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

[mickyb]

So, have flag and I won the internet yet??

Not yet mate, still a couple of them awake .

[Parley]

Harpo, your poll is showing 60/40 so I wouldn't say you have won conclusively, bearing in mind there is a substantial loony left element on pio.

[Sammy1]

Harpo, your poll is showing 60/40 so I wouldn't say you have won conclusively, bearing in mind there is a substantial loony left element on pio.

 

Loony left? I guess that must balance the right wing nutter element on pio.

[Harpodom]

Personally, yes, I know people who have come here as asylum seekers or refugees, people from Africa, The Middle East, Asia. I'm always interested when I meet someone to ask where they are from, how they came to be in Australia, whether they like living here, do they miss their homeland.

 

You try to portray us as racists and anti-refugees coming to Australia, when all we are opposed to is illegal entry and people-smuggling. We don't want Australia to cut its official refugee intake. We know that most people who come to live in Australia are 'nice' people, and make good citizens, however they come to be here.

 

Not racist per se (though in quite a few cases racism is involved and knowingly utilised by politicians), just a bit misguided and in many cases lacking the empathy gene.

[MARYROSE02]

One thing that gets me is the way that every allegation about ill treatment is treated as irrefutable fact, and then you find out later, for instance, that RAN sailors did NOT deliberately burn asylum seekers, or that the woman who claimed to be an eye-witness to trouble on Manus Island, was not even there when it happened.

[Xenon4017]

There is a kind of twisted logic to your 2 for 1 idea BUT it has a fundamental flaw. It denies the most basic human right: the right to seek asylum.

 

It also presumes guilt in those seeking asylum in this country and seeks to make them suffer.

 

Actually its a really crap idea on further reflection.

 

Read what I wrote.

 

I previously stated, and state again , that it is not illegal to claim asylum. It's an inalienable right. You can claim it anywhere. BUT, you don't have a right to choose to be settled in any given place. You take pot luck. My idea doesn't presume guilt. It presumes that the asylum seeker is primarily seeking safety, not economic benefits.

[Xenon4017]

Back to the country settlement. I recall when the Irish Republic, made one of its rare selection of refugees from a camp in Thailand, in the eighties. Some 101 were selected and around 56 went into hiding, never having heard of the country and had their minds set on USA or Canada and perhaps France.

 

You've just highlighted the issue. A country offers them a safe home, and half of them turn it down, because the destination isn't their first pick. If we allow asylum seekers to choose where they go, where will it end? Can they pick which state they go to? Which suburb even?

[Xenon4017]

No country in the world holds votes or referendums before it acts on a particular issue. Government would be 'hamstrung' if it did. Instead we (at least in democratic countries) hold a general election every few years, and the party that wins that election, (hopefully) pursues the policies it promised it would.

 

Actually, you're quite wrong about this. Switzerland does hold referendums on most issues of importance. Anything from buying new fighter jets to whether they should artificially inseminate cows. People rock up on a Sunday and vote. You can also force the tabling of a new law by collecting enough signatures, even if you're not an MP. They call it direct democracy, and it's served them quite well so far. A 4 year parliamentary term that we have in the UK and the USA is not the only flavour of democracy out there.

[Xenon4017]

I'm afraid the presumption of guilt on the part of asylum seekers and the perceived need to punish them is straight out of the Tory Bastard's Handbook Of Cruel And Unusual Punishment: select the most vulnerable, traumatised, voiceless people, then demonise them by way of a complicit media and lazy sloganeering, then wait for the baying mob to do the rest.

 

Question to Xenon and parley: have you actually ever met an asylum seeker in real life?

 

Yes I have. A whole group actually. And you?

[Harpodom]

Yes I have. A whole group actually. And you?

 

Yes I have, through my work, and at rallies, but not socially.

[Harpodom]

Read what I wrote.

 

I previously stated, and state again , that it is not illegal to claim asylum. It's an inalienable right. You can claim it anywhere. BUT, you don't have a right to choose to be settled in any given place. You take pot luck. My idea doesn't presume guilt. It presumes that the asylum seeker is primarily seeking safety, not economic benefits.

Which leads back to the cruel and unusual bit: twisting this logic to ensure that NO asylum seeker arriving by boat will EVER settle in Australia, EVER.

 

Instead, any old $hite hole on the planet willing to accept Australian dosh will do for these 'parasites' won't it? Nauru, PNG, Cambodia.

 

Human rights concerns? No problem. No jobs? Again, not a problem. No space? Who cares? Prospect of creating racial tinder keg? Talk to the hand.

 

Wherever next in this Russian Roulette of asylum seeker tennis? Syria? Somalia? Zimbabwe? Tasmania?

Edited July 12, 2014 by Harpodom

[Xenon4017]

Yes I have, through my work, and at rallies, but not socially.

 

Well, that mirrors my own experience. I didn't (knowingly) meet any at work or at rallies, but socially.

 

Hey, why don't we trade experiences? You go first, I don't want o write a huge essay and find that my experiences don't interest you.

[Xenon4017]

Which leads back to the cruel and unusual bit: twisting this logic to ensure that NO asylum seeker arriving by boat will EVER settle in Australia, EVER.

 

Instead, any old $hite hole on the planet willing to accept Australian dosh will do for these 'parasites' won't it? Nauru, PNG, Cambodia.

 

Human rights concerns? No problem. No jobs? Again, not a problem. No space? Who cares? Prospect of creating racial tinder keg? Talk to the hand.

 

Wherever next in this Russian Roulette of asylum seeker tennis? Syria? Somalia? Zimbabwe? Tasmania?

 

Again, pleeeeease try to read what is written.

 

An asylum seeker could both arrive in Australia, and eventually be resettled here. But they'd have a spell in another camp first. And it would be pot luck, along with the rest of the refugee population. No "first dibs" allowed. The chances are slim though, assuming that other countries sign up to the idea. But who says that asylum seekers should be able to choose where they settle? Do you want to give a guarantee? FoC didn't.

 

Any camp the UNHCR deems fit would be OK with me. And besides we're actually reducing the numbers in the camp netto, so that's good, isn't it? We put 200 in, and take 400 out.

 

I never called them parasites. And Australia wouldn't be making cash contributions. We'd be swapping few for many. Where's your problem with that exactly?

Edited July 12, 2014 by Xenon4017

[MARYROSE02]

Actually, you're quite wrong about this. Switzerland does hold referendums on most issues of importance. Anything from buying new fighter jets to whether they should artificially inseminate cows. People rock up on a Sunday and vote. You can also force the tabling of a new law by collecting enough signatures, even if you're not an MP. They call it direct democracy, and it's served them quite well so far. A 4 year parliamentary term that we have in the UK and the USA is not the only flavour of democracy out there.

 

Perhaps you are right, but then again perhaps Switzerland is the exception to the rule, and they have always seemed to have pursued a policy of strict neutrality. Maybe it works for them?

[Harpodom]

Sorry, I was unclear whether you were asking about Australian govt policy or your own ideas. My comments were obviously in relation to the former.

 

Your proposal is rather radical. It would involve re writing the UN refugee convention, surely. I suppose that is possible.

 

Again, pleeeeease try to read what is written.

 

An asylum seeker could both arrive in Australia, and eventually be resettled here. But they'd have a spell in another camp first. And it would be pot luck, along with the rest of the refugee population. No "first dibs" allowed. The chances are slim though, assuming that other countries sign up to the idea. But who says that asylum seekers should be able to choose where they settle? Do you want to give a guarantee? FoC didn't.

 

Any camp the UNHCR deems fit would be OK with me. And besides we're actually reducing the numbers in the camp netto, so that's good, isn't it? We put 200 in, and take 400 out.

 

I never called them parasites. And Australia wouldn't be making cash contributions. We'd be swapping few for many. Where's your problem with that exactly?

[The Fisheys]

I am in favour of a government, democratically elected, with a universal franchise, (for gods sake it's compulsory here), carrying out the policies they said they would introduce.

[Sammy1]

I am in favour of a government, democratically elected, with a universal franchise, (for gods sake it's compulsory here), carrying out the policies they said they would introduce.

 

 

I not sure such a mythical governments exists.

[Parley]

It is here in front of your eyes Sammy.

[Xenon4017]

Your proposal is rather radical. It would involve re writing the UN refugee convention, surely. I suppose that is possible.

 

Nope. No rewrite required. No rewrite was required for the current policy to be implemented either. All it requires is that both countries agree. Obviously the more countries in it the better. And ultimately Australia would take a higher percentage of refugees. And the chances are that they would be bona fida. So, where's your problem.

[Harpodom]

Nope. No rewrite required. No rewrite was required for the current policy to be implemented either. All it requires is that both countries agree. Obviously the more countries in it the better. And ultimately Australia would take a higher percentage of refugees. And the chances are that they would be bona fida. So, where's your problem.

My problem is that you're simultaneously tying in your own fictional version of the refugee convention with current govt policy as if they one and the same.

 

The UNHCR is extremely critical of current govt policy and actions.

 

Talk of Australia accepting higher numbers of refugees is also meaningless when the current govt has drastically reduced annual refugee intake.

 

Goodnight

[MARYROSE02]

I don't know of any reason why Australia should kowtow to United Nations, given the number of horrid regimes that exercise so much power and influence there. My God, some of the worst offenders on human rights, are on the committees that oversee human rights!

 

If everybody has the right to seek asylum, does that include members of Hamas, Isis, Hezbollah, Assad's security forces, Nazis (I suppose there are some still alive), Tamil Tigers, the Taliban? If all that is required to establish your credentials as an asylum seeker, is to say 'I am seeking asylum', I guess it does mean just that.

[Harpodom]

I don't know of any reason why Australia should kowtow to United Nations, given the number of horrid regimes that exercise so much power and influence there. My God, some of the worst offenders on human rights, are on the committees that oversee human rights!

 

If everybody has the right to seek asylum, does that include members of Hamas, Isis, Hezbollah, Assad's security forces, Nazis (I suppose there are some still alive), Tamil Tigers, the Taliban? If all that is required to establish your credentials as an asylum seeker, is to say 'I am seeking asylum', I guess it does mean just that.

 

Yeah, f$$k the UN! Who needs international law anyway?

[jimmyay1]

I fully support the hard line the government takes and so do most Aussies. People were drowning by the score. Discouraging them and disrupting the dispicable trade in human misery these boat rackets are tied up with seems absolutely fair. There are refugee camps all over the world with a real registration and queueing system. Aus is not the nearest safe country for Iranians, Egyptians, etc. Most are simply economic migrants chancing their luck.

[Harpodom]

I fully support the hard line the government takes and so do most Aussies. People were drowning by the score. Discouraging them and disrupting the dispicable trade in human misery these boat rackets are tied up with seems absolutely fair. There are refugee camps all over the world with a real registration and queueing system. Aus is not the nearest safe country for Iranians, Egyptians, etc. Most are simply economic migrants chancing their luck.

 

There is no F$$KING QUEUE!!!!

 

Jesus...

[SarahCipo]

It's good to see I'm not alone in actually being a fan of Australia's immigration policy? Being a resident of the UK for the past 30 years I have seen first hand the damage that a liberal border control policy can have. I would hate to see Australia go down the shitter the same way the Uk has.

(Now before anyone says it, yes! I am aware that there more reasons behind the decline in the UK than just our immigration policy but I do believe that our loose borders have strained our already weak infrastructure to near breaking point.)

 

A couple of questions for all those in support of letting in the "asylum seekers" into Australia... Where are they all going to go? Where will they live? How will they support themselves? How will they intergrate into the community? What schools will their children go to? Where will they receive medical care? How much will it cost the government and then the citizens of Australia to house these tens of thousands "asylum seekers". Where is that money going to come from?

 

With increasing population numbers across the globe and an ongoing economic crisis I am in full favor of tight border restrictions in Australia.

Edited July 12, 2014 by SarahCipo