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

[Rallyman]

Extract taken from the Australian human rights commission site :

 

How do refugees differ from migrants?

 

 

Refugees are not in the same situation as migrants, although the two groups are often confused. Migrants choose when to leave their country, where they go and when they return. Refugees flee their country for their own safety and cannot return unless the situation that forced them to leave

I read yesterday that the people on these boats had written and signed a leter thanking the way the RAN had treated them and stated they were making their way to New Zealand so if true I would class them as migrants,

[tea4too]

According to the Refugee Council of Australia “Asylum seekers are drawn to Australia because it has been seen as one of the few countries in the region which respects international law and human rights, treats people humanely and protects refugees and asylum seekers from being returned to situations of danger or persecution”.

 

And the numbers are small –24,173 arrived by boat in 2012-13, of which 88% were found to be genuine. Compared to the 4.7 million permanent and temporary visas issued the same year, asylum seekers do not appear to be very significant in the scheme of things?

 

As an outsider looking in, I am confused as to why there has been such a hard line political response when even official figures suggest the number of ‘non genuine’ claims for asylum is as small as 12%. A closed door policy is a tragedy for those (88%) genuinely fleeing danger, and risks diminishing Australia’s standing in the international community. As I understand it Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention and therefore not opposed to accepting claims for asylum……irrespective of the transport used by the asylum seeker……Tx

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php

Edited July 12, 2014 by tea4too
link not working

[Harpodom]

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.

You bring up some good points. Of course Australia should protect its own interests, but this does not mean they can trample all over human rights in the process.

 

I'm not actually in favour of an 'open door' policy.

 

For starters, I'd rather Australia severely reduced its reliance on angry white van drivers from Manchester (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? ).

 

With regard to asylum seekers, of course there needs to be a process in place to weed out economic migrants and send them back.

 

I just don't agree with you or the govt that this gives them carte blanche to, for example:

 

imprison children, even disabled or unaccompanied children

separate newborn mothers from their babies to send them back to detention

knowingly subject asylum seekers to sub standard, dangerous medical/obstetric/psychiatric care, often making transfers to/from the mainland too late/not at all

refer to children by a number rather than a name

confiscate medication/glasses/hearing aids/prostheses from people newly arrived on Nauru/Manus for no reason

intercept boats at sea, herd people into orange life boats and then dump them off near the Indonesian coast

make some dodgy assessment on a boat at sea before handing people over to the navy of a country currently under a UN investigation over human rights abuses

make sudden, unexplained transfers of asylum seekers between different detention centres

palm off UNHCR obligations onto PNG, Nauru (and most likely Cambodia), when its clear that you cannot control what happens when a 3rd world country is doing your dirty work

try to circumvent a high court decision and continue on a personal mission to revoke/cap permanent protection visas

create a 'code of conduct', personally written by the same person above, ONLY for asylum seekers, which aims to trip them up for the slightest misdemeanor and throw them back in detention

 

There are ways of doing things, and IMO this ISN'T the way.

[Parley]

Hey the poll is nearly 50/50.

Getting very interesting indeed..

[Harpodom]

Hey the poll is nearly 50/50.

Getting very interesting indeed..

 

You might need to phone a few more friends for that to happen parley, but I agree its got closer.

 

Interesting debate. Not sure if any minds have been changed by it though.

 

It would be really interesting to hear from anyone previously undecided who has been swayed either way

[Parley]

Unlikely. I've never seen anyone change their mind on pio about anything.

[mickyb]

You might need to phone a few more friends for that to happen parley, but I agree its got closer.

 

Interesting debate. Not sure if any minds have been changed by it though.

 

It would be really interesting to hear from anyone previously undecided who has been swayed either way

I'm still on the fence , although I was firmly on the stop side before . The problem with the boats is the more you accept, the more will come. It's human nature . I once bought a cripple some food in Vietnam , within 2 minutes I was surrounded by over 20 of the poor souls . I did feed them all but legged it as it got overwhelming . That's how the boats would work unchecked . Especially with the current situation in the Middle East and Africa . They'd be an armada if it wasn't stopped .

Interestingly though almost everyone on here supports refugee status , just not by boats .

ive got a refugee working for me at the moment . Lovely bloke . But his English makes me want to punch him sometimes ! That's why I think there should be regional dispersement creating more intergration and less problems .

[Harpodom]

I'm still on the fence , although I was firmly on the stop side before . The problem with the boats is the more you accept, the more will come. It's human nature . I once bought a cripple some food in Vietnam , within 2 minutes I was surrounded by over 20 of the poor souls . I did feed them all but legged it as it got overwhelming . That's how the boats would work unchecked . Especially with the current situation in the Middle East and Africa . They'd be an armada if it wasn't stopped .

Interestingly though almost everyone on here supports refugee status , just not by boats .

ive got a refugee working for me at the moment . Lovely bloke . But his English makes me want to punch him sometimes ! That's why I think there should be regional dispersement creating more intergration and less problems .

 

What is making you hesitate on the issue?

[Xenon4017]

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

 

Once again, try to read what I write, not what you would like that I write.

 

I never once mentioned the government policy.

 

I'm talking about a genuine idea to resolve the issue of a) providing a safety net for those in peril, and b) preventing this policy from being exploited by those not in peril.

 

Maybe you should read the posts twice, then proof read your own before you push Submit.

[Harpodom]

I think I'll give up replying to your posts, you're the internet forum version of a shapeshifter! I can't keep up....

 

Once again, try to read what I write, not what you would like that I write.

 

I never once mentioned the government policy.

 

I'm talking about a genuine idea to resolve the issue of a) providing a safety net for those in peril, and b) preventing this policy from being exploited by those not in peril.

 

Maybe you should read the posts twice, then proof read your own before you push Submit.

[SarahCipo]

You bring up some good points. Of course Australia should protect its own interests, but this does not mean they can trample all over human rights in the process.

 

I'm not actually in favour of an 'open door' policy.

 

For starters, I'd rather Australia severely reduced its reliance on angry white van drivers from Manchester (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? ).

 

With regard to asylum seekers, of course there needs to be a process in place to weed out economic migrants and send them back.

 

I just don't agree with you or the govt that this gives them carte blanche to, for example:

 

imprison children, even disabled or unaccompanied children

separate newborn mothers from their babies to send them back to detention

knowingly subject asylum seekers to sub standard, dangerous medical/obstetric/psychiatric care, often making transfers to/from the mainland too late/not at all

refer to children by a number rather than a name

confiscate medication/glasses/hearing aids/prostheses from people newly arrived on Nauru/Manus for no reason

intercept boats at sea, herd people into orange life boats and then dump them off near the Indonesian coast

make some dodgy assessment on a boat at sea before handing people over to the navy of a country currently under a UN investigation over human rights abuses

make sudden, unexplained transfers of asylum seekers between different detention centres

palm off UNHCR obligations onto PNG, Nauru (and most likely Cambodia), when its clear that you cannot control what happens when a 3rd world country is doing your dirty work

try to circumvent a high court decision and continue on a personal mission to revoke/cap permanent protection visas

create a 'code of conduct', personally written by the same person above, ONLY for asylum seekers, which aims to trip them up for the slightest misdemeanor and throw them back in detention

 

There are ways of doing things, and IMO this ISN'T the way.

 

What would your policy be? If you were in the driving seat making these decisions in government what would you decide? You mentioned above actions which you don't agree with, but how would you do it differently? And how would it work? Is there a solution that ticks all the boxes? How would you deal with people coming In illegally on boats? Where would you put them in their thousands while you processed their claim for asylum? And after said claim has been processed 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? Where is the money going to come from if not from the pockets of Australians who have worked hard to make a go of it for their own families.

id really like to know what you think the solution would be?

 

I would like to point out also that the UK doesn't have an open border policy, but the EU and the UN pretty much see to it that most people get in. When they do it's not all softly softly nicey nicey, many have a very hard time integrating into society, for various reasons. They often get taken advantage of in cash in hand jobs which they have to take because theres pretty well no other jobs for them even if they are qualified. All that aside they get the full support of the state in housing, education, the nhs and monetary funding. Where does it all come from? Well there is no where else for it to come from than from the existing resources pool, when that starts running low? Well just put up taxes to pay for it. I suspect it would be the same in Australia no? Unless there is some secret empty city out in the bush ready to take all these people. With houses, schools, hospitals and huge stacks of cash just waiting to take them all in.

[Xenon4017]

I think I'll give up replying to your posts...

You were never replying to the posts anyway. You're just trying to use this issue to bash Tony Abbott. Next week it'll be NDIS or something else. Nice to see that after nearly 50 pages the opinion of mainstream Australians is coming through; namely, that they support a resettlement scheme for those in need, but their hackles get raised to see such a scheme being abused.

[Harpodom]

What would your policy be? If you were in the driving seat making these decisions in government what would you decide? You mentioned above actions which you don't agree with, but how would you do it differently? And how would it work? Is there a solution that ticks all the boxes? How would you deal with people coming In illegally on boats? Where would you put them in their thousands while you processed their claim for asylum? And after said claim has been processed 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? Where is the money going to come from if not from the pockets of Australians who have worked hard to make a go of it for their own families.

id really like to know what you think the solution would be?

 

I would like to point out also that the UK doesn't have an open border policy, but the EU and the UN pretty much see to it that most people get in. When they do it's not all softly softly nicey nicey, many have a very hard time integrating into society, for various reasons. They often get taken advantage of in cash in hand jobs which they have to take because theres pretty well no other jobs for them even if they are qualified. All that aside they get the full support of the state in housing, education, the nhs and monetary funding. Where does it all come from? Well there is no where else for it to come from than from the existing resources pool, when that starts running low? Well just put up taxes to pay for it. I suspect it would be the same in Australia no? Unless there is some secret empty city out in the bush ready to take all these people. With houses, schools, hospitals and huge stacks of cash just waiting to take them all in.

 

You were never replying to the posts anyway. You're just trying to use this issue to bash Tony Abbott. Next week it'll be NDIS or something else. Nice to see that after nearly 50 pages the opinion of mainstream Australians is coming through; namely, that they support a resettlement scheme for those in need, but their hackles get raised to see such a scheme being abused.

 

This isn't necessarily about Tony Abbott or Scott Morrison. I blame Kevin Rudd for creating the PNG 'solution'. I blame both major parties for creating the current mess, but I think the pace of change has accelerated under the current govt. There are many sociological reasons for that, but IMO they are negative ones.

 

You and others repeatedly gloss over the fact that asylum seekers are denied human rights as I outlined previously. I take that to mean you think that's all good in your eyes. Its just 'collateral damage' at best, or intended damage. In the process you degrade yourself.

 

 

This is what this whole argument boils down to: is it justifiable to 'punish' a group to 'save' (or deter) another? I say no. You say yes. We'll never agree.

[Xenon4017]

What would your policy be?

 

In a nutshell, Australia does have more capacity to take in migrants than most. Obviously, that doesn't mean that all the worlds refugees need to come here, but we have a greater capacity to absorb migration than, say, Singapore. We currently have annual net immigration of between 100k to 150k, most of which through the standard channels that we're all familiar with like Skilled Migration, Employer Sponsored etc.

 

But once again, the capacity to absorb night be relatively large, but it is finite. And it would be prudent to include a share of refugees each year, rather than take 100k one year and none for the next decade.

 

The big difference between migrants and refugees, is that generally speaking migrants are bringing capital with them that they use to set themselves up, and refugees can't be relied upon to have similar resources. I'm not going to sugar the pill; we'd have to pay to get them set up. Tax money. That means your money and my money. Money we would otherwise spend on beer, sausages, and entry fees to theme parks, or otherwise waste. I doubt we'll get much direct gratitude from the recipients of our generosity. But, you know what? We're already paying the same benefits to a huge swathe of the non-productive domestic population. I'd rather we weren't, but there you go. The way I look at it, there's a far higher chance that a refugee given a chance here will eventually work hard, get a job and contribute tax dollars, than the chance that a domestic bludger will do the same. Why do I think this? Because if you look at the aging generation that actually built this country, they've got far more in common with refugees than with the current crop of skilled migrants.

 

Although Australia is an island, you can't insulate it from the rest of the world. Either, we take the time and effort to (invisibly) export our solutions, or we sit back and wait to import their problems.

 

(If you want to know precisely what I would do with those arriving by boat, go to my profile and look at posts I made about a dozen posts ago)

[Parley]

Pull the other one Harpo it plays Jingle Bells.

 

You have created countless threads bashing Tony Abbott and his liberal colleague who you hate.

You have never created a nasty thread about Gillard or Rudd so don't pretend otherwise.

 

Anyone can list the threads you have created and see the truth.

It is always about Abbott bashing.

[MARYROSE02]

Unlikely. I've never seen anyone change their mind on pio about anything.

 

You know a woman contacted me on RSVP and I noticed on her profile she said she would be unlikely to connect with anybody who voted for Tony Abbott. Well, we corresponded for a while, then I told her that I did in fact vote for Tony, and that was enough for her to break all contact with me. (She did mention my love of pubs and football, but Tony was the final straw. 'I had such a nice, caring face in my photo too.'

 

I mention it on this thread because lefties can be just so damn po-faced, unbending, unhumorous, and self-righteous, about issues. They loathe debate and they cherish immutable, irrefutable, dogmatic 'truths.' Climate change is the (present) big one for them. You either accept the scientifc truth or you are a flat-earther. You accept that the recent Indian summer in NSW is proof-positive of climate change, but also that the recent record snowfalls in NSW and VIC are also caused by global warming. Remember those climate change activists who got stuck in the ice in the Antarctic earlier on in the year? The ABC absolutely REFUSED to mention the fact that the trip was organised by a professor at UNSW or that the party were all into climate change, and instead kept saying 'a tour party is stuck in the ice' as if they were just a regular Thos Cook trip.

 

You don't have to change your views but you do have to accept that there is always an alternative, sometimes, many alternative, ways of looking at a subject. As if I would care if a prospective partner or friend voted for the Greens, or followed Arsenal! How boring is it when everybody agrees with you!

[Parley]

That is very funny. :laugh:

[MARYROSE02]

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

 

That's right! Even Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Pol Pot, Sadaam Hussein, would all have the right to come to Australia and be accepted as asylum seekers. I mean they would all share a fear of being persecuted in their own countries. They have shaved off their moustaches, changed their appearances, destroyed their papers.

 

Did you read about that disability pensioner who went off to fight Jihaad, and continued to be paid his pension!? I really do have to find a friendly doctor, or one I can bribe, to certify me as unable to work due to my mental illness. **** working for a living.

[Danny842003]

God 50 pages of the same **** just going around and around in circles.

[Harpodom]

God 50 pages of the same **** just going around and around in circles.

 

tell me about it! Some people never listen to reason

[Parley]

You, you mean.

[Harpodom]

You, you mean.

 

of course!

[Harpodom]

 

@parleycross, are you a fan of Rupert Murdoch?

[MARYROSE02]

Rupert Rules! I challenge anybody who hates him to read 'The Australian' or watch Fox/Sky News & Current Affairs for a week and then tell me exactly where the evidence is for both Murdoch telling all his staff what to write, and/or the one-sided bias.

 

They televised the Leveson? Enquiry live, Rupert Murdoch's grilling before that or a Parliamentary enquiry. His newspapers and media don't just slavishly support the Liberal party and at times they have supported the ALP at general elections. ALP/union figures regularly contribute to his newspapers and appear on the current affairs shows.

 

If you want true bias/prejudice, then read Mike Carlton's columns for Fairfax, or watch Q & A. I don't want to just hear my own point or view but nor do I want to hear just the opposite view.

[Danny842003]

tell me about it! Some people never listen to reason

 

To be honest it was you I was mostly thinking about lol.