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 > Let's not revive the ill-conceived Pacific Solution > Comments

Let's not revive the ill-conceived Pacific Solution : Comments

By James Dunn, published 7/9/2011

Fear of the 'Yellow Peril' is no basis on which to build an immigration policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
"but let's not view them as sneaky intruders".

They leave their country in most cases with a passport (and other id papers), but in many cases arrive in Australia without it.

I call that sneaky.

That difference is invariably overlooked by those who point out that more "illegals" arrive by plane than boat - almost all arrivals by plane have a valid passport on arrival.
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Wednesday, 7 September 2011 9:07:11 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
It's not our "fault", that there is an image problem with boat people, they create it .. I saw photos yesterday of Afghans in Djakarta awaiting their boat to Australia, blue jeans, fashionable hats, cell phones .. refugees? I think not, and nor do the rest of Australians, if they wanted to settle away from their probematic country, then why not stay in Indonesia?

Why, because they are venue shopping and fell entitled to do that becuase they can afford better than a life in Indonesia .. Australia looks nice!

We, the people, do not get to vote or even know what is being signed up to by our public servants or pollies at the UN, so berating us about UN, or international conventions is like water off a duck's back .. clearly it is since it is continually brought up by advocates and has no effect whatever on the populace.

Hey, maybe an approach to people that is not the usual scolding, hit over the head with all manner of UN and other conventions and obligations might get a better hearing and sympathy.

Coming across all cross and angry, as if you are dealing with "naughty" children, may not be the best strategy .. it certainly appears to fail dismally.

Get some sales training, or at the very least, coaching on how to negotiate or at least not p*ss off the very people you are trying to bring on side. It's like the ALP approach, tell everyone they are wrong about everything and convince yourself you only need ot get people to listen, and all would be well.
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 7 September 2011 9:55:52 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
*In reality for cultural reasons few Arabs, Asians or Africans would want to come here if their existence in their own countries was not being endangered in some way*

Your premise is not reality, James. For of course economic migration
alone is a huge factor from places like Mexico and Africa, as the
evidence shows.

What has happened in places like Greece is massive refugee problems,
which arn't really helping anyone. Why should we emulate their failures?

The 1951 Convention is 60 years out of date. It needs updating
and Australia should state clearly what we are prepared to accept
as a nation.

Australians clearly don't accept that our Govt should hand over
control of our borders to the UNHCR. Parties are pragmatic enough
to accept that reality.

You mention no upper limit on numbers per year. Most Australians
would disagree with you. What is your upper limit?
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 7 September 2011 10:41:16 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
Stupid article, finished perfectly by the most gob-smackingly stupid line;

"As our ancestors fled oppression and famine in Europe to form our privileged society, without seeking permission to land from the original inhabitants, we do have a moral obligation to understand and aid those relatively few seeking to make a better life with us. "

It's the usual ignorant, egocentric rubbish I would expect of someone who doesn't analyze the issue properly, but only with their emotions.

So let's get this straight; If I steal somebody's wallet, I am obligated to then give out the content of my victim's wallet to a third person who attempted to rob me?

Essentially you acknowledge that Aboriginal land was wrongfully stolen- but you feel instead of doing the right thing by the victim, you will continue to let others steal their land instead?
All because the connection is your personal guilty conscience needs relief, and you feel that by showing yourself being 'punished' you are somehow making amends. By doing this, it will make you feel better about yourself, and off the hook.

Pathetic
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 7 September 2011 10:54:50 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
Re an image problem: Jeans are not necessarily a fashion item; I'm not sure about hats! Cell phones might be a necessity if you are a refugee. Refugees are not necessarily poor people, in fact many regimes list and target for elimination those who are educated and thus perceived as a "danger" to the regime. This happened in East Timor between 1975 and 1999, where in some cases security force members were seen to be ticking off lists as they killed civilians.

Indonesia does not want refugees and is eager to move them on to Australia. It is up to authorities in our country to determine applicants' refugee status.

Re UN International Bill of Human Rights (of which all those mentioned below are part): I realize that these may be puzzling. They did however happen years ago before many of us were born.

Australians can be proud of the fact that our country was a founding member of the United Nations and was one of eight nations involved in the 1948 drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The former Judge and politician involved in this was Herbert Vere Evatt. This all happened after the Second World War when the world was shaken by the terrible violations of human rights that occurred during that time.

Various covenants were later added - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)(1966, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)(1966). The ICCPR includes the right of freedom of conscience and religion, the right not to be tortured and the right to a fair trial. There are two Optional Protocols to the ICCPR and the purpose of the second one is for States to eliminate the death penalty.

It is surely the hope of all of us that as countries become more aware of their human rights obligations many of the gross human rights that we hear about happening around the world will become a thing of the past. I like to think of these covenants as great secular epistles. The world would be a much worse place without them.
Posted by AnnetteJosephine, Sunday, 25 September 2011 8:08:14 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

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