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 > Nauru solution a dodgy deal > Comments

Nauru solution a dodgy deal : Comments

By Susan Metcalfe, published 19/7/2010

Any notion of returning to our past treatment of refugees in Nauru must be taken off the table by both major parties in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
<< Holding refugees in Nauru was designed as a punitive measure >>

No it wasn’t, Susan!

It was designed to strike a most difficult balance between duly processing asylum seekers’ claims while implementing a strong deterrence factor for further arrivals.

It was good for Nauruans, it resulted in the big majority of asylum seekers being accepted as refugees and it was an integral part of a policy that stopped the boats!

Of course it had its problems. What would you expect with such a horribly difficult issue? But all-told it was pretty damn good, compared to just about any other possible option.

You know perfectly well, although I’m sure you would never admit it, that if onshore asylum seekers in Howard’s era were treated in the manner that you would have wanted, the boats would have just kept coming and in much bigger numbers.

And you know that if that had happened, ten or a hundred or a thousand times more people would have been caught up in the messy situation, in which they would have been treated a whole lot less kindly.

<< Australia's involvement in implementing a future regional solution for refugees must focus on solutions for refugees who have little chance of ever finding a resettlement place. >>

Yes yes YES!! And of course we should be doing this through our international aid efforts, through the UN, and NOT via haphazard arrivals in our northern waters!

So Susan, why is it that so many refugee advocates seem to get totally hooked up on how onshore asylum seekers are treated instead of very loudly lobbying our government to increase our international aid and refugee effort?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 19 July 2010 9:40:09 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
Adovates for the 'illegals' continue to claim off shore processing of asylum seekers is inhumane. Yet Nauru was used as a stop gap measure until christmas island was established. After which Nauru was no longer required as the use of TPVs had stopped the boats from coming and Christmas Island was more than adequate.

It matters little where the illegals are processed,what stopped the boats was not giving permanent residency and that is what is needed now.

The boats have to be stopped from coming. It is far from humane to encourage people to come by boat when about 170 have lost their lives trying it on the last couple of years.

This government has created the current problem and should be held accountable for the deaths.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 19 July 2010 10:36:55 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
Yes we need to change the system. First - analyse what the boat people are trying to get. Presumably primarily Safety. Second would be access to a first world economy which can provide a good living and a chance to build capital. Often the second is more important than the first. They are prepared currently to flout the law by arriving without papes and they take considerable risks to succeed.

Australia needs these sorts of people particularly in Mining and Agriculture and 95% make very good citizens, but if we accept them without restrictions, the numbers will increase very considerably and why should they jump the queue unpenalized.

Possibly solution would be to give any refugee who arrives without papers a 5 year visa, provided they take a job and live only in designated areas. There should be no guarantee of visa extension and face immediate deportation should they contravene any law.

Would this be sufficient to restrict the flow
Posted by Dickybird, Monday, 19 July 2010 10:55:38 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
When will we ever get through to dills like this one that Oz governments are elected to do the right thing by Oz citizens, not boat people, or any others who want grate crash our boarders?

None of these people should be housed, or supported, until all home grown citizens are similarly housed, first.

Wouldn't it be nice if these bleeding hearts could get their priorities right. Don't ask these people what we can do for them, ask what they can do for us.

Post WW11 refugees were expected to work their way, as soon as they arrived, & were earning their keep within days of their arrival, why not these?
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 19 July 2010 12:10:50 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
You would be a great consultant on stimulating the growth of the illegal immigrant industry, of which you seem to be an integral part.

If you were able to reverse your thinking, then with your knowledge you could be of value in the area where we desperately need help, thanks to our incumbent incompetents in Canberra, the stemming of the flow of these queue jumpers.

See what you can do, and get back to us.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 19 July 2010 12:14:12 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
With half of the Australian population in unstable housing and furthermore will never be able to have the means to do so. Now, one would think that the housing affordability should be the major focal point within the next election.

Why is it that this refuge matter is such a huge issue. I dare say that indeed it is a fact that we have many Australians unable to earn enough money to purchase a home for them selves. And I am not just talking about the mentally ill or drug induce people. I am including many others that have had their next egg evaporated before their very eyes.

Gosh we talk about human rights but some how we immediately think of those that are seemingly assalym seekers
Posted by SONYA2, Monday, 19 July 2010 1:13:11 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
I am very sympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers. Nothing in our normal lives even compares. But can we really afford to not utilise the pacific solution? Ludwig was right! The boats would've kept coming, and it has!! The significance of this arrangement to the Nauruan people, was and will be employment. And whats wrong with killing two birds with one stone? We limit inflows thereby minimising expenses and community unrest, but at the same time we assist our neighbour, who by the way, we should be looking after. The current aid to Nauru is technical only. there are no new employment for out of work nauruans. Most of the departmental heads within the govt are Australians or Australian funded, not nauruans. So it really isn't fair to say that we are injecting cash into the island when in fact we are just paying our own people to work there on a permanent basis rather than as trainers/teachers to help the people there to fend for themselves. Of course asylum seekers are going to bad mouth their conditions there! That wasn't their final destination! They were right to keep you out. But its your job to fight for these people isn't it?
Posted by Marco Polo, Monday, 19 July 2010 1:14:57 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
Wow! This is a first time I can remember where all the posts to an article on online opinion have been (almost) unanimous in panning the article. We've had substantial agreement before but not unanimity. For what it is worth, I also agree that none of the writer's objections amount to sufficient reason to stop having refugee camps on Nauru or on Christmas Island - not even close.
Anyone accepted as refugees who arrive on boats blocks someone else in a camp elsewhere in the world from being accepted into Australia.. the quotas are not increased.. so why should we accept boat refugees, who often do not have papers as one post points out, over other refugees who can prove that they are genuine refugees?
The boats are not necessary even from an humanitarian point of view, and should be discouraged. The Pacific solution camps did that.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 19 July 2010 2:12:06 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
what a pack of self congratulating bullies, indulging in personal abuse in these comments! Whatever your cumudgeon name is thinks it's a success that 7 people support australia selling refugees to a country that money launders and sells passports and wasted all it's millions. Talk about dealing with illegals! We should keep the poor refugees away from you people. I don't know that anyone who supports refguees would want to comment on a board so full of bigotry and abuse and ignorance. Wow!
Posted by King Kong, Monday, 19 July 2010 3:19:04 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 with Hasbeen. It is any Australian Government’s job to serve Australians and to act on what the majority of Australians want. That’s what democracy is about, not about loud minorities and people who were never invited to come to Australia. There is a clear majority of Australians demanding that the illegal boats be stopped, and only genuine, off-shore refugees who have been waiting patiently should be allowed into Australia.

The whole refugee business is a giant con, with very few people even coming near fulfilling the UNHRC criteria that qualifies them as worthy of international protection. Most of them are going to spend a lot of time in camps, only to return to their own countries in the long run. Most of them are ‘giving it a go’ to get a better life without the reasons or abilities of selected immigrants. They are doomed to failure, and so they should be. Their problems are not Australia’s problems.

There are 148 signatories to the outdated Refugee Convention of 1951, but most of the so-called refugees only want to go to a few select, wealthy Western countries like Australia. In their turn, these Western countries have been cowered by the United Nations and other ‘world’ ratbag groups into thinking that we are bad people if we don’t continue to be soft on protection of our own borders, our culture, the sustainability of our environment and infrastructure and, most of all, our sovereign right to decide who is and who is not allowed to enter Australia.

Unless someone wakes up, the West, including Australia, is going to be swamped and annihilated because of its own guilty feelings about the actions of long-dead people, and by the constant unfounded criticism of vociferous minorities whose own self-hatred and masochism is frightening gutless politicians looking for ‘preferences’ and deals which serve to give the minorities much more influence than their electoral popularity entitles them.

Successive Australia governments have not been fulfilling their obligations to their Australian employers for some time now. They have no business trying to help any more people come here.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 19 July 2010 3:36:29 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
Curmudgeon,

I'm another one to break the consensus - I thought this was a reasonable article. The author is not actually arguing here against using Christmas Island or some variation of the “Pacific solution,” such as the Government’s proposed “Timor solution” (though I dare say she might oppose these). She is arguing specifically against using Nauru, on the grounds that it is unable to provide the levels of governance, human rights and basic services that we should expect from any place to which we effectively contract-out our refugee processing responsibilities.

I have the unpleasant suspicion that the poor treatment of refugees and lack of transparency and accountability regarding their treatment in Nauru was actually deliberate. It allowed refugees to be treated worse than they would have been treated in Australia, with limited media or NGO scrutiny, in order to remove them from the media spotlight in Australia and act as a deterrent to other prospective asylum seekers. This is a kind of “extraordinary rendition lite,” which handballs dirty work we could not allow ourselves to be seen to do, to others with fewer scruples.

Personally I oppose any form of “Pacific solution”, but if we are to take this approach, let’s at least contract-out our responsibilities to a country where we can expect, and ensure, minimum standards of fair, humane and legal treatment for refugees.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 19 July 2010 3:40:06 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
The comments on the forum don't seem to be very related to the piece and I question if posters have read it or thought about what it says. Anything with the word refugee, asylum seeker, or boat has become a call to arms for people from the extreme right. Anonymous comments boards are now platforms for derogatory comments where great ignorance is allowed to take up space. I am sure the author can stand up for herself but I support what has been written in the article and agree that we should not be using refugees as cargo to be traded with corrupt countries. The problems of Nauru will not be solved by throwing more money.
Posted by Gregory G, Monday, 19 July 2010 3:57:27 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
Don't worry, King Kong - when it comes to asylum seekers, OLO is not quite as bad as wingnut blogs like Bolt et al, but it's getting up there lately. I gather you're new here, but this litany of lies, bigotry and distortion is pretty much par for the course here whenever somebody posts an article that advocates decency and humanity with respect to asylum seekers.

Let's go through some of them briefly:

Ludwig: << it resulted in the big majority of asylum seekers being accepted as refugees >>

Bulldust. They would have been accepted as genuine refugees wherever they were processed. Their continued detention after being found to be bona fide refugees sent more than a few of them nuts.

Banjo: << It matters little where the illegals are processed,what stopped the boats was not giving permanent residency >>

More bulldust. They're not "illegals" and virtually all of the detainees imprisoned on Nauru were granted permanent residency eventually.

Dickybird: << why should they jump the queue unpenalized. >>

Yet more bulldust. There is no queue.

Leigh: << very few people even coming near fulfilling the UNHRC criteria that qualifies them as worthy of international protection >>

Complete fabrication. You just made that up, didn't you Leigh?

Etc etc.

Bulldust, bulldust, fear, loathing. Same old, same old.

You're right though, King Kong. It is a bit dispiriting at times. Hatred's like that.

Welcome to OLO anyway :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 19 July 2010 4:02:00 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
Rhian - okay, the consensus has since been broken but it was interesting there for a while. Sure conditions in those camps could have been improved, and they weren't prisons but such points could be fixed. I doubt very much whether conditions were quite that bad. The authors complaints that she had trouble getting into the place do not count, considering that she probably raised a ruckus over almost everything and they got sick of her after a while.
And would it have been any better putting a camp in East Timor? I wonder?
In any case, the Pacific solution worked. the refugee quot was filled by taking people directly from the camps overseas, and the ones here eventually wound down. We are only faced with this problem because the government took its eye off the ball.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 19 July 2010 5:20:24 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
Gillard could win this coming election hands down with one announcement, at the risk of splitting the Labor Party and ditching the chardonnay sippers. This would not really be much of a risk because the loony left really has no-where else to go, as they are not going to vote for Abbott.

The announcement would have to say three things:

1. The government was abrogating the Asylum Convention.

2. All illegal boat immigrants would be declared to be enemy aliens.

3. The armed forces would be ordered to prevent the enemy aliens from reaching Australian Territory.

As for all the internationalists out there, particularly in the media, remember that in elections votes are filled out by the people, and when there is an issue that they feel passionate about, theri power cannot be overcome.
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 19 July 2010 5:45:22 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
Susan, you overlooked mention of the main reason you attack the holding of the illegals offshore.

We remember how the thugs who supported the queue jumpers used to push over the fences of the detention camps, in Australia, and encourage and inspire the troublemakers and vandals amongst them.

Remember all the taxpayers' property they used to destroy, and the great headlines awarded to the thuggery and vandalism perpetrated in support of the the illegals?

On the other hand, you now have some advantage in being able to concoct your stories about Nauru, without fear of contradiction from observers, because there are none. Who else would want to go to Nauru?

But you could not resist a scurrilous allegation about the Howard Government, which is easily refuted, and has the effect of demonstrating your attitude to the truth, and helps us to gauge the substance of the rest of your allegations.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 19 July 2010 6:13:19 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
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I proposed to the Federal government for many years how to deal with refugees and pretended refugees in an appropriate manner and on my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati I have posted articles about this.
We must ensure humane treatment while at the same time avoiding to make it worse by opening the floodgates as then many more people will loose their lives in leaking boats. We need to remove the incentives for people smugglers while not jeopardising the rights of genuine refugees. Julia Gillard simply tried to use my proposed system in her way and that simply doesn’t work.
It must be done in an appropriate manner so that it is so to say be a win-win situation.
Take the politics out of it and lets work genuine on it and we can resolve most of the current problems for both the refugees and for Australians.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 19 July 2010 6:49:45 PM
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
How much longer do we have to read these lies and deceptions from Susan. I find the looney leftists incredibly arrogant to think they have the right to impose their views on the rest of us. Frequently I hear the view that the political parties should not be allowed to express such views with respect to asylum seekers and this morning I heard the view that the political parties were now just using the population debate as a smoke screen to attack immigration and asylum seekers. My old friend Senator Natasha was basically saying we should not be able to express such views. What a load of rubbish. Australians have for too long not been able to express their views on these topics and they are now begining to do so. I feel quite strongly most Australians are not only against asylum seekers taking advantage of us, but they are also against the massive immigration intake we currently have. I feel many Australians will express these views quite loadly at the next election.

So by all means the looney leftists have a right to express their views, but they should not be allowed to bully and intimidate others with alternate views.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 19 July 2010 7:14:30 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
thank goodness for CJ. I thought this was a forum for informed opinion - the articles are ok but many of the comments are disgusting. Susan Metcalfe has been criticised by the radical left for not being radical enough and for not distorting the truth. People on here don't know what they are talking about and they are just making up lies, it is very nasty and I will not be back.
Posted by King Kong, Monday, 19 July 2010 7:19:52 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
Morgan is good at playing with bulldust –and if you don’t know him well you might be mislead into thinking he is something he is not .

1) Firstly, he plays the old “decency and humanity [ and ] respect” card, but take a look at his opening lines, this is how he is refers to his fellow Australians “wingnut” “ litany of lies, bigotry and distortion” and if you read some of his other posts you’ll find a lot worse— rather strange from someone trading on high ideals.

2) Then he plays the suffering card “ Their continued detention after being found to be bona fide refugees sent more than a few of them nuts”
But this is him in an earlier thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3715#90014
Note this part: “They should cut their losses, withdraw and leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable “
He had absolutely no qualms about the death and mayhem such an action would bring ---but he wants us to believe he is concerned about the mental anguish some asylum seekers may have suffered through incarceration ( and it's even more unbelievable when you realise their conditions would have been much better than many less well off Australians) ?

3) Likewise, Morgan knows full well that the approving of asylum seeker claims –particularly during the latter stages of the Nauru processing ---just after the election of a new govt in Aust, who wanted to quickly defuse the issue ---had more to do with politics than any genuine assessment of their merit –yet he still dishonestly try’s on the old line “ They're not ‘illegal’s’ and virtually all of the detainees imprisoned on Nauru were granted permanent residency eventually.”

No KING KONG, CJ Morgan is no Ann Darrow…And he ain’t the messiah either …he's a very naughty boy!
Posted by Horus, Monday, 19 July 2010 10:57:48 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
Gregory G... "Anything ... is a call to arms for the extreme right" ? :)

ur kidding 'right' ?

I guess that means most Aussies ARE 'right wing extremists' because Labor polling has clearly shown what the electorate are thinking, and Labor is not ignoring that polling.

Susan Metcalfe is a 'REFUGEE ADVOCATE' she is looking after her own political and possibly financial backyard.

Maybe she is even a communist or a watermelon?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 6:43:34 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
Why reinvent a solution to replace a solution which clearly worked in the first place.

The former Liberal “Pacific Solution” worked fine

Because some whining refugee advocate thinks differently, who cares.

I can see Gizzard will choke on implementing it, having criticised its success in the past... but hypocrisy has been a hallmark of socialism for decades so she should not have too much trouble to swallow her pride and implement it again

And the liberals can simply say – we told you so – and reopen the facility which we paid for in the first place

As for being “inhuman” – RUBBISH

One alternative would be to blow the boats up and leave the passengers to swim, that would be “inhuman”

but

It is not Australia’s fault it people put themselves “in harms way” by unilaterally deciding to sail from safe havens in Malaysia or Indonesia into the turbulent ocean to get to Australia and the prize of a superior economic lifestyle, paid for with Australian Taxpayer funds.

To those who believe thaqt simply floating on the ocean is justification to subvert Australian Migration laws, this is simple -

the participatory notion “There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation”

still holds true
Posted by Stern, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 8:43:10 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
Divergence

Governance, media freedom and civil rights seem marginally better in East Timor, and it is signatory to the UN convention on refugees, so conditions there may be marginally better than Nauru. But I see the East Timor proposal as little different to the Nauru one, and I do not agree with either.

Both Divergence and Stern say that the “Pacific solution” was a “success”. But how do we measure success?

It cost millions of dollars – almost certainly more than it would have cost to process refugees in Australia. So it wasn’t a success in terms of economic efficiency.

Almost all of the people detained were found to have legitimate claims, and most were settled in Australia. So it wasn’t a success in preventing arrivals from entering the country.

So, the only sense in which it would be deemed a “success” is if it deterred prospective refugees for seeking asylum in Australia.

This is open to debate.

Granted, arrival numbers dropped once the policy was implemented, but asylum seeker claims worldwide dropped at the time because of improving conditions in source countries. It is likely that arrivals would have decreased anyway.

Furthermore, I would disagree that the policy can be deemed a “success” even if it was effective in deterring refugees.

Prolonged detention of innocent people without trial, in physical conditions that would be unacceptable in Australia, with limited healthcare and without media scrutiny, legal protections, or NGO support, is unacceptable. To deliberately inflict such mistreatment on innocent people, most of whom have already suffered persecution and worse, in order to provide an example and deterrent to others is cruel and unethical. This is not my definition of "success."
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 11:38:45 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
Rhian re - But how do we measure success?

The Liberal “Pacific Solution” stopped, dead the incentive for people to jump on to leaky boats

Arguing about changes in number of people seeking illegal migration is a farce.

The socialist policy was so relaxed it encouraged illegal smuggling operations and thus created the problem the Liberal Pacific Solution had, previously prevented.

Re- So it wasn’t a success in terms of economic efficiency.

It is my personal experience, nothing any government does is ever a success in “terms of economic efficiency” – it would need to be a private company to run it if that is going to be your yardstick....

But that said, the Liberals have been proven to be far better economic managers than Socialists, who don’t even try, hence Rudd squandering of the government surpluses and plunging Australia into debt in an orgy of failed policies, handouts and ministerial incompetence on a scale rarely seen.

Re -To deliberately inflict such mistreatment on innocent people, most of whom have already suffered persecution and worse, in order to provide an example and deterrent to others is cruel and unethical

The unethical bit is someone who unilaterally demands entry to Australia, on the basis they are an economic refugee looking for an enhanced lifestyle.

Like millions of others, I had to apply for a visa and jump through hoops and be tested for suitability before I got here

I see no justification for that to change simply because someone has lied about their origins, destroyed their passport and paid a lot of money to a people smuggler to get here through an illegal route.

and the circumstances of their confinement - is doubtless alot more hospitable to the ones they left behind, be that a refugee camp or some peasant village in the middle of nowhere... it is a fraud to compare such accommodations to any hotel in any Australian city.
Posted by Stern, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 1:55:05 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
Rhian and Stern,
MY view is that it makes little difference where we process the illegals. What stopped the boats is the introduction of TPVs instead of permanent residency and that is what is needed now.

However as the boats are still coming even though this government has suspended processing, it is obvious that the illegals do not believe this government. Only a change of government will now stop the boats.

To stop them coming we have to deny them what they seek.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 4:09:31 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
this is for all those who feel sorry for the refuges and are all for them seeking home in Australia, including those whom do not have any sort of identification with them. OK NOW -
Why do you help them. No go just voicing your opinion on the post forum. Why do you sponsor them.
Posted by SONYA2, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 4:31:56 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
Sonya "this is for all those who feel sorry for the refuges and are all for them seeking home in Australia, including those whom do not have any sort of identification with them. OK NOW -
Why do you help them. No go just voicing your opinion on the post forum. Why do you sponsor them"

Because Sonya, they are just ordinary people the same as the rest of us who haven't chosen to become refugees. Fate if you like it, has placed them in a terrible position - they have done nothing special to become refugees. But for the good luck of being born with a stable government, it could be you or me. Over whelmingly the people that have come here via boat, have been shown to be fleeing persecution. I'm not in a position unfortunately to sponser asylum seekers so shouldn't be pounced on for not putting my money where my mouth is. I can just lend other sorts of support where I can.

Commenting on this forum about refugees is like commenting on climate change it's only for the robust so I'll only do it once, but I think it's probably a fair guess that many of the posters here that call asylum seekers wrongly 'illegals' etc. would praise someone who either takes themselves or their families out of terrrible harm's way from violent people. It's only when they seek to come here and ask our compassion that they raise these people's ire.

TBC
Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 5:25:56 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 lack of documentation is not really uncommon. In our society we of course issue birth certificates etc. That's not the case necessarily in other places. I know people who have come here to live who we have to guess at a age for. The kid's naturally get in quickly as kids do on the idea of having a birthday. Even for people who have ID, they may have had to hit the road in a emergency situation where returning home (if it's still there) to get identification would result in their death.

Anyway this is brilliant. Poor Tony Abbott - mugged by politeness! http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbotts-trip-to-fruit-shop-goes-pearshaped-20100720-10iux.html Would he really tow these people away?
Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 5:26:26 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
Sonya,
Do not be deceived by J L Deland and his/her ilk.

The illegal arrivals are con artists and shonksters gate crashing our country.

A few simple things you need to consider.

They fly to Malaysia, for which they need documentation, before engaging a smuggler to take them firstly to Indonesia and then to Aus.

They destroy their documentation enroute to Aus simply so our officials cannot verify their identity and so cannot send them home.

If they were genuine refugees they would go to the front door with their identities intact and seek asylum.

They are willing to pay smugglers much more than the air fare to Aus for a very risky trip.

I refer to them as 'illegals' because that is what they are. It is against the law to enter Aus without a valid visa. That is the reason we can put them in detention. We do not put people in detention with valid visas. The advocate for these con artists want to paint them as poor unfortunates, that is why they refer to them with 'nicer' sounding terms.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 8:12:48 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
Lets talk about the underdog! Now that all depends as to what or who you call 'the under dog'. It is all well and good making a huge sound and dance about the assalyum/refuges fleeing their country to escape 'persecution' - they travel in such extreme dangerous conditions one could not even imagine it. And the thing I find most unbelievable and totally unexceptionable is that those people not only risk their lives, is that, they risk their children's life. I say that it is fair and reasonable to state that if those people are willing to risk there children's live, they can not have any morals at all.

And I may also say again..... If you are all for helping them, put your money where you mouth is and sponsor them..take them into your home and give them shelter, feed them and cloth them....OK now if your can not help them it may be better to just opt out, look after your own families and see that they are well care for. thank-you. ps. Also I may ask anyone:- Would you risk your life and your children's life and do what those people have done? Yes i thought so...no you wouldn't.
Posted by SONYA2, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:48:40 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 I said I wouldn't, but I sort of have to respond to Sonya's post. Now Sonya, my reason's for not financially sponsering asylum seekers relate to having a family of five adults (three young and studying) on one income with only a few government tax breaks and no direct government financial assistance. Before family health issues cut in, I was dealing with helping refugees settle in, and it was a privelge to get to know these people. I'd recommend you meet a few and talk to them what it was like to become a refugee or asylum seeker.

Now would I do what these people have done? On another thread someone was advocating ASIO execute people. I suspect the people to be killed were people like me. Now if there was a coup and violent people got control, would I remove my family to safety as fast as I could if my associates and their families were disapearing? Yes. It would mean abandoning our home, selling our possessions for a fraction of it's value and relying on our extended family to discreetly come up with money to pay people to help us leave, but the alternative would be worse.

Would I stop in the first country we arrived at? Yes, if it was safe, say New Zealand. A asian refugee camp I would not think safe from violence though and would likely spell death for my son who is fully dependent on medication to keep him alive. He would last about 48 hours without it I suspect. I would keep going until I had my family to safety. Hopefully I would be able to smuggle my family's documents out. But if there was militia on every street stopping people (more to rob them probably than arrest them) and my name was on a watch list, well I'd probably ditch my documents as a safety thing.

I'd recommend to that you and the turn around the boats brigade try imagine walking in the asylum seekers shoes. It's an uncomfortable place. Try for some empathy - make for a happier world.
Posted by JL Deland, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 9:30:59 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
Banjo – I agree, TPV are a humane method of extending protection, without extending an ongoing commitment.

However, they should also be used sparingly.

For instance, the influx of economic refugees from Sri Lanka are predominately Tamil and are arriving having previously failed to

1 obtain 50% representation in Sri Lankan Parliament (when they represent less than 10% the population) and

2 failed to overthrow the rightful government of Sri Lanka through terrorism.

Two further points

1 There is, no longer a war occurring in Sri Lanka, therefore there is no conflict to escape.

2 Tamils have apparently been in Sri Lanka for a couple of thousand years. If they have failed to assimilate in those 2,000 years, there is very little expectation for them to properly assimilate into the mainstream of Australian life

Conclusion – Since Multiculturalism is an exercise in Politically Correct bull dust, the last thing we want are more people who come here with an inability and resistance to assimilation.
Posted by Stern, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 11:03:50 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
Sonya2

JL Deland has given a good account of the reasons for viewing refugees sympathetically.

As to supporting refugees, I do a little both through my church’s refugee support group and through financial donations to organisations that help refugees.

You raise an important question when you ask why refugees risk their own lives and those of their families to get here. The answer is not that they are monsters or heartless. Ask yourself what it would take for you to take those risks and you’ll find the answer – you would only do it if your alternatives were even worse. So do they.

One of the refugees I know fled a refugee camp because militias were raiding the camps and kidnapping kids to make into child soldiers. She didn’t want her 9-year-old son to be one of them. Do you think she was wrong to leave the camp and try to come to Australia?
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:31:48 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
My comment of 'sponsor them if you are all for it' - The answer I got was - O I can't because I have my own family to look after - or - I do through my church -

Well that is exactly what I thought! The point I was trying to make is that it seemingly appears that our country do not have the financial means to help Australian's let alone others. Ask some of the folk that live in the country. The teachers from those areas thought it a joke when our government was handing out computers to all school children. The folk from the country stressed that the computers were of no use because they didn't have proper electricity and water, so what the hell was the use of a computer. Having electricity and water would have been far more advantageous than a computer that they could not use anyway.

Do you see my point. Also it is a fact that there are just over half of the Australian people living in unstable, insecure housing and further more will never have the funds to do so. Now this is because they do not earn enough or are too old (but fit) to qualify for a loan to purchase a home. Some have had to resort to living in caravan parks or live in extreme conditions. Those folk have no choice as it is a matter of survival! How the hell are we going to look after our own people let alone others that are really not fleeing from a war zone county. Look, unless you are one of those that have come through the back door and are willing to rally to their cause, or trying to gain votes so as to feather your own nest financially(now be honest PLEASE!) than you had better look at the Australian people and see that our government ensures that our funding goes into the right entities first and foremost
Posted by SONYA2, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 2:55:39 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
I may also say that this immigration 'thingy're: refugeism, is just a big ploy to avoid the true and real core issues that need to be address with in the Australian community. Is is because the gove. just can not get their heads around what is truly needed for the Australian people. An excellent article would be on 'Who holds most of the wealth in Australia'- 'who has the biggest bit of the cake' - whom of the Australian workers retire on a life time huge superfund that does not run out, not matter what! Whom of those folk can travel (gold card) no questioned ask when ever they want. Whom of those folk (over 50-55) can jump into another position that pays so well it would make the majority of the population have a heart attack (well almost anyway). Listen ladies and gentlemen I for one would put my arm up for this type of opportunity!

Let us all rally towards looking after our own first 'cause if we can do that, then we can help others...
If you would like to help those asylum seekers - refuges, put your prays into your pocket and send money to them, so that they can get on their feet. Just keep it between you and them and not drag everyone into this fiasco!
Posted by SONYA2, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 3:02:49 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
Sonya2

So, if a person sympathetic to refugees has too many financial commitments to donate money, they are hypocritical. If they are able to donate, they are neglecting their responsibilities to fellow Australians.

Ah well, we can’t win with you.

The amount that our government spends on assisting refugees is a tiny proportion of its budget. If we want more services from government, and are willing to pay the taxes to pay for them, we should let them know at the upcoming election. The issue is completely irrelevant to our refugee intake.

Your accusation that I am either a refugee myself or stand to gain materially from our acceptance of refugees is without foundation or merit.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 3:30:16 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
Actually Rhian - go easy on Sonya - I think she's a secret asylum seeker advocate who is throwing us chocolates to make whoopee with! Bless her little cotton socks. Good to see a little subversion. That's why I'm still here. She should be appreciated! Anyway positively the last post.

Anyway Sonya, thanks. Nobody as you know expects individuals to pickup the responsibility as individuals for asylum seekers or for the homeless for that matter. Some people do to their eternal credit, but most aren't in a position to do so.

That is why we are tax-payers and voters. This family coughs up a very respectable amount of tax. While this causes my partner some sighing at tax time, it enables wealth to re-distributed through the community and all Australians given access to education and health - not as well as we would like sometimes, but at least the basics are there. It makes for a more equal and balanced society

Which is why as tax-payers we have a perfect right to feel miffed when we see governments flushing money down the toilet by pandering to this idea of us being over-run by boat people by spending a billion dollars on the so-called Pacific solution. It is also why we are outraged at Governments locking up people (some even here legally) for years in what have been described as mental illness factories. The hundreds of thousands spent on Government feel-good advertising are annoying too.

Asylum seekers and refugees once accepted to Australia mostly are ready to contribute, stand on their own feet and be proud Australians. Unfortunately after we have put some through the ringer in detention, they are no longer as mentally healthy as they should be. But I did think of one reason to close the borders today and probably the only one. I bet those Kiwi's would love to steal my son's terrific specialist - almost certainly a boat person at one stage of his life. Any country would. We should be looking to keep some people in (joke I wouldn't really).
Posted by JL Deland, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 5:34:52 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 wasn't coming back either but i have to add= 'refugee advocate' is a description of someone not a job title as some people are wrongly saying. Most advocating for refugees are paying for that privilege, not getting paid and it comes at a price. A lot of supporters of refugees have given up a lot of their life and sometimes all their money to help refugees. They have taken them into homes and cared for them as family members. We have international obligations to help people in need, we would be the pariah of the world if we didn’t do our bit. We take nearly 14,000 each year, included in that are the people arriving on boats (no difference in total). Allegations that people supporting refugees make any personal gain from that are baseless and defamatory.
Posted by King Kong, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 7:52:11 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
Ludwig, I obviously disagree with most of what you say. I just have a different view to you and there is nothing that I am not admitting. Although the Pacific Solution was designed to punish those people to try to scare off others, I don't believe it had the deterrent effect you suggest. I do believe that the change in circumstances in Afghanistan in particular was significant, the rejection of cases, the sinking of the SIEVX, and other factors. I say what I believe about a complex subject. I believe that the Howard government was spooked by the Pauline Hanson factor in an election year, it was a frightened reaction.

Having been so deeply involved in the Pacific Solution I saw a lot of damage caused to people and it is simply not the way we should be treating anyone. I don't embelish or exaggerate, I can be pedantic about facts - I don't believe that anyone is served by misrepresenting a situation. I tend to err on the side of caution if I don't believe claims are founded in fact but the Nauru experience was not a good one for anyone. And many Nauruans don't want that policy and all that went with it in their country again - it is a tiny piece of land and we are not real popular there. I could say a lot more but having written 100,000 words on the subject to be released soon (with all proceeds going to assist asylum seekers, like everything else in my life for many years) I will let that speak for itself. (Continued next comment)
Posted by Susan M, Friday, 23 July 2010 9:47:10 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
(continued from previous) On your point about focusing on onshore arrivals - that is just is seen in the superficial debate in the media. No-one is interested in the wider debate about refugees even though that is at the core of most of the refugee advocacy that takes place. From an advocacy perspective the onshore focus is mostly on damage control and trying to get the attention on to the broader problem of the world's refugee population. People who support refugees don't control the debate, the media want superficial conflict and the subject seems to provide easy tough talk for politicians. My direct focus on Nauru and boat arrivals is simply because I became so involved. I could equally ask why people want to focus so much energy on talking against boat arrivals instead of calling for countries to up their intake so there is no need to get on boats. It's all about resettlement for those who have no other options. People arrive on a boat becasue they have no other options. A recent UNHCR advisory made a good point (I quote):

'Myth: Most refugees want to be resettled - Truth: Most refugees want to return home. They want to live in their country in peace and safety. For those who cannot go home, UNHCR works with States and NGOs to protect them and their families. Resettlement is for refugees who have no other solution. Resettlement is about needs, not wants.'

But most refguees in the world who need resettlement will never get it and can you really say that you would not do all you could to surive and take care of your family if you were in the same situation?
Of course I don't want people feeling they have no choice but to get on a boat - I don't know anyone who does - but it is no reason to punish people for their need.

Susan Metcalfe
Posted by Susan M, Friday, 23 July 2010 9:57:06 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
Shouldn't we be more worried about Nauru selling passports to terrorists than people smugglers selling safe passage to refugees? This is from a story in 2003 here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nauru-bows-to-us-and-shuts-down-its-banks-595021.html

'The US claimed that both banks and passports from Nauru – the world's smallest independent republic and a member of the Commonwealth – have been used by al-Qa'ida-linked terrorist groups. The Americans clearly remain suspicious that Nauru will renege on its promises. As a "big stick", the US Treasury announced on Friday that it is going to impose "special measures" against Nauru under the US Patriot Act. In a move that threatens to take the island to total economic collapse, American businesses will be banned from having any dealings with Nauru's offshore financial sector. Details were also released last week that six suspected Islamic terrorists who have been arrested in South-East Asia and the US were carrying Nauruan passports.
Posted by King Kong, Saturday, 24 July 2010 9:49:49 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
Susan,

You say: “I don't believe that anyone is served by misrepresenting a situation. I tend to err on the side of caution “
But then glibly quote your UNHCR cue card : “Most refugees want to return home… Resettlement is for refugees who have no other solution. Resettlement is about needs, not wants.”

If you’re honest you would have needed to distinguish between those refugees who in the event of trouble move to the nearest safe haven—which may well be the majority--- with those who move half away around the world, all the time window-shopping for the best deal.

Australia tends to get a lot of the window shoppers .You will recall the “refugees” who hijacked the Oceanic Viking .They wanted “ resettlement” . But they only wanted resettlement in a select group of affluent western countries .

In the case of both Afghanistan and Sri Lanka there is ample opportunity for such ‘refugees’ to satisy their "WANT" and stay home –relocating to another part of the country – for yes, contrary to advocates hype, both countries have many regions that are outside the current conflict ---as the UN itself acknowledges.

The strange attractor that draws them to OZ is the same that attracts many other opportunists.And it must be very strong because some of the overseas students are even prepared to undertake such arduous courses of study as cooking & hair dressing, just as long as it affords then opportunity of “resettlement”.

One final point, I’ve noted you say: “Many Nauruans don't want that policy and all that went with it in their country again”
Very noble of you to have such consideration for the feelings of the Nauruans (and even more admirable that you didn’t write them off as xenophobes) BUT you apparently haven’t noticed that many Australians, also, don’t want Australia used in similar manner!

So, please,now that it's been drawn to your attention, show us the same consideration as you show the Nauruans and stop haranguing us with Namby Pamby advocacy pieces on OLO.
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 25 July 2010 7:55:15 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
shame that this is a forum for lots of anonymous bullies with a stripe of yellow cowardice. What is revealed here is that they get upset and abusive when others have opinions they don't agree with. Black is white they say, if you don't have my uninformed view you are an idiot they say. Makes debate impossible. bullying should come with the price of having you name disclosed for everyone to see.
Posted by King Kong, Sunday, 25 July 2010 3:48:06 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
King Kong,

Four posts ago you said...

People on here don't know what they are talking about and they are just making up lies, it is very nasty and I will not be back.

I would just like it if people on here had enough integrity to follow through with what they say they will do.
Posted by ozzie, Sunday, 25 July 2010 9:40:40 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
Susan, thankyou for your response of 23 July.

<< …the Pacific Solution was designed to punish those people … >>

This is a really unfortunate interpretation. It indicates to me that you, and indeed many others, are far too willing to think the worst and then hold on to that position as gospel unless it can be categorically proven to be false.

The fact is that Howard had a very difficult problem to deal with, which necessitated tough and somewhat unpalatable action. It was utterly obvious that onshore asylum seeking had to be made very much harder at about the time of the Tampa incident when Howard acted (August 2001), or else the numbers of boats would have blown right out.

Howard certainly did not set out to punish asylum seekers.

<< I don't believe it had the deterrent effect you suggest. I do believe that the change in circumstances in Afghanistan in particular was significant, the rejection of cases, the sinking of the SIEVX, and other factors. >>

Who knows what other factors were really at play, but one thing is very clear – the boats would have kept coming if tough action hadn’t been taken to stop them, all else being equal.

<< I believe that the Howard government was spooked by the Pauline Hanson factor in an election year, it was a frightened reaction. >>

I think that this is just silly. If there is any criticism I have for Howard over this issue, it is that he didn’t act sooner, and waited until the situation was in quite urgent need of attention. He could and should have tightened up border security early on in his term, and he had been in government for about five years before 2001.

But I reckon if Beazley and Labor had been in power in 01, much weaker action would have been taken and the whole issue would have become much bigger, with many more desperate people being caught up in it.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 7:55:32 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 was not a great supporter of Howard, but his asylum seeker / border protection policies were pretty good, all told, when you look at all the other possible scenarios.

<< Having been so deeply involved in the Pacific Solution I saw a lot of damage caused to people and it is simply not the way we should be treating anyone. >>

Susan, I acknowledge the ‘damage’ that some people suffered. But again if you compare this to all other possible scenarios, it looks very minor.

I could go on at length, responding to just about every statement that you’ve made. But I don’t think it is necessary. The point is that I think you are quite incorrect in your overall interpretation of Howard’s policies and motivations.

As admirable as your humanitarian concerns are and your desire to have onshore asylum seekers treated in the best possible manner, there are other major concerns that need to be balanced with this. Again, I think Howard did this admirably….and Rudd just completely stuffed it up.

So, as we go on with the federal election campaigns, with Gillard and Abbott battling to be tougher than each other on border protection, we are still hearing absolutely nothing about offsetting onshore asylum seeking with a boost in our refugee intake or international aid.

Now, if there was just one refugee advocate with a reasonably high profile out there that got up and suggested something like this, I’m sure the media would jump on it and there’d be some hard questions asked of our prime ministerial candidates. But there is nothing.

So I’ve got to wonder; just where are all those people who are up in arms about tougher action on onshore asylum seekers really at?

It seems that they really aren’t very interested at all in Australia improving its bit in helping the world’s neediest people and are just totally hung up on the very narrow focus on those arriving on rickety boats.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 7:59:55 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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