The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Refugee policy: new solutions? > Comments

Refugee policy: new solutions? : Comments

By Evan Wallace, published 23/2/2010

Asylum seekers: by employing language such as 'force' and 'deter' Tony Abbott is echoing Howard’s rhetoric.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I feel uncomfortable about the way we have treated the Shri Lankans , my reckoning is about the "Genuine Refugee" issue .
These People were hacked to shreds by a Massively Superior and Overwhelming Force not a Police Force but an Army an alarming number of People simply vanished , these people are not Border Hopping Opportunists they are "REAL" Refugees eg; Escape or Perish .

We need to temper our attitudes to fit the situation .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 9:08:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't see the Rudd gov't talking much about refugee policy voluntarily. Their policies, although not ideal, are always going to seem "softer" than the Coalition's, and would therefore probably be a net vote-loser for them. The debate on asylum seekers has become so comprehensively poisoned over the last decade, with asylum seekers deliberately criminalised and demonised, that most Australian voters have lost sight of the causes of their arrival, and regard them as at best a nuisance and at worst potential terrorists. This particular Howard legacy may take a very long time to turn around.

Rudd and co will want to steer the election campaign towards their handling of the economy and their green credentials, both of which will stack up relatively well in the electorate's eyes compared to the Coalition. Don't expect them to talk refugee politics unless they are forced to.

ShazBaz001 is right about the Sri Lankans being real refugees, but we should remember that it isn't up to us to make that judgment - there's an independent assessment process, which to date has found the vast majority are genuine and therefore entitled to our protection.
Posted by Slobodon Meshirtfront, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 9:55:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“…by employing language such as 'force' and 'deter' Tony Abbott is echoing Howard’s rhetoric.”

And a jolly good thing, too! Howard managed to stem the flow of illegals. Rudd just sits back and lets it all happen.

As one of a few countries silly enough to continue on with the outdated, totally inappropriate for the current situation, 1951 Convention, Australia takes more than its fair share per capita of offshore-processed asylum seekers. The quota for these people is lowered by every boatload of illegals. The goody two shoes don’t seem to realise this.

Describing the use of TPV’s and bipartisan mandatory detention as ‘harsh’ is quite ridiculous in regard to people turning up uninvited with the help of criminals. And, “unauthorised arrivals” are a burden.

There is not and should not be any “values debate surrounding refugee policy”. The policy is clear cut and bipartisan: a quota of UN-processed refugees from offshore centres. As for the nonsense about “stigmatisation of refugees as a “threat”, who is doing that? The ‘threat’ talked about is from people arriving unlawful via boats operated by the lawless. The threat, likely not a physical one, pertains to Australia’s sovereignty and its lawful right to control its own immigration and refugee policy.

And, let’s not have any of that crap about not being ‘allowed’ to ‘discriminate’ against people for the way they arrive, or the ludicrous belief that even genuine refugees have a right to chose where they wish to live.

Rudd has done more than” wind back some of the excesses of the Keating and Howard government’s legacy in refugee policy”; he has completely dropped all pretence of border protection and instigated an open border policy, including increasing accommodation on Christmas Island for his ‘guests’. And he certainly made a fool of himself over the “Indonesian Situation”. FORCED to negotiate with illegals, indeed! How pathetic!

This lad refers to “poorly informed attitudes” (of other people) while blithely expressing his own such attitudes here.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 11:17:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that Evan Wallace is quite correct that Abbott's Opposition will seek to gain political mileage out of refugee policy during the forthcoming Federal election campaign. After all, blowing that particular dog-whistle has proven very effective for the Libs over the past decade or so.

Expect to hear lots of the "We will decide..." jingoistic claptrap from the benighted Opposition, who really are only any good at slinging mud and exploiting the lowest common denominator of the electorate - a good example of which is found in Leigh's post above.

It will be ugly, and undoubtedly exacerbated by Rudd's predictable efforts to appear just as tough on hapless asylum seekers as the execrable Abbott and co.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 11:49:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Leigh said .. and why do we need to feel so sorry for Sri Lankans, why not the people sitting in refugee camps for example, in the Balkans, for many years?

Why, because the Sri Lankans can afford to get here and motor around the Indian ocean.

Why don't the Sri Lankans just go to India, or Indonesia, or Burma?

Why here?

Is it because we've not made an ungodly mess of our own country by a civil war? These people were on the wrong side, it didn't stop them killing people, including Rajiv Ghandi. To the victors the spoils to the losers, well a new way of life, clearly they didn't lose everything if they can afford to get to Indonesia then buy a fishing boat and then attempt to get to the immigration zone.

Yes, uninvited arrivals are irritating partly because they know we will give them a hearing due to our overly loud and overly sensitive hand wringing moaning minority.

They arrive with a huge sense of entitlement blown out of proportion by people like this author.

I'd much rather we bring in people who are currently sitting in refugee camps all over the world, in atrocious conditions for many years.

They are probably more likely to want to settle and become Australians than to continue their old hatreds and breed generations of haters, like some who migrate here.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 11:52:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we have some idealistic kid, happily getting his education, & living off the fruits of someone else's efforts.

It appears he has plans to continue to do so, for a while, at least.

Have you ever noticed, that those who don't have to actually do do something to earn their living, & depend on the wealth created by others, are those most likely to want to give away even more of that wealth.

Evan, at least start to earn your own living, before you start pontificating on how the earnings of others should be spent.

Come on ShazBaz001, these people tried to take control of part of a country, which had accepted them as immigrants. They had migrated there to lead a better life. They mostly, did not integrate, but massed in one area, living their own culture. They wanted independance, in that area & tried to take it by force. Not the sort of immigrants we need.

Sounds a lot like where we are headed with our multicultural policies.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 12:10:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Howard government’s policies were effective in countering people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers. Secondary movement asylum seekers are asylum seekers who move from a first country of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, with the aim of settling in an affluent Western country.

Almost all secondary movement asylum seekers arrived in Australia without identity papers or travel documents, deliberately destroying them to make the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence a very time consuming, difficult and costly task.

For a time until people smuggling was effectively halted by the previous government Australia’s refugee resettlement program had to be suspended as all resettlement places were being taken by secondary movement asylum seekers. The Howard government was able to halt people smuggling and the influx of secondary movement asylum seekers, so that refugee resettlement was returned to being based of need rather than financial ability to pay people smugglers.

Asylum seekers arriving at Christmas Island from Afghanistan via people smugglers are now mainly able bodied men able to pay $15,000 to people smugglers, although the annual per capita income of Afghanistan is about $800 per year or around $2 per day. In contrast, the most desperate refugees in the world are single women and children living in squalid refugee camps in Africa and Asia who live in abject poverty and are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. They are obviously unable to pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers.

The unintended consequence of the Rudd government policies is that able bodied men with substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers are now able to take preference in Australia’s refugee resettlement program ahead of those refugees most in need (such as desperate women and children in squalid refugee camps), which is hardly a compassionate outcome at all.
Posted by franklin, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 12:15:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not even vaguely historically correct Hasbeen. Both the Sinhalese and the Tamils migrated to Sri Lanka about 2500 years ago.

There are 80,000 tamil migrants in Australia and about 180,000 Sri Lankans all up in Australia.
Posted by David Jennings, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 12:57:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All hedging around the issue I see.

Those who say Howard's policies were effective are idiots. When he spends millions to keep one prisoner in a jail (refugee) in another country how can anyone say it's effective? It's rubbish.

How can any of you say using the Navy to transport refugees from one end of Australia to the other, pay a small, broke Nauru mega millions to land them and then accept most of them in Ox as refugees effective?

None of it was effective, it was simply a waste of money as most of those exact same people are here today, badly damaged mentally and are likely to be planning revenge for the way they were treated. That's success?

Rudd doesn't know what to do so he keeps piling them up at Xmas Island whereby they end up here.

Frankly I'm sick of it. Put them on a plane and send them back where they came from. Nobody can tell me that groups of Afghans have $15000 to spend on a leaky boat risk. They don't have that much money. If they did they would just fly in and hide like the bulk of illegal immigrants do.

So, succesful boat policy? Total rubbish! It just meant they flew in instead you morons. How do you stop them pray tell? Racial profiling?

What I'd like to see is an immigration policy that suits those of us that actually LIVE HERE. How can we plan our lives by working hard, marrying, buying a home and having kids when the govt may just dump 500 Swahili's into your neighbourhood? What about US for a change? We come first, refugees last. Their country rejected them, not us. Send them home and apply for immigration. If they don't get on with their govt that is their problem, not ours. We can't accomodate all of these people.

And sure, shout racist at me. I have a aboriginal son in law and two aboriginal grandchildren who I love. If I'm racist what are you?
Posted by DavoP, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 2:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen
As usual your archaic views show you for what you are. Your unwarranted attack on the author personally and not what he says proves his point.
The conservative approach to everything is to victimise rather than think.
The topic was refugees not the author's income or life worth.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 3:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said,Amicus and Hasbeen.
Has it not struck anyone(?) that somehow the UN never presses the Koreas,Japan or China and Burma to take their share of Afghan and Sri Lankan refugees? They all head to Australia. The UN Refugee Org has recently asked us to take in an additional 4800 refugees from camps in Sudan and Somalia and these countries have recently been put on the terror watch list by the USA,UK and here in Australia. The bloody UN authoriteies have thoroughly exhausted our humanitarian capacity.

NO MORE!!
Ask the others to do their bit. The next boat load should be directed to Burma, Soputh and North Korea and Japan.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 3:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But we were planning to put them in your neighbourhood...
Posted by David Jennings, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 4:24:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree- I don't buy the notion that any cost the Australian citizen is justified to rescue refugees.

A fair policy would be to hold every arrival to the following criteria:
1- mentally sound and with a mindset compatible to contemporary Australian society (which I imagine most would agree on as liberal secular values, morals and ettiquite (ie not crazy, not a religious fanatic, and did not rely on theft or other antisocial behaviour in their past life).
2- zero personal contact or involvement in any conflicts (fundamentalist warriors of Shia tribes enemy of the Taliban need not apply).
3- Has not committed a crime
4- The boat upon arrival had not been sabotaged- to discourage anyone from trying to resort to such tactics to force rescue squads to take them in (assuming they can do it guaranteeing their kids will be taken in.
5- Cooperates with border guards, provides truthful personal information

Failure to meet these 5 standards shall result in an instant deportation back to their assumed country of origin. It's tough, but we deserve to entitle ourselves to that much.

This should ensure we discourage anymore of the likes of what we saw last year that set their boat alight. Up until I found out they were mostly still let in I was actually giving the government a benefit of a doubt about their screening standards.

Australia- nor any other country- should be 'obligated' to harbor people who would not meet this criteria, simple as that.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 4:34:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why doesn't the Anti Conservative Idealist outfit pool their money & call the UN & for once go into a country for humanitarian reason only & prevent these people from becoming genuine refugees. Let's see them stop the atrocities by idealistic academic rhetoric & without the help of the terrible coalition forces. There's a once in a lifetime chance to proof their philosophies right & prove the coalition forces' approach wrong.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 7:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why doesn't India take them? India has more than 456,000 refugees, of whom 100,000 to 160,000 are Sri Lankans. India, unlike Australia, has a massive problem of poverty amongst its own citizens. Yes, it is a large economy now, and growing. But it has a long way to go before its living standards match ours.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22280/

It is not reasonable to expect people to wait for years in refugee camps where basic sewerage is lacking--so that they are subject to cholera and dysentery. Nor is it reasonable to leave them in camps where they are subject to attacks from the same groups from whom they have fled (e.g., in Pakistan, from the Taliban).

It is not reasonable, either, to expect poor countries, or those with a severe poverty problem and a low average standard of living, to be taking large numbers of refugees.

And decent people do not watch others being killed and say 'it is none of my business'. Nor do they watch them starving, or being tortured, or dying of curable or preventable diseases and do nothing. Not do they drive refugees away without the certainty that there is somewhere safe for them to go.

If the Opposition were to include in their policy proposals to fix the camps in other countries and to speed up the processing of refugees, and to help their settlement, it would begin to look like an alternative. As it is, it is despicable.
Posted by ozbib, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 9:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said indeed ozbib - and also examinator and David Jennings.

As we can see from the other comments thus far, there's a ready audience of baying hounds just waiting for Abbott's mob to blow the refugee dog-whistle. Indeed, they're positively salivating.

Fortunately, the polls tell us that while there's a an unfortunately significant proportion of them in the Australian electorate, they remain a minority. But that won't stop both major parties from stooping to the lowest common denominator to get their votes.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 9:22:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Fortunately, the polls tell us that while there's a an unfortunately significant proportion of them in the Australian electorate, they remain a minority. But that won't stop both major parties from stooping to the lowest common denominator to get their votes."

Yes CJ, they are called Australian citizens, and they are entitled to an opinion and a vote.

"An unfortunately large proportion", do you not like your fellow Australians? Hey it's a democracy and no amount of whining and name calling will change the basic conservative nature of the electorate.

"A minority", I think not, that's just wishful thinking and you know it, your average Aussie is not a bleeding heart regardless of the MSM and luvvies trying to pretend it is so.

As PM John (MOS) Howard showed, the conservative middle ground of Australia is solid (re-elected 4 times with conservative goals, because it's what we like).

Australia did not move to the left during the last election, it merely ousted someone who stayed too long. The ALP won with 51.9% of the vote, hardly a landslide and all we need is a little shift and it's all over.

"stooping to the lowest common denominator", that's CJ speak for listening to the majority and putting into action their wishes. If they were not a majority, politicians wouldn't bother, to stoop.

Most Australian abhor cheats and con merchants, and that is the perception of some of those who come on boats, refuse to leave boats till they get "a deal", blow boats up, and so on.

Baying Hounds, I guess you see others as you see yourself.
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 9:45:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is not quite on topic, but will be of interest to a number of you. We have lifted the restrictions to double the number of times you can post on article and general threads. The original restrictions were designed to keep conversation polite after the initial completely unregulated posting rules tended towards extremely short and aggressive posts.

I'm hoping that the site has matured to a stage where that won't be repeated. So good luck with the new rules.

There's bound to be a lot of discussion on this thread, so I thought those involved in this discussion might particularly like to know of the changes.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 11:11:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phew!
Things getting too hot,Garry?
Imagine what it's like in real life. The correspondents here have been very restrained. And intelligent. Censorship is always a nasty word.
socratease
Posted by socratease, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 4:52:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Evan, A well written piece but I think we're all caught in 'Ground Hog Day'. Rudd is really no different to Abbott, fundamentally, when it comes to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation.

I find it strange how Abbott is targetted by opponents of the old policy when the current government is no better. Pressure should be placed on the Government, more than the Opposition, as it is government that has power to change things.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that no-one thinks outside the square... hence 'Ground Hog Day'. What is needed urgently is for the hitherto unmentionable concept of 'open borders' to enter the public conversation. Otherwise, the need for a planned system, with quotas, will inevitably necessitate detention and deportation of those who are found not to be genuine refugees.

It will probably be up to young folk to raise the 'Open Borders' call. The kind of restrictions that Rudd is maintaining (mandatory detention is, after all, a Labor initiative) are relatively new, in historical terms. The free movement of people would result in a much bigger Australia, a dynamic, diverse and growing society but... oops... I've just alienated the Greens, who bizarrely think we're already over-populated.

Barry
Posted by byork, Thursday, 25 February 2010 7:34:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not like to see people suffering and the plight of refugees touches me. I try to do my bit by monthly donations to several Organisations that do aid work in some of the most troubled areas of the world.

Likewise I love my Country and do not wish to have uninvited, unknown and illegal - yes illegal, immigrants putting me and my fellow Australians at risk of disease and pestilence, criminality and terror, social upheaval and economic strain.

Genuine "Asylum Seekers" - those truly at risk of persecution for no good reason, would be safe in any number of Countries they pass through before procuring an illicit boat trip to Australia.

The Howard Government policies not only protected our interests but also largely stopped the dangerous and despicable people smuggling trade. At least to our shores ...

Me - a "minority thinker"? I don't think so! Kevin is starting to feel the backlash from his support base and if he has any sense (of survival) whatsoever he will revise his disastrous policy to reflect the wishes of the democratic majority, if for no other reason.
Posted by divine_msn, Thursday, 25 February 2010 9:34:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy