when the Rudd govt was elected, I had high hopes that some measure of humanity would be introduced for those asylum seekers who survived the boat journey here, but how naive and wrong I was!

The policies were little different to Howard and Ruddock.

For 2011, how about a resolution backed by a referendum if necessary on showing some increase in humanity for those desperados?
British Columbia doesn't treat its refugees so harshly, Canada's immigrants make up 20% of the population and it's a much more humane society.

Stop means testing these desperate asylum seekers and start showing some real mateship for a change!

Susan, you carefully avoided the “numbers”. A test of any policy is “does it work?” It may not be palatable to those who wear the badge of compassion on their sleeves however, the Howard policy did stop the boats and it did put people smugglers out of business.

When it come to compassion, some Australians might feel that we need to shown some compassion for our indigenous Australians who are often far worse off than the boatpeople with a spare $10,000 per person for people smugglers. Some might feel that Professor Fiona Stanley’s reports on the state of our own urban disadvantaged requires some compassion and few would disagree that our mental health support needs a good dose of compassion.

If compassion for boatpeople translates into more foreign disadvantaged people, paying more money to take even greater life threatening risks, perhaps it is time for you to look more closely at dispensing your compassion closer to home and achieving some balance?

Why on earth we would invite more disadvantage people to a country that cannot solve the problems of its own disadvantaged beats the hell out of me.

Is it the case that there is no mileage in showing compassion for our own? Especially since our own problems are orders of magnitude greater than a few thousand boatpeople. Where is the balance in all this hype?

Perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking that “compassion” only has value when it gets “humanitarian rights” media coverage. The howlers need to get a sharp dose of proportion before they start calling of a referendum.

I think it would also be a good idea to point out the social justice implications of not stopping the boats.

Does anybody who claims to care about social justice really want to encourage a system where the most sucessful are those who have access to the most money, and are prepeared to break the rules and risk the lives of everyone involved?

Yes, Susan we can see that many of these people are legitemate refugees. Are there not hundreds of thousands more in refugee camps around the world, without money and abiding by the rules, with equal or greater claim?

The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees defines "refugee" in broad terms. The fact is, that there are more people in the world who satisfy the definition of refugee than there are people in Australia. Yet Australia has undertaken the obligations of the Convention.

The critical difference in law and practice is between those who apply "onshore" (ie within Australia) and those who apply offshore. The effect of the Convention is that a person who is recognised to satisfy the definition of refugee *onshore* is entitled to Australia's protection, which translates through the Migration Act into permanent residence. But an offshore applicant can be rejected, even if he does satisfy the definition of refugee.

This is the legal reason why applicants try to get onshore, and hence the entire politically-created issue around "boats" and so-called "people smugglers".

On the one hand, permanent residence in Australia is highly desirable, refugee status or no. On the other hand, the fact that someone may be rich enough to pay to get from Shitholistan to Australia does not of itself mean he's *not* a refugee. Refugee doesn't mean poor, it means at risk of persecution.

The fact that one has come by boat doesn't mean one is any less at risk of being persecuted in his home state, or any less deserving of Australia's protection. It is and should be irrelevant. But the advantage these applicants enjoy is the effect of Australia's signing the Convention.

The best way to address all the issues is as follows:
1. Australia should withdraw from the Convention. This would then enable us to tailor our refugee program to changing international and national circumstances; to take as many or as few refugees as we want for whatever reason. It would abolish the advantage of applying onshore, and enable all applications to be assessed on an equal footing.
2. Those who claim to be in favour of a more humane policy should be required to put their money where their mouth is, and indemnify Australian governments against all related costs of any given refugee.

Ms Metcalfe describes the asylum seekers as “desperate people”. They’re desperate in the same way that shoppers outside a department store, waiting for post-Christmas sales to begin, are desperate. What draws them to places like Australia is not liberal freedoms, but liberal welfare. Which is why they’ll bypass many safe havens to get to the most affluent locations.

Refugee advocates like snake oil salespersons, have a new concoction to sell every few months. Up till recent, it was all about the Hazaras.Till it was revealed “Hazaras have entered ‘a golden age’ that is 'the best in several hundred'" years”.http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/rban-o18.shtml
So now they market the Rohingya brand.

But,what does Ms Metcalfe really know about the Rohingya?
Very little,I suspect,only what she’s read in advocacy groups self-promotional material.Burma insists “the boatpeople now fleeing Arakan State are not Rohingyas but Bengalis” I don’t know, you be the judge: http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15396

And talk of tying oneself in knots:
--- We are asked to believe these are impoverished people –yet “many times” they had money to pay off the police!

--- We are fed the line that the boats cannot be returned or stopped. But are told elsewhere that the return of the illegals
to New Guineans will effectively stop further attempts on that front.http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/rban-o18.shtml

---And the biggest knot of all : “UNHCR estimates that only one in ten of the people currently needing resettlement will ever find it" Indeed, most asylum seekers will simply lay over in the nearest safe haven till the situation eases, then return home.The more ambitious types, that advocates and smugglers entice to Australia,will get Australian residency , then return to their country of origin for R&R (or to fight for fundamentalist causes they still hold dear)

With each "asylum seeker" being housed, an Australian waiting on housing lists gets pushed further down the lists. We have many homeless Australians, do they not matter? Australians are hard working,highly taxed and they resent seeing their tax money being spent on on people who have wilfully broken our immigration laws because they have enough money to pay smugglers to bring them to our shores. The Refugee Treaty has outlived its purpose, it is now being used as a convenience, time it was rescinded and finished with. Australians are also sick of being treated as a convenience, our own should be looked after before foreigners.

Spindoc
Apart from the questionable claim that indigenous Australians are far worse off than boat people, you set up a false dichotomy. We are not faced with a choice between either treating citizens or refugees compassionately. We can and should do both.

Mickijo
Refugees get no priority for State housing and usually go into private accommodation.

SPQR
Your accusations are mainly unsubstantiated racist slurs – refugees are welfare seeking fundamentalists. Where you do quote evidence, it hardly substantiates your claims. The article you quote casts severe doubt over the “golden age” claim, while the article on the Rohingya seems to confirm they’re subject to racial abuse in Burma

Rhian, My << questionable claim that indigenous Australian are far worse off than boatpeople>>

That might well be what you felt I said but what I actually said was <<we need to show some compassion for our indigenous Australians who are often far worse off than the boatpeople with a spare $10,000 per person >>.

If you can find anyone in our Indigenous communities who can raise $10,000 per family member for anything, you might have a case. But you don’t.

I did not set up a false dichotomy because I made no case for “choice”; I made a case for “proportionality”. If you have difficulty understanding this let me expand.

We have hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples living in appalling social, educational, employment and health circumstances. Your focus upon the rights of perhaps 4,000 tragic boatpeople is utterly disproportionate and demonstrates an unhealthy and might I say un-Australian distortion.

We also have 26,000 homeless Australians sleeping rough every single night. When you can apply a similar passion and compassion “proportionately” to the needs of our own disadvantaged, you will have successfully made the transition from activist to humanitarian

Rhian,

///The article you quote casts severe doubt over the “golden age” claim///
NGO executives criticising government decisions that impact on their field of endeavour, have about as much credibility as tobacco company executives criticising government decisions that impact on their field of endeavour.

///while the article on the Rohingya seems to confirm they’re subject to racial abuse in Burma///
There are two angles to consider:
The first, there may well be a group called the Rohingya , who may well be persecuted. I can count on one hand the number of groups in Asia who could not legitimately claim a well-founded fear of persecution.
The second aspect is,Whether those boating across the seas to sunnier climes are actually Rohingya.Burmese authorities say they are actually Bengalis.And,I can hear you respond “but they would say that wouldn’t they”, however, the boaties have equally good cause to claim they are something they are not.With Bengalis not being on the UN flavour of the month list at the moment. So, I provided a picture that the reader could make their own assessment. But you only saw one thing, comments about Rohingya’s being badly treated.
Postscript: please bear in mind that Australia has some history of certifying people “genuine refugees” from group A, only to find out later they actually belonged to group B


///Your accusations are mainly unsubstantiated racist slurs – refugees are welfare seeking fundamentalists///
Test it for yourself :
Why would a Tamil who decides to flee Sri Lanka (most actually stayed put) bypass India, and instead risk the long arduous journey to Australia?
---India is too alien a culture – no, Tamil Nadu , the nearest Indian state means land of the Tamils.
---India is not a signatory to the convention –nevertheless, India accommodated virtually any Tamil that landed.

Now apply the same template to Africa.
Most countries in Africa are signatories to the convention. Yet, many bypass them to get to Europe.

Even to someone as big hearted as you that must be damning.

SPQR

Many Asians may live in fear of persecution, but only a tiny proportion is eligible for refugee status.

Which do you think is the greater evil – some people gaining refugee status who are not in fact eligible, or some people at genuine risk of violence and persecution being returned to their homelands?

A friend of mine was a refugee from Sudan in Africa. When her village was attacked and her husband killed she fled first over the border to Ethiopia. The refugee camp there had little food and water and locals regularly raped the women. Militias raided the camps and took teenagers and children to be child soldiers. Fearing for herself and her 8-year old son, she left that camp and eventually made her way to a somewhat safer one in Kenya. Do you think she should have stayed in Ethiopia?

If I had fled a civil war and was festering in a refugee camp in an impoverished country with no hope of returning home in the foreseeable future, I’d do anything I could to get myself and my family to a place where we could be safe and build a future. I don’t blame others for feeling the way I would feel, and acting the way I would probably act, in their situations.

@Rhian While your ideas are not that bad at first sight, the question remains - at whose expense? Look what happened in South Africa when their government decided to open the 'flood gates' to all other Sub Saharan refugees at the expense of the local population ! Why do you think countries have borders? There will always be better of and worse of people. There is a reason why certain places are less safe then others. And that reason is almost always man made. The reason is 'within man'. Do you seriously think if 50millions Indians, Pakistani, Subsaharan Africans will relocate to Australia, will Australia still be the paradise it is now? You know, my Grandfather said once: if you take two bottles, one full of wine while the other full of sewage. Take a drop from the sewage bottle and add it to the wine bottle, alternatively take a drop from the wine bottle and put it in the sewage bottle. Finally, take a step back, look at the 2 bottles and ask yourself what are you having in the end :-) There is a reason for EVERYTHING in life. The sooner you understand that the better our species will be. Friendly greetings from Bombay and happy new year to you all.

Personal safety is a valid issue, but it should not be confused with a policy which encourages people to endanger their lives as a means of increasing the chance of gaining asylum.

Is there anything decent about getting people to risk their lives to increase the chance of gaining asylum? What would happen if a TV network hosted a show which offered refugees Australian citizenship for drinking a bottle of water which might contain a lethal dose of cyanide? My guess is that the producers would spend a long prison sentence in protective custody and face a large amount of public hatred for the rest of their lives. Yet the current policy has resulted in the deaths of ~200 people in 2010, all in the attempt to increase their chance of gaining asylum.

Compassion in this instance is not about saying, "Look at what these poor buggers have been through. How can we refuse them asylum?". Instead, we should be asking, "Why are we encouraging people to risk their lives because of an idiotic policy?".

Rhian, you say that "asylum seekers" do not get public housing but are housed in private rentals. At who's expense? How many of the world's third world poverty stricken millions do you expect a small tax paying work force like Australia's to support-on top of all the non workers, pensioners and aboriginals that already exist on the welfare provided? It is so easy to be magnaminous with someone else's money.

Australia, must look like the "Emerald City". All of the countries that the socalled asylum seekers come from, do not have a social welfare system or a health care system for the poor.

Basically if you are poor, getting enough to eat is almost impossible and if you get sick and cannot afford medical care, the risk of not surviving is very high.

Our welfare payments in many instances are higher than what many asylum seekers would earn in a year.

No wonder Australia looks like the Emerald City.

Quiet frankly, am fed up to the back teeth on the whinging and whining regards the refugees entering Australia.
As a Vietnam Vet, I personaly witnessed the devastation WE caused to the Vietnamese people and the by product was the FIRST boat people to Australia.
Therein lies a lesson to ALL Australians, including the whingers and whiners.
If you do not want such people entering Australia seeking refuge and a better life, all you need to do is refrain from destroying their lands and way of life, telling them how to live and forcing your version of democracy down their throats with the barrel of your gun.
It amazes me, that many Australians seem to be incapable of working this out for themselves.

Itchyvet,

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a0174156.html

here's the UNHCR's latest data on refugees/IDPs otherwise known as "populations of concern".

I won't even argue with you about whether the Taliban, AlQaeda etc should take responsibility for the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lets assume we are fully responsible for those refugees.

Once we take out Iraq and Afghanistan, there are 34 million people of concern to the UNHCR.

94% of the worlds refugees are NOT from places we are fighting wars. It is highly simplistic to suggest that WE are the cause of all the worlds problems. And it is categorically NOT true.

Paul;
Quote,
It is highly simplistic to suggest that WE are the cause of all the worlds problems. And it is categorically NOT true.Posted by PaulL, Saturday, 1 January 2011 6:15:05 PM
Unquote.

Your comments clearly display the twisted thinking that's so prevelant today.
No where in my post did I claim 'WE' were the cause of all the world's problems. I guess you'd need to reassess your own thinking as to why you even printed such rubbish.
Such a claim, is as you admit, totaly untrue, however it IS true, that Australia has played a large part in supporting the U.S. Foreign policies that ARE the direct cause of this misery.
In fact our Government, when it still had a back bone readily admited to this as evidanced by the releases recently of the Fraser Govts concerns with such matters.
I direct you to the urls,
Afghan war can't be won: Malcolm Fraser
• Brendan Nicholson, Defence editor
• From: The Australian
These releases clearly demonstrate concerns that ran OPPOSITE to the U.S. foriegn policy we so slavishly follow today.
When you've lived as long as I have and witnessed/participated in such events, maybe then you'll see the light. On the other hand maybe you won't.
I know fellow Vets who still feel they did the right thing in Vietnam despite witnessing their effects first hand.
So it's become obvious to me, people will only SEE what they WISH to see. Possibly, you are such a person, so what, I couldn't care less, because at the end of the day, it will be younger folk like yourself, who will inherit what's happeneing today and will need to deal with it.
I will enjoy, sitting back watching how efficiently you deal with it.

Itcyvet,

You said “if you do not want such people entering Australia seeking refuge and a better life, all you need to do is refrain from destroying their lands and way of life, telling them how to live and forcing your version of democracy down their throats with the barrel of your gun.

You are right, you didn’t claim we are the source of all the world’s problems. Merely the cause of the refugee problem.

But if 94% of refugees come from countries where we have no soldiers, how exactly is our democracy, backed by our guns, the source of the problem.

I think you'll find there a quite a few foreigners out there, with their own guns, and their own politics, who are contributing to the problem. At least to 94% of it.

Real soldiers know well

The true costs of waging war

Linger in the peace

Paul,
Yes, your right. But you avoid investigating the reason for that.
Check out the African continent, count the number of countries therein, that are currently waging such wars and causing refugees as a DIRECT result of their actions.
The U.S. has now instituted an AFRICAN FIELD OF COMMAND, please explain to me, why this was done !
Australia, sycophantly slavishly supports their foriegn policy and sees nothing wrong with it, whilst we don't have (not publicaly aknowledge as yet) any boots on the ground there, our Govt has NEVER ever, spoken out about the U.S. interference within African countries.
Explain to us all, why that would be, moreover, how come you don't express any concern on this issue ?
You also need to visit the U.N.site, and avail yourself of interpretations/meanings of International laws and OUR obligation under humanitarian statutes, I'm sure you will pretty quickly see where WE, Australians have lost the plot entirely.
The U.S. is on public record as stating they wish to achieve World dominance in their PANPC release in Sept 2000 with their document labeled 'Rebuilding U.S.'s Defences', Google it and read it, spells out very clearly what it is they hope to acheive, note too, that it is a public available document available for anyone to read, so they make no secret of their direction. It also states very clearly, what they are prepared to do to ANY nation that may challenge them for that dominance.
Australia supports them 100% in their objective, so you'd better prepare yourself for a whole lot more refugees yet to come, unless we change our view pretty quickly.

Australia supports them 100% in their objective, so you'd better prepare yourself for a whole lot more refugees yet to come, unless we change our view pretty quickly.

Look! I don't want any-more boat-floaters. The reasons are quite clear.....piss-off:) This is our land, and I think we should all lobby the Governments quickly, before it all turns from champagne to sh@T.

( what did the old blokes-Australian solders died for, and what was it for again?)

Refugee policy needs to be about more than boats!

"I suggest target practice"

and that folks, comes strait from my gran-father. He is not happy about it at all.

And why are we giving this great country away for?

BLUE

<"I suggest target practice">

If that is the way Gramps feels Blue he should support the current policy on boat people. In fact there are several advantages over his suggestion. The current policy avoids the international and local hostility which would arise from using an armed force to kill defenceless and desperate people. It would also spare Australian servicemen the considerable trauma resultant from committing such atrocities. And were the Navy to sink a boat or two, the boats would stop coming. By keeping the current policy, far more refugees will continue to die brutal and senseless deaths.

It is a strange world where people wishing to be compassionate should cause more brutal and senseless deaths than those proposing brutal and senseless violence.

If that is the way Gramps feels Blue he should support the current policy on boat people.....yes but at what cost to the Australian people.....and Gramps would also love to know...is why his pensions are so low. A more sterner approach bar the killing part..... and lets not forget,we must stay human now just for the ones that are seeing the injustices or the proverbial rug from under the feet trick. However I see the point, on which lines of a gentler approach would make a softer media pillow.

See...over-population of a country will see many rats leave the ships, and with the unfairness that many can see, anger will rise or its like if you were on an island by yourself, and 200,000 people just dropped in.....fear comes first, followed by panic, then the words, why has this happened.

With military force......we just might save our own island.

http://tinyurl.com/2dgbn77

http://tinyurl.com/2eaq5wm

http://tinyurl.com/ywzpt4

A billion dollars...mmmmmm

I think the mathematics speaks for its self.

And 21 million....on the driest continent on earth, with might I add....infrastructural problems.

Stop them coming here....will solve the problem.

The world has a people crisis, and Australia cant solve it them by saying...... more the merry a....because of our humanity and kindness.

Shut the gates, before its too late.

All this, just to keep the world turning..lol..I hope you know what is going on around you, and just not the dollars signs.

I can see the candles burning at both ends......can you?

BLUE

Fester...from the link THE DRUM.....please read the comments that are made.

These are the real Australia people that want none of this nonsense...and Iam one of them.

Hopefully the last no brainer of 2010. Votes. Howard went tough and milked it to the end, eventually his own. Rudd/Gillard went softer pre election to get the Green preferences. Political death was their option.

"Under 5,000 alleged refugees out of 200,000 plus migrants annually. Sell them all a one year holiday for $20,000 each and let them apply after they arrive by air. If they dont apply and arrive that way then they are illegal immigrants. Simple. No boat people, no tragedies at Christmas Island and a lot less very expensive resources and better still, fewer empire building bureaucrats overcome with their own significance."

Just says it all I think.

BLUE

You Chaps in Australia are soooo lucky, your country is so far away from Africa :-)Look at the Europeans, they've learned the hard way. Especially the French and British. Londonistan - anyone ?

Thats quite right my friend....Australia has none of what you say here...yet. Maybe they don't want their country anymore:) Again! Shut the gates Australia, this will be your last chance:) or this!

http://tinyurl.com/26vmoo2

or

http://tinyurl.com/259ldfe

Gomario...isn't that the trouble you wanted to start here on this thread?

Yes we are nice to a point....then when aggravated......Aust men will get all medievil on your ass:)

Play nice.

BLUE

@Blue I don't quite get what you try to say, however what I am saying is - do NOT open the flood gates because you may drown, unless you know what you are doing. Sadly, I get the feeling some of you don't know (just yet). I only can hope they go out in the big world and learn. And learn fast, because the time is running out. And no, is not the Moslems I am worrying about. Peace for you and Australia -

Gomario......"however what I am saying is - do NOT open the flood gates because you may drown, unless you know what you are doing.".....

Well said, however many don't see the importance's of a country being sustainable. The refugee policies here are in urgent need of reform...with also a good dose of reality/commonsense thrown in.

Peace for you and Australia - and your right once again, that's what Australia means. All who come here want peace, many have left their home-lands just for that reason. One thing we don't want here is anyone in-sighting racial im-balance's or ideas that will lead to such negatives. What we are seeing in other countries should be a warning to us all what can happen if we don't see that over-populating for the ( more people more money aspect ) which other countries that are now regretting it.

There was at least a dozen more thoughts I had lined up for you....but that will do for now.

thank Q for your reply.

BLUE