza Berati are proof of that]. Why must these assessments occur in detention at all? Unless the people concerned are suspected terrorists, it makes no sense.

 

BTW even in the UK there are limits. I think people get confused re the UK because of the EU factor

 

Also the favourite logical silver bullet argument of LNPers: to ONLY accepting 'genuine' refugees from UNHCR camps might cut the mustard if the current govt hadn't cut the annual intake from 20,000 per year to something like 13,000 (can't remember the exact number).

 

 

Bottom line is that this govt (and to a lesser extent the previous ALP govt) don't want refugees and asylum seekers coming here. That much is obvious. They know that the majority of Australians agree. They (Australians) have been worked over by successive ALP/Lib govts over the last few decades. Add in a sprinkle of 9-11 here and a 'children overboard' there, poor quality jingoistic media and voila.

 

And to think a former Liberal PM (Malcolm Fraser) took in many thousands of Vietnamese refugees after the war.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Harpodom

[Sammy1]

No she isn't a pomm of viet decent. I don't think many Viet boats made it as far as the UK would be a cracking effort if they managed to navigate around the Horn of Africa as I doubt they had the toll

fare for the canal.

She is Ozzie of viet origin. My view is enlightened at no point have I said people do not deserve the chance to come to oz or the uk if they truly need asylum. But I'm not naive enough to think a total open door policy is the answer.

My great distance to Australia as we speak is currently 0 meters, so not that great either.

 

I went to school (in the UK) with the children of Vietnamese boat people. I remember having great empathy for their parent's plight and thought the parents very brave. I do often wonder where the empathy in others is these days.

 

Many Vietnamese went to Hong Kong (at that time a British colony) and were placed in camps until 're-homed'. I had huge respect then and I still do for anybody that undergoes and survives such trauma.

[Parley]

Our liberal candidate at last federal election was a boat person himself. I voted for him

[dxboz]

Parleycross how does that work???? You want to stop boat people coming here but you voted for one????

[flag of convenience]

No she isn't a pomm of viet decent. I don't think many Viet boats made it as far as the UK would be a cracking effort if they managed to navigate around the Horn of Africa as I doubt they had the toll

fare for the canal.

She is Ozzie of viet origin. My view is enlightened at no point have I said people do not deserve the chance to come to oz or the uk if they truly need asylum. But I'm not naive enough to think a total open door policy is the answer.

My great distance to Australia as we speak is currently 0 meters, so not that great either.

 

Don't tell me the Daily Excess was well , being excessive with the cartoon of a few hundred Viet's in a sampan, wearing coolie hats, navigating The Thames. Gosh I must have been young and impressionable in those days. Vietnam too far for boat people? You are so right. Should have dawned on me I suppose. Wrong to make assumptions where others are concerned. Although Your Viet/Aussie girlfriend perhaps should have brought you up to speed? No matter. The majority of Viet boat people arrived in Britain owing to being rescued in the China Seas by British flagged merchant vessels and as such qualified to enter UK.

 

Australia does not have an open door policy and never has. Although one million immigrants in a three year period is far too many in the sense of the capacity the country has to absorb.

[flag of convenience]

But, given that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they initially lodge their claim, do you think the applicant also has the right to choose in which country they are eventually settled? (Assuming their claim is genuine, obviously).

 

What I think is the country initially where the claim is lodged has the responsibility. It is not for a country, to bribe poor neighbours with no capacity to accept, to take in folk that are rejected for politically expediency of a country like Australia.

If Australia cannot face its legal requirements then very simple withdraw from the legal bindings. Play it straight and don't spin nonsense like having the third biggest refugee intake in the world. A very bad look.

[flag of convenience]

We need to do more to resettle the people waiting in camps much quicker by we i mean the world as a whole. My sons girlfriend was born in a camp so i do have a small idea of what a camp is like from what she's told us. They waited for nearly ten years to be resettled here. They had no other option but to wait.

 

Meanwhile others have been born and die in them. The numbers being too prolific to touch but the service. Bit of a lucky dip at the end of the day. Certain areas of the world have been lucky as I discussed on another thread. Bhutanese for example from Nepali camps.

[flag of convenience]

Just as an aside, at the bottom of every article about Australian immigration and asylum in the Guardian, you'll see this phrase:

 

The immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has been contacted for comment.

 

Says it all really. And you couldn't get him to STFU when he was in opposition!

 

In opposition he claimed to be concerned about The Malaysia Solution, owing to use of the rotan (cane) as one of the reasons , besides questioning the democratic running of that country. What a caring fellow he presented at the time. They had to eat humble pie with their apologies to that government, claiming heat of the moment political grand standing.

[flag of convenience]

Who is advocating an open door policy?

 

I know that some on the far left can give that impression, but in truth any sensible person would agree that there have to be measures in place to prevent 'economic refugees' being granted refugee visas, and of deporting those whose claims fail. But why must the process take place in offshore detention? Surely it would be cheaper to do it in Australia, not to mention ethically and legally more robust [the events surrounding the death and subsequent murder investigation of Reza Berati are proof of that]. Why must these assessments occur in detention at all? Unless the people concerned are suspected terrorists, it makes no sense.

 

BTW even in the UK there are limits. I think people get confused re the UK because of the EU factor

 

Also the favourite logical silver bullet argument of LNPers: to ONLY accepting 'genuine' refugees from UNHCR camps might cut the mustard if the current govt hadn't cut the annual intake from 20,000 per year to something like 13,000 (can't remember the exact number).

 

 

Bottom line is that this govt (and to a lesser extent the previous ALP govt) don't want refugees and asylum seekers coming here. That much is obvious. They know that the majority of Australians agree. They (Australians) have been worked over by successive ALP/Lib govts over the last few decades. Add in a sprinkle of 9-11 here and a 'children overboard' there, poor quality jingoistic media and voila.

 

And to think a former Liberal PM (Malcolm Fraser) took in many thousands of Vietnamese refugees after the war.

 

Yes it was a Conservative that really opened the doors in the Australian context to Indo Chinese refugees. Not forgetting Lebanese Muslim/Christian as well. Although ALP under Whitlam allowed a few in, I suspect anti Communist Viet's would be assumed not to be natural ALP supporters so he wasn't a great supporter of intake.

Interesting Frazer is so outspoken against recent Conservative parties. One of the great intellects of the nation.

[Xenon4017]

>>But, given that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they initially lodge their claim, do you think the applicant also has the right to choose in which country they are eventually settled? (Assuming their claim is genuine, obviously).

 

What I think is the country initially where the claim is lodged has the responsibility.

 

Just be clear then, you think that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they are eventually settled. And that this country, by default, is the country where the claim is lodged. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, merely trying to get to your precise answer.

[Guest]

Our liberal candidate at last federal election was a boat person himself. I voted for him

 

Does this mean that you've actually been trolling us the whole time Parley, and you're actually a passionate humanitarian who empathises with the plight of those arriving by boat and seeking asylum?. If so, you're a genuinely funny guy and I'll take back everything I've ever said about you on Facebook.

[Harpodom]

Bit of light relief from Clarke and Dawe

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-10/clarke-and-dawe-proudly-australian/5587766

[MARYROSE02]

I voted for Tony Abbott, and I'm still proud of it!

[Keith and Linda]

I voted for Tony Abbott, and I'm still proud of it!

 

Good job a lot of other people did too or this thread would look a bit sick!

[Harpodom]

Good job a lot of other people did too or this thread would look a bit sick!

That doesn't even make sense

[flag of convenience]

>>But, given that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they initially lodge their claim, do you think the applicant also has the right to choose in which country they are eventually settled? (Assuming their claim is genuine, obviously).

 

 

 

Just be clear then, you think that an asylum seeker has the right to choose where they are eventually settled. And that this country, by default, is the country where the claim is lodged. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, merely trying to get to your precise answer.

 

The clarity has been stated numerous occasions and no need to repeat.

[flag of convenience]

That doesn't even make sense

 

A confused Coalition voter. They don't tend to make a lot of sense.

[Keith and Linda]

That doesn't even make sense

 

The thread would have died or not even existed, shame that it would have been singular in that respect.

 

But now it's just plain boring.

[Parley]

Here is a bit about my candidate for your info. A very impressive guy.

 

Unfortunately he didn't win. Lost on preferences but he had the most 1st pref votes.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/refugee-candidate-says-stop-the-boats-20130808-2rkib.html

[MARYROSE02]

'Smugglers are motivated by profit; they are criminals.' One of the quotes by General Angus Campbell, in charge of Operation Sovereign Borders, at the Manus Island enquiry. 'Give me all your money and I'll get you to Australia.' Well, that used to be right, but no longer, with the flow of boats reduced to almost nil. This is why we all voted for Abbott.

[Harpodom]

The thread would have died or not even existed, shame that it would have been singular in that respect.

 

But now it's just plain boring.

Still doesn't make sense. You can't expect people to share your opinions if they think you are wrong. Sorry if that bores you!

[Parley]

By the way my boat person candidate didn't sneak up on bondi beach, he came via a camp.