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 > Leaky asylum boats and the Federal Election > Comments

Leaky asylum boats and the Federal Election : Comments

By Frank Brennan, published 28/9/2007

Hopefully fewer people will vote for the Howard Government in the coming election because of policies like the Pacific solution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
I feel sad for the boat people. All that way on shark infested seas to end up in prison. Its a most ungodly attitude to send them back to the misery they came from. I dare say that in China some would get the bullet. Doesnt Jesus say "give to those in need, to those who ask?" Such a huge country we have but many of us with such small hearts.
Posted by Gibo, Friday, 28 September 2007 10:41:05 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
Is the civil society mentioned by the author allowed to make the rules? If so, why would a Sri Lankan refugee baulk at a new life in Tierra del Fuego or Tonga? News of the world reaching us via newspapers, TV and radio mentions no incidents of oppression in those two locations. As a matter of fact Tierra del Fuego is a carefree idyll beyond the reach of Sri Lankan agents of oppression who seek to make the lives of those 72 Sri Lankan refugees miserable. If several countries step forward and take these refugees it will be a costly burden for the Sri Lankan government to monitor their activities. Monitoring their behaviour may well be impossible if the 72 refugees find their way to 20 countries.

I am willing to bet that the residents of Tierra del Fuego would be champing at the bit, keen to showcase their town and even keener to cloak Sri Lankan refugees in peace, free from oppression.
Posted by Sage, Friday, 28 September 2007 11:04:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that for more than 150 years the most basic political fact in Australia is that we are not going to accept hordes of people from the north. Those who bewail the fact that Howard's action over Tampa was applauded by an overwhelming majority of electors simply don't recognise that the Immigration Restriction Act was the first piece of legislation passed by the Federal Parliament.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are economic refugees is not surprising considering the difference in standard of living. What I find bewildering is the concept that they have some sort of right of entry to Australia. Are there that many masochists in Australia? I suppose they are so far to the left that they cannot understand that public areas in Australia are the collective private property of the citizens here, as is the case in every other country, and foreigners enter by leave. The principles of territoriality are older than humankind, as they are exhibited by many other species.

We are particularly fortunate to be the only country in the world that has the four things needed to survive the 21st century:

(a) a surplus of food.

(b) a surplus of energy.

(c) a surplus of minerals.

(d) and, most importantly, a sea boundary.

We are already taking a larger proportion of refugees per hard than almost any other country. Where are we supposed to draw the line? We may soon know, if Rudd wins the coming election and the people smugglers in Djakarta start advertising for new customers.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 28 September 2007 12:29:25 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
Hopefully LABOR and any other party will be as tight as common sense and responsible government dictates, on the issue of Border Security.

ANY government which allows unfettered access to its shores by undocumented or.. law flouting country shoppers.. which speak its last words "Oh..but they seemed such nice people" as it goes down the gurgler of total self destruction.

-The Kmers learnt this about the Thais at Anchor wat
-The Ivorians learned this about migrants from neighbouring countries.
-The Australian aboriginals learnt this the HARD way with the white population.. too late for them though...

ITS NOT TOO LATE FOR US... to learrnnnnnnnn about what unfettered uncontrolled, easy access by foreigners will do to this country.

We either learn it now... or we suffer the consequences.

We learn quickly to detect 'political opportunism' masquerading as 'compassion' by people like the author perhaps.. or the Greens and Democrats and Socialist Alliance rent-a-crowd...

OR....

We cave in to their opportunism and hypcritical self seeking 'compassion' and find ourselves over-run.

Now.. I can hear that same crowd yelling 'racist....xenophobe... blah blah..' and I say 'water off a duckies back' :)

Don't bother.. I follow the good old Scottish philosophy of 'common sense'

I agree that Nauru is a dumb idea.. they simply need to be tight and uncompromising and provide enough facilities at Christmas Island..and declare it a non migration zone.. and to be blunt.. TO HELL with the UN and the mind blowingly stuuuupid convnetions we were dull enough to sign.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 28 September 2007 12:29:36 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
Frank, what planet do you come from?
Our social welfare system is busting at the seams, and my tax dollars, ever increasing, are supporting it. You and your leftist comrades think we can have open doors to just anyone who jumps in a boat? There are processes to enter this country - if these people cannot follow these processes, then they deserve to be handled within the constraints of the Pacific Solution. You and your do-gooder advocate friends do not reflect the Australian majority.
Posted by jeff_k, Friday, 28 September 2007 1:02:43 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 sick and tired of people like the author and Peter Costello complaining about the plight of others in the world and doing nothing to help the original people of this land where they live.

Lets set the record straight, our communities have no water, sanitation or employment because we were forcebly removed from our land on to missions so that their land could be farmed or mined without any compensation or benefits to us at all.

Yet to the discuss of Indigenous Australians, when the tsunami or other natural event hits white communities like Inisfail or Asia we have Costello and Howard giving money made from our stolen resources to help those people in the Billions.

Untill you resolve the mess created by your invasion of our lands and the destruction of our economy, the plight of others outside of our shores is irrelavant.
Posted by Yindin, Friday, 28 September 2007 1:31:37 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
Frank Brennan: "Though many refugee advocates are strong opponents of the new Christmas Island facility, I have continually conceded to government the place of such a facility in a border protection strategy aimed at isolating and detaining “unvisa-ed” boat arrivals until initial screening can occur, permitting immediate return of those with demonstrably unmeritorious asylum claims, and facilitating health and security checks of those asylum seekers whose claims will take some time to process."

Boazy: "ITS NOT TOO LATE FOR US... to learrnnnnnnnn about what unfettered uncontrolled, easy access by foreigners will do to this country."

jeff_k: "You and your leftist comrades think we can have open doors to just anyone who jumps in a boat?"

Did you hard-hearted xenophobes actually read the article before launching in to your rants? Prof. Brennan didn't advocate "unfettered uncontrolled, easy access by foreigners" nor "open doors to just anyone who jumps in a boat" - just a more humane and rational way of dealing with desperate refugees.

Incidentally, Boazy - Frank Brennan is a Christian whose life work seems to me much closer to that advocated by Jesus, than the sort of hateful and mean-spirited preaching and ranting that you engage in daily. If more Christians were like Frank Brennan, I'd have absolutely no problem with their religion.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 28 September 2007 1:42:04 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
Under the current government immigration rates have increased to the highest numbers in Australian history, yet people still insist on linking their worries about migrants, refugees or otherwise, with the Labor Party.

That ignorance and fear go together is old news, but how the belief that we're flooded with foreigners can be blamed on the party that's been out of government for the decade of highest immigration is beyond me.
Posted by chainsmoker, Friday, 28 September 2007 2:42:20 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
A balanced and thoughtful article from Brennan. Policy towards asylum seekers has improved somewhat in recent years (we’re no longer imprisoning children indefinitely) but the “pacific solution” remains an expensive way of deferring the inevitable decision about what to do with these genuine refugees – which most of them are.

I agree that most unauthorised arrivals should be detained while their identity and status are checked and their health verified, but this should done as expeditiously and humanely as possible. These peiople are not criminals. It’s grotesque that we should use harsh treatment as a deterrent or punishment. And while it is necessary to keep new arrivals separate from the general population, what possible purpose is serve by keeping the thousands of kilometres, except for the baleful psychological and symbolic message it sends to arrivals and citizens alike?
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 September 2007 3:02:05 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
plerdsus

"The fact that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are economic refugees is not surprising considering the difference in standard of living."

This statement indicates a gross ignorance of world affairs. It is offensive to suggest the Sri Lankans, Rohinyans, Iraqis, Afghanis, West Papuans and the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers who have sought Australia's protection in recent years are merely shopping around for a better life. These people have escaped horrific situations. They have endured the terror of witnessing atrocities being committed on family and community members and have finally fled in fear of their lives. They have not left everything behind and risked their lives to cruise around looking for economic advancement.

"We are already taking a larger proportion of refugees per head than almost any other country."

This is incorrect. We have an annual quota of 12 000 and in fact rarely get anywhere near that number. Of the eight countries that have a quota, Australia's per capita intake is indeed second. Of over 70 countries who accept refugees however, Australia on a per capita basis is ranked 38th. Of the 29 developed countries accepting refugees, Australia ranks 14th. When considering we are bringing in about 160 000 immigrants a year, our refugee intake is miserly to say the least. As a member of the Coalition of the Willing, we have helped create 4 million Iraqi refugees and yet we are spending billions of dollars to keep them out of Australia. Huge numbers of these are professional people who could help alleviate our skills shortage. Not only are our policies mean and self-centred, they actually make no economic sense.

CJMorgan

"Incidentally, Boazy - Frank Brennan is a Christian whose life work seems to me much closer to that advocated by Jesus, than the sort of hateful and mean-spirited preaching and ranting that you engage in daily. If more Christians were like Frank Brennan, I'd have absolutely no problem with their religion."

Hear, hear!
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 28 September 2007 3:11:29 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
You are right on the money with your assessment Frank.
Its a no brainer.
I am amazed that any thinking Australian would question what you say.
Surely, in a lucky country such as ours a little bit of compassion is not such a big ask, irrespective of our legal human rights obligations?
Posted by Bobby Skilton, Friday, 28 September 2007 10:54:30 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
YINDIN mate.. I watched 'The Bra Boys' movie last night.. very educational... if you think the indigenous people had a hard time..check THIS out...

The 'oligachy' of Squatocracy (you know..that mob which mainly took your land) made a LAW to harrass the surfers at Maroubra..they enacted a law which said "Only those who wear SKIRTS can surf"... believe it...or not. So, the surfers came down with skirts, bonnets and all manner of girlie clothing :)

The film opens with an account of Captain James Cook.. who arrived with his 'thugs'..and when confronted by some Aboriginals at the beach, ordered his men to open fire..and duely claimed the land for England......you blokes should have went and waited till Cook was watching the hoisting of the flag and overwhelmed them with numbers..killed the bloody lot.

To all those who are picking on my 'uncaring' views.. this is what I'm getting at. You might refer to the 'under new managment' screen shot from the "Lebo Thugs" video (still on youtube) with the Lebanese flag superimposed across a map of Australia.

I'm all for the 'humane' treatment of would be assylum seekers to.. but here is how it works..

1/ People come..
2/ Some are rejected as genuine...
3/ The 'refugee industry' swings into action, and those seeking to promote their political party (Socialist Alliance/Greens/Democrats) refuse to accept the umpires decision and turn such rejections into a cause celebre'
4/ The government reacts..the community is polarized..
5/ Stupid solutions such as Nauru are found.....which make it all worse
6/ They then make a 'Christmas Island' approach which is what they should have done AT THE BEGINNING.

You cannot escape the truth that many people USE the whole refugee situation for political purposes at any cost. Also..that any perception of 'easy access' will result in a flood.....as it began to trend to, of country shoppers as well as genuine assylum seekers (who amazingly morph into country shoppers)

Remember..the Lebanese Muslims who are saying "Under new management" are the offspring of those 'assylum' seekers who fled the Lebanese civil war.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 29 September 2007 6:14:21 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
"You cannot escape the truth that many people USE the whole refugee situation for political purposes at any cost. "

Well it got the current government re-elected thats for sure.
Posted by James Purser, Saturday, 29 September 2007 7:12:43 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
BOAZ,

If you have a look at the statistics you will see that never in our history has there ever been anything like a "flood" of asylum seekers, especially when compared to the load other countries closer to the trouble spots have had to bear. There are refugee camps with more people in them now than we have ever admitted in total. This is just scarist propaganda.

Sure, invalid asylum seekers should be sent back (but do not inflate the number - it is actually quite small) - but we should not be mistreating people who have proved their refugee status, like those on Nauru Island now. We have our heads in the sand if we think being cruel to these people, who, by definition, have suffered enough, is acceptable behaviour for a civilised country that is a party to the relevant UN conventions. If our political leaders don't have the guts to withdraw from the conventions they should comply with them.
Posted by Bobby Skilton, Saturday, 29 September 2007 11:30:51 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
HUMAN Life MUST COME FIRST - I am inspired by Australian's who see the urgent need to hold their heads up high as they SPEAK OUT on the truth.

I am proud of all who MARCH with Burma and focus on the core problems which connect the daily livelihood of all of us. Burma is part of APEC and ASEAN and is a population of people struggling under our own pacific sky.

I ask that Mike Keelty become involved in the BURMA crisis as a person who understands the core problem - boarder safety and it's relationship to CRIME PREVENTION (Alma Ata) and Village interests, income and basic needs for survival.

The first principal in development is JUSTICE but to get it we need more than the LAW.

I also hope the Liberal government can come clean, pull some resources out of its pocket to put on the table for Burma.

I also do not want to see abusive governance during these elections as was distractive over the TAMPA. We as citizens are crossing boarders and through party politics.

It is people who produce leadership and the pluralism of all statements made only helps to flush out the representations of all voices to get to the knowledge and truth.

Sick Politics makes for a Sick Party. The Days of SPIN is OVER!

I dispise mis-representation - red-hearings and porkies.

The truth is now due to capital interest and world conflicts we have MILLIONS + MILLIONs + MILLIONS of people displaced - homeless - in dire poverty - they are our global political, envirionmental refugees. (just like the many other during and after WWII)

I want a GLOBAL MARSHALL PLAN + I want the talks to begin NOW.

Move over Australia, we have work to DO.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 29 September 2007 12:35:05 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
I CALL MIKE KEELTY to help with AUSTRALIA's role in BURMA.

I ask that Mike Keelty become involved in the BURMA crisis as a person who understands the core problem - boarder safety and it's relationship to CRIME PREVENTION (Alma Ata) and Village interests, income and basic needs for survival.

The problem is complex and we need an alternative solution to the way we handled our perceptions over IRAQ.

I believe the UN requires some solid support. We make up the UN as regional nation states/economies. The UN can do little if nation states fail to come clean and utilise their POLITICAL WILL TO ACT.

Common Sense. This is NOT A GAME for BANTA in POLITICS.

I believe business is not the enemy. Leadership in any platform be it in Government - Business or Community undermines the mindful beauty we can create by being honest, if the truth loses ALL capacity - is intimidated or is blackmailed because the guardians fail their RESPONSIBLITIES by going grey and soft.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 29 September 2007 12:53:01 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
Bronwyn,
You critisized someone earlier for stating that the majority of illegal immigrants were actually just economic migrants shopping for a better life. You stated that this was a sign of gross ignorance and that it was offensive to suggest that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers were doing this. Yet reading from the Australian Parlimentary Library, Current Issues Brief 13, it clearly states that "The UNHCR has acknowledged that by the early 1990s the VAST MAJORITY of asylum seekers in Western countries were economic migrants" The reference for this is UNHCR Note on International Protection. A/AC 96/830.
I suggest that your statement is offensive because you are trying to mislead people and cover up the truth. How long will people like you be able to get away with lies?

Have a read of that reference before you make further ill informed comments.
Posted by knopfler, Saturday, 29 September 2007 3:30:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, you critisized the following comment

"We are already taking a larger proportion of refugees per head than almost any other country."

by stating

This is incorrect. We have an annual quota of 12 000 and in fact rarely get anywhere near that number. Of the eight countries that have a quota, Australia's per capita intake is indeed second. Of over 70 countries who accept refugees however, Australia on a per capita basis is ranked 38th. Of the 29 developed countries accepting refugees, Australia ranks 14th. When considering we are bringing in about 160 000 immigrants a year, our refugee intake is miserly to say the least. As a member of the Coalition of the Willing, we have helped create 4 million Iraqi refugees and yet we are spending billions of dollars to keep them out of Australia. Huge numbers of these are professional people who could help alleviate our skills shortage. Not only are our policies mean and self-centred, they actually make no economic sense.

Yet I feel your comments are again misleading. According to the UNHCR 2006 Global Trends dated july 2007, the following figures are quoted for the top few refugee resettlement (developed countries) countries USA 41,300, Australia 13,400, Canada 10,700, Sweden, 2,400, Norway 1000.
I think this justifies the above statement that you have critisized. This places Australia right up there 2nd only to the USA in absolute numbers of refugees. I could not find the stats for per capita, however most people can see that again we would be right up there with the top countries, Considering that we take 1/4 the intake of USA yet we have a population less than 1/10 of the USA. We took 5 times that of Sweden yet we have a population of just over double Sweden. We took 10 times Norway yet only have a population of around 6 times Norway. We took equal numbers compared to Canada yet Canada has a larger population. Thus considering just the top 5 countries in absolute numbers we beat them all on a per capita basis.
Posted by knopfler, Saturday, 29 September 2007 4:38:30 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
Under international law there is a requirement for would be refugees to seek asylum in the first country they reach which can offer them safe haven.
The vast majority of those seeking asylum in Australia do not qualify as refugees as they have already passed through one or more other countries.
As someone who actually works with refugees and those offering them assistance I have little time for those who set out on 'leaky boats' to 'seek asylum'. The reality of the situation is very different from that portrayed in the media. Yes, these people are desperate to reach Australia but it is rarely because of fear of persecution. Many of them are well coached in what to say and do in order to get here.
They are often people who are, quite simply, seeking a better way of life in Australia who would not qualify under other programmes. They are endeavouring to buy their way in.
There are many refugees with no hope of going anywhere who would be far more worthy of a place here.
I expect that this will provoke outrage but I am making these remarks from long experience and a profound concern for the many people still waiting patiently and with a belief that they are doing the right thing by going through the proper legal channels. Boat people quite simply break the law and do so knowingly, so do those who transport them.
Posted by Communicat, Saturday, 29 September 2007 5:25:58 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
Knopfler

"The UNHCR has acknowledged that by the early 1990s the VAST MAJORITY of asylum seekers in Western countries were economic migrants."

It’s difficult to comment definitively on this statement without seeing it in context, but my feeling is that it's not particularly relevant to the current debate.

We’re not talking about the early 1990’s and we’re not talking about western countries in general. We’re talking specifically about Australia and the period from the late 1990’s when boatloads of asylum seekers, predominantly from Afghanistan and Iraq, began arriving on our shores. They have made up the bulk of Australia's recent asylum seekers and are most definitely political refugees.

“Yet I feel your comments are again misleading. According to the UNHCR 2006 Global Trends dated july 2007, the following figures are quoted for the top few refugee resettlement (developed countries) countries USA 41,300, Australia 13,400, Canada 10,700, Sweden, 2,400, Norway 1000. I think this justifies the above statement that you have critisized. This places Australia right up there 2nd only to the USA in absolute numbers of refugees.”

Please re-read my statement again. The countries you have quoted here are the countries I referred to that have specific quotas. There are lots of other countries who don’t have quotas but who are far more generous than Australia. As I stated before, of the 70 countries who take in refugees, Australia is ranked 38th on a per capita basis. Australia is not at all generous in either the number of refugees it accepts or in the way in which it treats them.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 30 September 2007 12:48:16 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
Boundary security is another way of saying that the Australian way of life is non-negotiable. George Bush senior said this once about his own country. There is something immoral about that statement.

Would it be possible that we cease to be excessive consumers and reduce our impact on the land so that we can afford to have more peoople here?
Posted by healthwatcher, Sunday, 30 September 2007 7:56:14 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
Healthwatcher,

The only problem with your suggestion that we increase our population by immigration is that there isn't enough water. People look at Australia and think that it is so big that it could accommodate millions more people. The fact is that Australia is a boomerang-shaped curve of fertile land around the south east, next to an enormous expanse of desert.

Australia cannot make any meaningful contribution to the problem of world overpopulation. For example, if we took 80 million immigrants (and don't worry, they would fall over themselves to get here), we would totally overload our environment, destroy our standard of living, be required to depend on imported food, and have to put up with massive stinking slums such as are seen in asia and africa, and all we would have done is absorb one year's population increase.

Well known environmentalists such as Tim Flannery have calculated that the maximum human population that Australia can sustain is around 8 million, so we are already well beyond that figure.

The population of the first world has stabilised. If the third world countries permit their current population of 4 billion to double over the next 25 years they will inflict a major catastrophe on the whole world, and the only way that the problem will be corrected is by the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Unfortunately, the only subject on which the US, the Vatican and the third world are united is that nothing must be done to limit population growth. In fact most third world countries equate population limitation with genocide.
Posted by plerdsus, Sunday, 30 September 2007 8:48:47 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
There are a few things of which there seems to be a need to remind, and perhaps in some cases to inform for the first time, people intent on peddling guilt to Australians over refugee issues.

The first is that the causes impelling people to seek to flee their native lands are not of Australia's making. Australia is not in any way obliged to attempt to alleviate the tragic consequences for the truly persecuted, let alone 'country shoppers'. The more we do so the more we will be asked to do by the proxy spokesmen for other nations that do not want to embrace a legal and constitutional system that does not produce refugees in the first place.

Something James Purser, an aspirant to the political class, needs to understand with respect to "using the refugee issue to get elected" is that the Howard government did not lead on the boat people issue, it followed, and quite a long way behind the Australian public at that. A major reason it is now so on-the-nose is that it is seen to have massively expanded immigration and the issue of temporary work visas, which in the eyes of many amounts to the same thing as having let illegal entry run on unchecked.

The last thing Australia can afford is to let the 'refugee industry' get back into action. Coveys of lawyers, paralegals, and assorted hangers on, all very well paid for the sanctimonious concern they express for those who have been the human stock-in-trade of people smugglers.

The present government didn't go nearly as far as the community was demanding. The community was asking for a policy whereby any person having to be rescued on the high seas with the apparent intent of illegally entering Australia would be forever banned from entry to Australia, and unilaterally extradited to from whence they had come. The word would have got around, "don't risk getting caught at illegal entry, you'll never be allowed into Australia at any time again" and the people smuggling business been made pointless.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 30 September 2007 11:37:41 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
Good post, Plerdsus

Lack of numeracy is a real problem here. Bronwyn is correct that most claims in Australia have been found to be genuine, but needs to ask herself where she would prefer to make a fraudulent asylum claim. In Australia, where there is mandatory detention until refugee status can be established? Or in the UK, where she would be entitled to live in the community, to bring in her immediate family, and (on the basis of the 1997-2004 figures)

http:\\www.migrationwatchuk.org

would have only about a 20% chance of being actually deported even if her asylum claim were rejected and also rejected on appeal? It is dishonest to pretend that the more liberal policies the refugee advocates want would not lead to a significant proportion of fraudulent claims.

It is also dishonest to pretend that numbers would necessarily remain small. From the Migration Watch figures: not counting dependents, there were 499,000 asylum claims in the UK in the 1997- 2004 period. 52,000 were accepted at the initial hearing and a further 61,000 on appeal. 72,000 were granted exceptional leave to remain, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but primarily because of the practical impossibility of deportation. 314,000 claims were rejected, but only 75,000 resulted in deportation.
The refugee advocates tacitly accept this, because otherwise they could defuse a lot of opposition by pressing for a quota on total numbers.
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 30 September 2007 12:13:32 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
Communicat,
Agreed, most of the boat people were opportunists that were buyung their way here. There are many in far greater need than the boat people.

I remain bitterly disappointed that at least some of those rescued by the Tampa were not charged with hyjacking. Instead of being gratefull for being saved, they forced the Tampa to sail to Christmas Island. Those supporting the boat people will not admit it, but if the Tampa had been allowed to let those saved off in Indonesia,as intended, and their rescue story got around, the Siev X disaster may never have happened. Am further dissappointed that most of those the Tampa rescued ended up here. None should have been allowed.

Having said that, the current Government did stop the boats coming and that means they should be numbered ahead of Labor on the ballot sheet.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 30 September 2007 2:26:16 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
From what I understand, there is a 'white flight' from the UK of people sick to heart of seeing their own country turned into an 'asylum' trash heap. Other parts of Europe are similar.
Can our politicians get the message?
I doubt it, the large numbers of black Africans and muslims accepted into this country as migrants,prove that the powers that be are deaf, dumb and blind to reality and realitiy is what we ordinary folk must live with.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 30 September 2007 4:23:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is unfortunate that the media has allowed several high profile members of the legal profession and some vocal, persistent and ill-informed writers of "letters to the editor" to offer an entirely false view of what the actual situation is. There is, for example, never any mention made of the coaching some asylum seekers get in an effort to ensure they provide the 'right' answers in an effort to get the political upperhand. No mention is made of the excellent engines in some 'leaky vessels' or the deliberate scuttling of boats, or of the use of women and children to provide safe passage for men who have committed crimes which would result in the death sentence in their own country.
Yes, the Tampa should have gone to Indonesia. It may have stopped the Siev X. Unfortunately someone else would have tried. Indonesia needs to be made more accountable but too much money changes hands among corrupt officials.
Posted by Communicat, Sunday, 30 September 2007 4:25:00 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
Bronwyn,

The UNHCR statement is very relevant. You stated its difficult to tell because you would have to see it in context, but I gave you the reference for this purpose. The paper was written just last year, so they are basically saying that, economic migrants are increasing in number and sometime in the early 1990s they became the majority of asylum seekers. Remember this is from the UNHCR. If you read the rest of the paper you will find that it worries the UNHCR because it makes host countries suspicious of ALL asylum seekers, and makes it difficult for the FEW genuine ones.

In reply to your second question. I had the correct reply yesterday but when I tried to post it, it was too long, and then I discovered I was only allowed 2 posts for the day. So here is the rest.

I'm sure you will be able to find a few countries that take a small number of refugees, yet because of their small population their per capita figure is grossly inflated and beats Australia. I don't really feel that's a valid argument. For instance Naru could take 2 refugees and be the top per capita country in the world. This is silly.
Again, another argument you have used is that there are 70 other countries that are not included. Yet this again is misleading as you are counting countries that give absolutely NO assistance to refugees, countries such as Pakistan. Many of these countries just allow them to stand on their soil, and nothing more. Many do not allow them assistance, work, citizenship etc. Again this kind of thing does not compare with what Australia, USA, Sweden etc do. I feel again your argument is misleading.

The original statement that per capita, Australia takes a larger proportion of refugees than nearly every other country is CORRECT. We are right up there near the top of the developed countries. Why don't you try blaming some of the other 300, yes 300 or so countries below us.

Your arguments against this statement are highly misleading
Posted by knopfler, Sunday, 30 September 2007 4:33:26 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
With some notable exceptions; what an ugly racist (yes RACIST!) thread.
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 30 September 2007 5:02:51 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 thanks to knopfler, Divergence and others for supporting the first post I made on this subject.

Bronwyn,

I think it would help myself and many other posters for you to enlarge on your world-outlook for the rest of this century. Do you think we are shortly going to enter into a new golden age, where the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc., or do you agree with me that the country showing the way of the future for much of the world, particularly the third world, is Iraq? Do you expect refugees of all sorts to increase or decrease? Is there any level of refugee intake where you would say "enough", or must we accept all comers? What about the near future when the world runs out of oil, and several wars have to be fought to see who gets the residual oil and who gets nothing? Do you think that technology will solve all these problems, and allow the world population to increase to 20 billion?

Your views on these subjects would be much appreciated.
Posted by plerdsus, Sunday, 30 September 2007 5:05:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I support Bronwyn's arguments.
The number of refugees a country takes through its resettlement program is only part of the story, so we cannot argue that we are taking in high numbers of refugees, in either absolute terms or per capita.
It is also a fact that the great majority of "boat people" arriving in Australia in recent years (including those on the Tampa) have been determined to be genuine refugees, despite attempts by some politicians to demonise them.
The way we extended mandatory detention into indefinite detention was also discriminatory (only applied to boat people) and cruel (especially where children were involved).
The temporary Protection visa system is also discriminatory and unjust.
The Pacific Solution might be funny if it appeared in a Monty Python sketch, but unbelievable as a way to treat refugees.
And, even at its peak, the numbers of people seeking asylum here (which is their right under international law) has never been high, especially compared to other countries.
For a country of immigrants we seem to have turned slightly xenophobic. Indigenous Australians must see a certain irony in this.
Posted by Bobby Skilton, Sunday, 30 September 2007 5:33:19 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
plerdsus

Advocating that Australia adopts a more compassionate view towards refugees doesn't make me an unrealistic optimist who believes we're about to enter some new golden age as you put it. Far from it; I am as aware as you are of the problems facing this world and foresee a bleak future as much as you do. I too am concerned about peak oil and the enormous environmental and population pressures confronting us all. I fear that the effects of climate change could quite easily see a doubling of the world's 40 million refugees in the next few decades. I also understand that Australia is a dry continent and that we can't keep increasing our population figures much beyond what they already are. And I certainly don't have any faith in technology digging us out of this hole as you suggest. Retreating isn't the answer though; we have to engage with the world, not put up barriers.

I am not advocating an open door policy towards refugees, just a fairer and more humane system than we have at the moment. We can easily afford to take in 20 000 refugees a year. We should reign in the huge numbers of skilled migrants we are bringing in, which only create brain drain in other countries as is occurring in New Zealand right now. Australia has to play its part in resettling refugees. This will help restore our damaged international reputation. It will help us create good will in the region and we will become a safer place as a result. Being seen as America's deputy, which we have under Howard, has made us much more of a target than we ever were before. What sort of message do we send the world when we put up barriers and say we'll be right Jack, the rest of you can go hang? That's certainly not the sort of country I want to live in.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 30 September 2007 9:14:11 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
Bobby, you have stated

I support Bronwyn's arguments.
The number of refugees a country takes through its resettlement program is only part of the story, so we cannot argue that we are taking in high numbers of refugees, in either absolute terms or per capita.

However, that was NOT the question that Bronwyn originally criticized. She disagreed with the statement "We are already taking a larger proportion of refugees per head THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER COUNTRY".
So the original statement never claimed we were taking a high number of refugees in either absolute or per capita terms. Using your logic it would easily be possible for Australia to have the highest per capita intake in the world yet you could still claim it was not high.
The statement was basically one of COMPARISON to other comparable countries. By this standard I think you would be hard pressed to say the statement is false. Have a look at the figures which support the statement. For example we took nearly 1/4 of the USA's intake yet our population is less than 1/10 of the USA. If you could come up with say 5 other countries that take in more per capita ( provided they are not silly examples, see my post above) I would agree with you.

Bobby, you also stated

It is also a fact that the great majority of "boat people" arriving in Australia in recent years (including those on the Tampa) have been determined to be genuine refugees, despite attempts by some politicians to demonise them.

Yes, I believe that statement in precise terms to be correct. However, you are assuming that all non genuine refugees are found out. That is obviously false. Its very difficult to prove where someone is from if they have no papers etc. I believe ( correct me if I'm wrong) the onus is on our government to prove the asylum seeker is non genuine. Recently in Sweden they had a scandal when it was found out that the Iraq embassy there had previously given out false documents to 1000s of asylum seekers.
Posted by knopfler, Sunday, 30 September 2007 9:30:37 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
It's like being in a time warp with the same suspects screaming out the same lies and drivel.
1. We are signatory to the refugee convention by choice and under that convention we have guaranteed to check the claims of refugees and not send them back to danger, and we guaranteed not to penalise people due to lack of documents or method of arrival. You folk have been told that about 1 million times in the last 6 years and taken not a blind bit of notice haven't you?
2. Indonesia had not done any of the above.
3. Locking up refugees is an obscenity when we then bomb their countries to bits and make it worse - we have helped to create another 4 million refugees squatting on the Afghan borders with nowhere to go and 4.5 million Iraqi refugees yet we refuse to help them.
4. In 18 years only 15,000 refugees came on boats while 90 million tourists came on ships and planes. Get a grip you ridiculous people.
5. We are the floods, us, we whose ancestors stole the land from the indigenous people are the floods of refugees from all over the world who rocked up without permission and committed genocide.

Now will some of you stop whining and whinging and address some facts instead of your rambling hatreds?

98% of Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians who came on the boats are now becoming citizens of Australia after Howard squandered over $2.5 BILLION locking them up or keeping them out.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 4:06:03 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
Yet another outpouring of drivel and hatred from The Queen of the Undead, she who never sleeps, Marilyn Shepherd.
Still happily sucking on the public teat in this “pissant country”, to quote her own words , still unwilling to shift her bile-ridden putrescent carcass offshore to some distant and imagined Utopia. Marilyn, you would do us all a favour, yourself included, if you crawled off into some dark corner and quietly expired. Your repetitious lunatic ravings have become very, very boring.
Posted by ZORRO, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 8:35:03 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
Yet another outpouring of drivel and hatred from "Zorro", who hides behind a nickname to attack someone personally without contributing anything at all to the discussion about the political manipulation of the issue of asylum seekers.

At least Marilyn Shepherd has the moral courage to identify herself with her ideas - which are actually relevant to the topic, unlike Zorro's.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 8:45:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Marilyn.
Zorro's comments are rather sad.
Posted by Bobby Skilton, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 11:36:07 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
That the author is gleefully anticipating a backlash against the government, based on 72 individuals who WANT to come to Australia illegally, is typical of the self-deluding attitude of socialist fools everywhere. Their credo always screams, " I am against everything you do, but have no good to offer ".
We MUST continue to make it as difficult as possible for anyone attempting to enter Australia by bypassing normal procedure. We cannot be seen as an easy place to get to and settle in for asylum seekers, real or otherwise. To do so is inviting unwanted challenges, as alluded to by other posters.

And Yindin, please stop whinging about being invaded. BORING. Be grateful that wholesale extermination didn't take place otherwise you wouldn't be here, right?(Can't WAIT for comments on that!lol)
MY cultural heritage makes no apologies for our actions. To be the people we are, and who you seem to despise, our forefathers have gone through feasts, famine, plague, untold wars, multiple evolutions of thinking, industrial revolutions, and sundry other events. The common thread in all these events was ADAPTATION. Get OVER yourself. Stop whining and be the best you can with the cards you've been dealt, because WE have to and, quite frankly, the bulk of the population don't have the time, or interest, to concern themselves with your "carryings on". As "Chopper" Read might say "Harden the F#@k up!"
Posted by tRAKKA, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 12:36:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zorro if you want to insult me you will have to do a good deal better than that, you are an amateur mate.

Now once more into the fray. It is not illegal to come to Australia without a visa to ask for protection under the refugee convention and no amount of insulting me will make it so. We agreed with 145 other nations that it is legal.

2.5 million Iraqis have been forced to flee into the rest of the world recently because we helped to bomb their nation to bits, they do not have papers. No-one but the three nations who blew the country up is sending them back to Iraq.

As the 72 Sri Lankans are actually refugees now that means they were refugees when they arrived so it is we who are acting illegally and not them.

Now if you all want to insult a barrister of the calibre of Frank Brennan and our own High Court who showed in the case of Al Kateb that the law changed in 1992 making it that there is no offence anymore in entering or staying in Australia go right ahead but you will be fighting a battle that you have already run and lost.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 2:07:01 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
Marilyn,

Like many Leftists you seem to see the West, and no doubt the US in particular, as uniquely evil, while poor brown people can do no wrong. Like many other people, I was against the Iraq war from the beginning, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the people being killed there are being killed by other Iraqis. A similar situation exists in Afghanistan with supporters of the Taliban. How far are we really responsible for this?

The British did invade Australia, but people have always (unfortunately) behaved in this way. This is no reason to allow it to be done to us. There is now DNA evidence that the ancestors of the Aboriginal people were in a position to settle Australia because they displaced the ancestors of the New Guinea Highlanders from the coasts

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200106/ai_n8988825

Check the Migration Watch UK site and you will see that Britain spent 2 billion pounds (not dollars) on asylum seekers in 2004 alone. Most of these asylum seekers had their claims for refugee status rejected.

Numbers have not been a problem here to date, but what evidence do you have that numbers could not become large in Australia, as they did in Europe in the 1990s? How is it possible to deter economic migrants claiming to be refugees (according to the UNHCR the vast majority of asylum seekers worldwide) if they are to be free to enter the community before their refugee status is established? Britain only managed to deport 20% of its rejected asylum seekers in the 1997-2004 period.

I have no problems with Bronwyn's idea of a refugee intake of 20,000 a year, but an open borders approach (regardless of any legalities) is stupid and unsupportable. It would be interesting to see your answers to Plerdsus' questions. Bronwyn is prepared to be rational. Are you?
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 4:12:38 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
Sorry Marilyn but the people coming to Australia are not usually refugees.
They may want to come here but their right to do so does not exist under international law if they have already set foot in a country which could offer them safe haven. International law requires them to apply for asylum in the first available country and it is only in very rare instances that this would be Australia.
Refugees do not have the legal right to pick and choose their destination.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 5:06:28 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
Australians have a tendency towards xenophobia as the above comments illustrate.
The Keating Government started building the camps - Wasn't Larry Hand the one that had a hand in it? Liberal and Labor are very similar in their xenophobic approach to refugees. They hate them and will even lock up small children in the prison camps. This is smart politics because on the one hand the 80,000 or so legal migrants, the ones with money let in each year can be juxtaposed against the hated refugees. This is good politics because the refugees can be sacrificed to pacify the xenophobic public whilst getting on with the job of nation building with wealthy migrants.

Frank's problem lies in the ethics of this. Is it moral to abuse hundreds of children and their parents to the point of suicide to gain votes and pacify the xenophobes both inside and outside parliament? Is it right to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this abuse?

One million Australians have already voted on this issue with their feet in the last ten years. They have left to work overseas. That leaves a greater concentration of xenophobes in this desert continent. To protect the poisoned rivers, sandy deserts and choked sweltering cities maybe we need to get closer to uncle Sam and get 'nucular' missiles, power stations and saline plants ready to stop the hoards of desert hungry foreigners building their leaky boats to sail the pirate infested seas to these shores.

Australians really should travel more to get a better grip on reality. Australia, contrary to Government propaganda, is not the best country in the world and probably never was.
Posted by Barfenzie, Friday, 5 October 2007 1:39:08 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
In my last post I should have said "vast majority of asylum seekers in developed countries" rather than "vast majority of asylum seekers worldwide".

Barfenzie,

It might help us to see where you are coming from if you answer Plerdsus' questions above. Personally I don't hate or fear foreigners at all, except for a few extreme Islamists. I just think that no country can take in unlimited numbers of people without trashing its environment, social cohesion, and the welfare of its disadvantaged people. The Howard government has indeed been using the asylum seekers to deflect attention from its mass migration policy. Both major parties take enormous amounts in "donations" from the property development industry.

It is the combination of too many people plus bad management that leads to those poisoned rivers and the like. In its 2002 Future Dilemmas report, the CSIRO recommended stabilising Australia's population at 20 million on environmental grounds, and one of the lead authors has said that even this will require much better management for sustainability.

If you are in favour of open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee then you need to explain why you are right and the CSIRO is wrong. If you think numbers will always be small, then why not push for a cap on total numbers of claims?
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 6 October 2007 2:53:25 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
Whilst this may not exactly match the topic under discussion, some forum users may be interested to read Mark O'Connor's review of open border advocate Phillipe Legrain's book "Immigrants: your country needs them" at http://candobetter.org/

It begins:

Some angst was caused in February 2007 when Philippe Legrain (with this book in tow) was featured at Perth Writers Week. The problem was not that a debate on migration was irrelevant to a literary festival but that there was no debate--and that the supposed expert (Legrain) seemed ignorant of Australian conditions.

I am struck by how little and how selectively Philippe Legrain has read in the area on which he claims to be an expert. Despite his Australian publicists' claim that he offers a lucid and enlightened account of "Australian policies, facts and statistics" the facts he states are frequently incorrect or slanted. His index is barren of references to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which perhaps explains his bizarre claims that Australia's population is 19 million, that its net migration is some 90,000 a year (see p. 9), that births are not keeping pace with deaths (p. 108, in fact they are twice deaths), that immigration was slashed from 1996 by the Howard government (see p. 53) and so on. In fact we have never had such a high-immigration government as Howard's. Only in the immediate post WWII period, when most of our migrants were war refugees, has immigration been so high.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 6 October 2007 10:45:27 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
If we lock up our borders against refugees we are breaking the law we willingly signed up to. What on earth is it about refugees who are victims of horrendous crimes and torture and persecution that brings out the evisceral hatred that I read here?

What is the difference between a Sri Lankan or Burmese migrant and a Sri Lankan or Burmese refugee except that one is for the government of their own country and the other is persecuted for reasons of religion, sex or whatever and has not committed any crime

More that 5 million people come to Australia every year and we never mention them. Only the few refugees.

Why is that?
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Sunday, 7 October 2007 4:55:31 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