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 > Tough talk about a return to the Pacific Solution > Comments

Tough talk about a return to the Pacific Solution : Comments

By Susan Metcalfe, published 3/6/2010

There is no evidence to support the Coalition’s claim that the Pacific Solution stopped the boat arrivals to Australia in 2001.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
Susan Metcalfe's article almost entirely misses the point about the Pacific Island solution. The idea was to discourage illegial immigration which it seemed to do. Australian governments have an obligation to enforce the country's laws - or change them - and the Pacific solution helped them do this. The camps were eventually closed not because they failed, as Metcalfe implies, but because they succeeded - the boat people stopped coming so the inmates for the camps were processed and either given immigrant status or sent home, long before Rudd came to power. The reason some stayed for so long in the camps was because they were appealing deportation orders through the courts.
I'm sure the behaviour of staff in the camps was less than satisfactory, but the Nahru people accepted the camps in part because they managed to chuck away their own money and needed funds from somewhere. At least they seemed to have stopped being international money launderers.
It would be better not to have the camps at all, of course, but the reason we have them is that there is no national identity system as there is in some European countries. If the authorities let them loose in Australia with a temporary vias while their applications are being processed, they would have the devil's own job to find them again.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 June 2010 11:22:14 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
Curmudgeon not only misses the point but also misrepresents the facts. The Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a signatory, guarantees asylum seekers' status as LEGAL, even if the boat on which they arrive is illegal. This is Refugee Studies 101, and these facts have been in the public domain for decades. How many times do we have to repeat this before people get it straight?

So it's not about illegal immigration, or indeed any kind of immigration, at all. It's about Australia's commitment and obligation to protect people from persecution, a consideration which falls entirely outside Australia's migration policies, both legally and morally.

Under international law, supported by Australian legislation, unauthorised arrival by boat, even without papers, is LEGAL for the purpose of claiming protection from persecution. Even John Howard knew that - why else do you think he authorised the processing of their claims (albeit very very slowly)? Do you really think he would have continued processing them if they really were illegals? Hardly. He tried every cruel and dishonest trick in the book to try to discourage them from persevering with their claims, but he knew all along that their right to that claim was supported by law. And he knew therefore that he couldn't simply deny them that right.

For heaven's sake, can we stop repeating the lies and misrepresentations which always seem to characterise these debates? Face up to the public domain evidence, and let's move on.
Posted by Slobodon Meshirtfront, Thursday, 3 June 2010 11:43:07 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
Curmudgeon, you provide a lot of incorrect information. The Pacific Solution did not deter boat arrivals. When the Nauru camp was closed by the Rudd Government in early 2008 it still contained 82 Sri Lankans (all but one had been found to be refugees) who had arrived in 2007 after the peace processes had started breaking down in Sri Lanka in 2006, as well as 8 Rohingyas who were still waiting for decisions since arriving in 2006 (they were obviously refugees and resettled quickly under the new Government. All had been left to rot in nauru.

The camp in Nauru was closed by the Rudd Governemnt because it was cruel to treat people in this way and the Opposition had no stomach to continue down this path, in PNG there had long been discomfort in accepting any new arrivals. The Howard Government had spent 390 million dollars of taxpayers money building the Christmas Island detention centre for future arrivals to excised territories.

You say that people in Nauru and PNG were challenging deportation orders in the courts. This is simply untrue. People in Nauru and PNG had no access to courts to challenge their decisions, that's the whole point of offshore processing. It is true that some Afghans returned under pressure to dangerous circumstances but no-one was ever deported from Nauru or PNG. These countries did not have agreements with other countries to accept forced returns, IOM would not involve itself in forced returns, no-one was taken by force although they were threatened that this would happen in the future. The current Rudd government has by contrast deported numerous offshore arrivals.

People seeking asylum arriving by plane are already living in the community. We don't need to keep people in other countries to police them and this article is not about allowing people to live in the community while their identity is being checked.
Posted by Susan M, Thursday, 3 June 2010 11:55:25 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
"ASYLUM SEEKERS" the genuine variety would have protection in the first 'friendly' country they came to. Or the next .... But no the "asylum" is better in Australia eh!
If you were an Asylum Seeker with a genuine claim, you would not object too strongly to being held on a tropical island for a few months or even a year, surely? Free of the persecution you have fled, not wanting for shelter, clothing or nourishing food, you should be able to mark time until your credentials and stories have been checked and approval issued?

Yeah right! These 'desperates' have paid their fares to the people smugglers and they want their moneys worth - entry into Australia. I call B*LLSH*t and these are reasons I won't support another Labor term
Posted by divine_msn, Thursday, 3 June 2010 2:16:14 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
No mention from Susan of the many that have drowned with the Rudd 'solution'. Maybe she wants the open invitation to continue despite the facts that many more will die coming here for a better life. Oh that's right it is only the left who are 'compassionate.'
Posted by runner, Thursday, 3 June 2010 2:35:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Slobodon Meshirtfront and Susan M
One of you point out there was 81 left in one camp, but that barely counts. Sorry but the point I made still stands. Those were the left overs from a successful policy which the Rudd govt disposed of by declaring refugees, thus allowing them to close the camp. End of story. Since the camps have closed, illegial immigration has started again.
I take your point on not having access to the legal system (pehaps, but I'd have to check that further) but they still had access to an immigration appeals system, which is why they were there for so long. The program was undoubtedly successful and you will find that any incoming conservative government will return to the use of camps. Although you lot may berate others over conditions the policy scored well with voters in marginal electorates, and it is simply not possible, under present legal conditions, to release illegial imigrants into the general population.
the camps will be back..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 June 2010 2:42:58 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
to cumudgeon -- you don't seem to have a clue what you are on about. Probably not a good idea to make uniformed comments.

the refugees in the camp in nauru in 2007 were NEW arrivals, they were the beginning of the new wave we are seeing now with the same people smugglers working now. If the Rudd government hadn't brought them here they would still be sitting in nauru until they were so damaged that we would have to resettle them here anyway. If you don't understand how offshore processing works then you shouldn't be talking about it as if you do! People were only able to access internal appeals on cases - please get some facts, you are part of the problem that we can't have sensible fact based debates in this country. You don't seem to have a clue.. and as others have said, these people were not illegal in any sense of the word
Posted by Kumbalia, Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon, I'm guessing you hold refugee advocates in complete contempt, which is fair enough and you're entitled to your opinion. But if you have any respect for this forum as a place where discussion takes place, and where evidence is proffered and considered on its merits, would you at least put up some show of having read the points I made and perhaps address some of them, rather than simply chanting your "illegal immigration" mantra?

I know Howard and his ministers repeated this mantra until their audience's ears bled, for the entire 12 years of their tawdry government, but it doesn't mean they were right. If the asylum seekers' status really HAD been "illegal", wouldn't Howard have deported them back home with a flea in their ear? He wouldn't even have considered processing them. Instead, he (eventually, reluctantly) did process them.

How do you reconcile that with your "illegal" claim? Loathe us if you must, but at least pay us the intellectual respect of addressing our points, or this forum simply becomes a childish "TIZ SO!" "TIZ NOT!" shambles, and hardly worth the effort.
Posted by Slobodon Meshirtfront, Thursday, 3 June 2010 4:57:41 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
Slobodon Meshirtfront and Kumbalia
Slobodon - your first post was reasonable - although, on reflection, I think I was closer to the legal stuff than you were - the second is abusive and thus ignorable. If you don't like contrary opinions don't come on the site. And there will be contrary opinions.
The camps were not put there to give jobs to social workers, but to enforce Australian laws. If you think the laws should be changed then by all means work to change them, or perhaps think of some kindler, gentler way to enforce them.
To encourage illegal immigration is, in any case, quite dangerous. There have been enough deaths on the high seas without encouraging others to put to sea in whatever they can find just to get here.
The camps achieved their purpose and, while it is unfortunate that there were problems and conditions could have better, a little firmness saved a lot of future problems.
In the meantime the Labor government is left with the problem that a lot of swinging voters do not think like you guys, and would be quite happy to see the camps back. That's the problem you want to focus on. Leave it with you.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 June 2010 6:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The situation resembles that of the drug trade. The public focus seems to be on how to deal with the addicts, yet the cause of the problem is the profit that can be made by the traffickers. Take away the profit and you stop the traffic.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 3 June 2010 6:50:08 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
cumudgeon you don't think that the return of 5.2 million refugees to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban had anything to do with the decrease in arrivals? They were going in the other direction until recently! I can only wish for you to experience for yourself some of the 'little firmness' you wish on other humans beings. If it's only little I am sure you won't mind.

Maybe some swinging voters would have a different view if you stopped putting out false information - I think that is abusive. There will always be a deep seated fear of outsiders for politicians to prey on but hopefully some of those people will see through the campaign of lies in the end.
Posted by Kumbalia, Thursday, 3 June 2010 7:01:21 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
Whether it is or is not legal for people to come to Australia by boats unannounced and uninvited the way they do is not the issue to Australians.

What is important, and what the politicians understand is that the majority of Australians do not like it ..

So anyone who will stop it, will get votes.

Arguing about the semantics of illegality and UN conventions signed up to is not what we do out there, and if the government put to a vote signing UN resolutions - it would be very different, probably sign none of them, why should we?

If the Pacific Solution stops it and gets it off the front page and stops hysterical bleeding hearts from whining about people's rights, who are not Australians .. then great, bring it on.

Like most Australian I have lots on my plate, am busy trying to make a buck, raise a family, have an overseas holiday without any handouts, and then have to listen to these whiners rant on about how it's our duty to take people in.

No it's not, and if you want people to share that responsibility, go whine at Japan or South Korea, or any number of rich nations who take in nobody at all, and that's the way they like it - maybe we would too - ever think of that, that some of the Australians want zero immigration .. what about their rights and opinions?

Most Australians do not give a rat's tail about UN conventions that are signed up to apparently on our behalf and not with our permission by pompous overblown and self important political wannabes.

Let's have a moratorium on immigration for say, 20 years, no one comes in .. let the rest of the world show us how its done, and then we might see whether it is good or bad - it's not like the world population is going to decline, so if we decide after 20 years to let some more people in, fine - we may decide not to and join Japan etc with zero immigration.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 3 June 2010 9:17:29 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
Everyone misses the point. Australians, like all western Europeans, are so tolerant it's to our detriment.

We don't want any more people from third world cultures because their values are what makes them third world.

Tribalism, racism, intolerance, misogyny, homophobia - are all things we have pretty much eliminated on a private level (have definitely eliminated it in the public sphere like employment).

We let all these people in and they are heaps ungrateful. Massive unemployment as well, compensation industry totally rorted. That's why these cultures don't have such things, because they are so out for themselves, they take take take and give nothing.

What western Europe has developed in the way of cultural values is unheard of anywhere else. Slavery still exists everywhere except the west, because we have consciences and stopped it ourselves.

Australian-Australians are sick to death of seeing protests over cartoons, but not how minorities are treated in Arab lands say.

Look. There isn't one Muslim country for starters (it's the same for all non-western European cultures though) that treats minorities as human beings.

Knowing this, and knowing that in the areas Muslims live in the west quickly become places all the westerners have to leave for safety reasons, i.e. Greenacre, Bankstown, Liverpool, i.e. the western suburbs...why should we want any more?

Racist? We have the same number of Christian Lebanese - who look identical to Muslim Lebanese physically. One has massive unemployment and crime and known for intolerance, misogny (the massive gang rape spree - 70 committed in a 2 year period according to ABS) and homophobic bashings in and around Sydney is the new thing happening.

Full of hatred for 'the other'. Sorry, no more. Not worth it - costs our society money and mental health.
Posted by Benjam1n, Friday, 4 June 2010 8:13:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was about to raise a bunch of questions about the arguments people keep using, but I feel Amicus beat me to it, as they are perfectly valid issues to raise.

But I'm just going to ask a question about the tiresome "But we signed the UN document so we have to!"- but what happens if the Australian government were to pass a law stating it would be illegal?

So let me get this straight, if one politician, elected by only a couple of thousand LOCAL constituents in a party that got LESS VOTES than the opposition but beat them because they did a deal with another party to form a coalition to beat the numbers, goes and signs a non-binding document at his own discretion and nobody else, THIS act trumps any future act by any more democratic body to change the law domestically?

Also, I really wish this stupid argument about whether the Pacific solution/election of the Rudd government made a true impact on refugee numbers, when it could be solved by reading up some simple statistics of refugee arrival numbers, where they are FROM, and at what time. If rates remained unaffected by the PS, then it's false. If they DID, then it's true. Keep in mind that different people are in different circumstances. Tamils and West Papuans don't quite get as many choices as someone in the Middle East where to move to, and Australia is a LOT closer.

Oh, and to whoever that said it was like the War against drugs- and we need to 'stop the addicts'- not by a long shot- if the addicts actually paid a dealer to hire a bus and take them as a group to a drug factory, risking getting caught by cops, THEN you would have a valid comparison.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 4 June 2010 12:10:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There is no evidence to support the Coalition’s claim that the Pacific Solution stopped the boat arrivals to Australia in 2001."

Susan is trying to argue that black is white. While the effect on the number of boats arriving was not immediate, it had an undeniably strong long term effect.

The evidence of this is the immediate 30 x increase when the solution was revoked.

Recent polling showing that a majority of Australians wish to re instate the policy indicates that very few believe the Labor line that the revocation of the Pacific solution and the surge of boats is unrelated.

How many more drownings must occur before the people traffickers are put out of business.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 June 2010 1:32:47 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
so it's all about your humantiarianism.. you are so concerned about the lives being lost at sea, is that right Shadow Minister? LOL

you use words like undeniably but where's your evidence?
the 5.2 million returns to Afghanistan just don't register. You people want to get us into dodgy, dirty deals with other countries because of your prejudice and you want to spread misinformation becasue of your politics. Absolute crap as your right wing Abbott leader would say.
Posted by Kumbalia, Friday, 4 June 2010 1:50:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let us get one thing straight.

It is against the law to try to enter Australia without a valid visa. any person trying to do so is an unlawful entrant. i.e. acting illrgally! That is why we can place them in detention, as we cannot detain a person entering legally. Such persons remain as illegal entrants until we decide to give them asylum or deport them. What we have undertaken to do is that if a person applies for asylum then we will not charge them with being illegal.

It makes no difference where the detainees are processed. The main factor in deterring further boat arrivals was the fact that they could no longer get 'permanent residence'. So the withdrawal of permanent residence is the factor to concentrate on and the boats will stop comming.

Look objectively at the figures. From 2001 untill the present government restored the promise of permanent residence in 2008, there were only half a dozen boats.

So if there is no access to permanent residence and the boats stop coming, Christmas Island will be more than adequate and therefore no need for a Pacific solution.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 4 June 2010 2:33:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
banjo you just continue the unthruths. People seeking asylum who arrive with visas or people overstaying their visas can be detained and are at times detained. temporary visas encourage people to get on boats. if they were introduced now we would see a mass influx of women and children as we did last time. Most refugees didn't undersand what a temporary visa was until they came out of detention. why don't you people focus on the real problems, the conflicts and persecution people are fleeing from.
Posted by Kumbalia, Friday, 4 June 2010 2:48:25 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
Kumbalia,

Year / Number of Boats / Number of people

1998 17 200

1999 86 3721

2000 51 2939

2001 43 5516

2002 1 1

2003 1 53

2004 1 15

2005 4 11

2006 6 60

2007 5 148

2008 7 161

2009 59 2750

2010 (to 19 May 2010) 59 2982

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm

Is this proof enough? or do you need it explained in small words
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 June 2010 3:51:44 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
so what have you explained. duh the boats have increased. where is your evidence for the reasons. are you so completely ignorant to world events and all the other reasons for changes. Afghans are now the highest group seeking asylum in the world for the first time since 2001. sri lanka has just been through a huge escalation of their civil war. duh
Posted by Kumbalia, Friday, 4 June 2010 5:27:38 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
OH commmme OFF it Shadow Minister.. anyone can 'spin' figures...

how dare you suggest that something which has feathers.. webbed feet, a flat bill, goes "Quack" could actually be.. a duck!

Clearly you are just a liberal party hack.. and prejudiced and intolerant to boot. (and a racist :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 4 June 2010 6:35:51 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
SLOBERDOWN....

you (along with every other spindoctor of left wing causes) conveniently NEGLECTS to mention something very clearly stated in that convention which you love to trot out.

"(The) State shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory EXCEPT on grounds of national security or public order…" Article 32

PUBLIC....ORDER.....

-Tamils and Sinhalese fighting it out in Melbournes streets.
-Reffo's rioting in Christmas Island.
-Reffo's trying to use force/intimidation against our government.

Sorry mate.. people who do that are OUTside the confines of the convention, as they are not behaving in the interests of public order or national security.

So... let's summarize.

1/ Reffo comes here 'lawfully'
2/ Lawful Reffo riots.
3/ Lawful reffo is now UNlawful and is DEPORTED for public order offences.

Deported to the last non original country they came through.

Amazing how the FULL and BALANCED picture can change things eh?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 4 June 2010 6:43:14 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
Refugee numbers increased about 12% in 2008/2010 but about 2000% to Aus.

The spike in boats coincided exactly with the relaxation of the pacific solution, but has very little correlation with either the war in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan.

Perhaps instead of lame generalizations you could pinpoint the events that happened mid 2009 that lead to the sudden increase in boats?

Either put up or...
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 June 2010 6:48:41 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 State is not obliged to assist any person who:

* has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity;
* has committed a serious non-political crime, outside their country of refuge prior to his/her admission as a refugee;
* has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

-Piracy/Tampa.
-Riots in detention centres.
-Running battles on Melbournes streets.
-Taking control of ships in port.

CRIME AGAINST PEACE? errr.. Tamil Tigers and their supporters...would qualify in spades for that.

Don't bring back the Pacific Soluton Tony.. JUST USE THE UN CONVENTION mate and send them BACK... it's pretty clear.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 4 June 2010 7:13:11 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
you are just bored and lonely Shadow Minister and your excitement seems to come from word games. How is it that the announcement of an end to the Pacific Solution when rudd was elected in 2007 caused the boats to increase now. Oh I get it now! Rudd's election was so powerful that it caused the global financial crisis and the twister in Lennox Head and let's not forget the volcano spewing lava in Iceland. My god I've just worked out that the stimulus package must have caused the earthquake in Haiti and the apology to Indigenous people has caused more bombs to go off in iraq. Thanks for clearing that up. Rudd is a powerful man and he should realise the reach he has before its too late for all of us. Oh and Afghan applications around the world have increased by 45% in 2009 but australia's increase in applications is only 29% even though most arrivals are from Afghanistan where the Taliban has risen again, you might want to read some reports or try the news about OTHER countries... duh. You don't seem to know much about people movements, try another subject.
Posted by Kumbalia, Friday, 4 June 2010 7:27:33 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
Amicus and others:

If being a signatory of UN treaties is such a terrible thing for Australia, and so desperately unpopular with the electorate, why didn't John Howard withdraw Australia from all of them - particularly the Refugee Convention which was probably the most troublesome of all to him?

And if a moratorium on immigration is such a good thing for Australia, and popular with the electorate, why did Howard do exactly the opposite, boosting net immigration to more than 200,000 per year?

And if accepting refugees at all is such a bad thing for all of us, and the electorate hate them, why did John Howard maintain our intake at 13,000 plus per year, right up to 2007? Why didn't he just cut them out altogether?

Howard wasn't exactly the kind of guy to shy away from radical change, especially if he thought it was popular in the suburbs and could generate a vote or three. And he had plenty of time - 4 terms in government, 12 years in all, and a Senate majority for the last 3 years so he could have rammed through anything he wanted.

If he wasn't afraid of introducing extreme stuff like WorstChoices, the never-ever GST, Pacific Solution, excision of islands, balaclavas and rottweilers on the wharves, special anti-terrorist legislation featuring suspension of habeas corpus, and the almost total shutdown of Sydney for APEC 2007, why did he wimp out of a few relatively mild measures like shredding the UN treaties, scrapping immigration and ruling out any further refugee acceptance?

According to you, the punters would've loved him for it, so given his track record with populism, he shouldn't have been able to resist it.
Posted by Slobodon Meshirtfront, Friday, 4 June 2010 8:51:20 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
Kumbalia,
Your religion is clearly as an advocate for 'illegals' as distinct from genuine refugees. So no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You are the one lieing on this thread. Even when SM has placed the facts and figures before you, all you can say is duh, duh, and then try and laugh it away by being completely silly.

You are a pathetic little thing.

The only reason I would post something contrary to you is simply because someone with more sense may read it.

Slobodon,
Not just the previous government, but the present government are also advocates of high immigration. The reason for this is that both major parties are in the pockets of developers and big business who want high immigration, so the electorate is ignored.

I know of no one who is opposed to us accepting genuine refugees. What most are opposed to are the illegal entrants who gate crash and force themselves upon us. These are con merchants who take advantage of our easy going nature. The fact that they destroy their papers and lie to our officials is evidence of their sculldugery.

It is well known that they could fly here far cheaper than what they pay smugglers and, being a legal entrant, if genuine, could apply for asylum on arrival. It is obvious why they choose the illegal means of entry.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 4 June 2010 10:43:46 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
banjo
Kumbalia may be saying duh because people just keep repeating the same lines without any evidence of what it means. ie the boat arrivals have increased. It's not a revelation and it's not furthering intelligent debate. The comments on here dumb down the debate until someone can't help but register the lowly pathetic level of political lines being run.
If you say you have no problem with genuine refugees you will have no problem with most people on boats - more than 90% are found to have genuine claims for refugee status - and you will have no issue with people's claims being tested fairly.
The problem with the people with antagonism to people from other countries coming here who post on these forums is that they don't know the stories or the humans they are talking about. When was the last time any of you met a refugee who came by boat or plane? Have you ever. You can talk on all you like in abstraction but you have no experience of what you are talking about. It should be mandatory for people to spend time with refuees to gain some genuine understanding. I can undersand why Kumbala is reduced to duh. If I read any more of these comments from the stop the boats brigade I won't have a brain left
Posted by mellom, Friday, 4 June 2010 11:10:25 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
Just keep reading Mellom, I don't think anyone could harm your brain.

I am sick of people deciding they are going to gate crash my country.

I don't give a damn what their story is.

If they don't have papers, or are unable to prove who they are in some other way, I want them out of here, permanently.

I'm sick of seeing genuine Ozies getting stuff all from our taxes, then seeing these gate crashers living in $500,000 public housing, just because they can not be proven not to be refugees.

When we can finally house all of our own, it may be time to start wasting money on genuine refugees, chosen by us, not because they want to live on our welfare, but because they will fit in to our way of life.

Asian, subcontinent, middle eastern & African values are very different to ours, & we can no longer afford to keep diluting our culture with so many of the undesirables we have been bringing in in the name of charity.

Just how many have to be bashed by street gangs, of these people, before some of you twits wake up.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 5 June 2010 12:40:43 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
MELLOM

you seem to have a problem with vision. You seem to only see the very narrow focus of:

//The problem with the people with antagonism to people from other countries coming here who post on these forums is that they don't know the stories or the humans they are talking about.//

When the bigger picture is clearly "If we accepted everyone on the basis of their sad story.... we would have to accept half the world"

You do see that don't you ?

Would you limit 'sad story' people to only those who come here by boats?

It's never about 'stories'...it's about the things which the UN convention also considers.

A State is not obliged to assist any person who:

* has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity;
* has committed a serious non-political crime, outside their country of refuge prior to his/her admission as a refugee;
* has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

EXAMPLE. A tamil man comes here by boat.. he tells a horrific story "Oh..those government troops destroyed my home.. my family had to flee to the jungle just to survive.. I have a well founded fear of persecution for my political beliefs"

BUT..he turns out to be a Tamil Tiger or sympathizer or supporter.

You still accept his 'sad story' ?

What about....

* has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. ?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 5 June 2010 8:24:16 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
AG

you can't help yourself.

* We have only ever had around just over twenty thousand people coming here by boat in the past thirty years. Half the world is not applying to come here. our current applications for asylum from onshore or offshore represent 1.6 percent of the world's applications.
* We now take 13,750 refugee and humanitarian entrants, boat arrivals or not we will be taking the same amount this year. sponsored applicants will be less and yes advocates have concerns about that when we deal with people waiting to sponsor relatives (most will already be rejected and this is something that needs fixing).
* When a person arrives they are put through stringent id, security and health checks, biometric testing is now being introduced to check Id in addition to other tests. Interviews with applicants can be very long as can the process of verifying their story. If you worked in this area or dealt with refugees over a long period and listened to the very long horrible details and saw the post traumatic stress, anxiety, mental disorders caused by torture, the signs of what can only have been torture, you might have some understanding. The refugee convention is clear and the narrow requirements that more than 90% of recent applicants have met have been specific.

It is easy to condemn people anonymously from a comment board on the internet and to talk about sending people back to their death, it is nasty, it is cowardly. When people write articles about refugees these days they create a gathering point for muslim haters and bigots to spit venom from the shadows. John Howard and Ruddock were good at getting their messages through which are still being regurgitated as fact. If you look at this forum you can see only a few people who support refugees posting here, the subject is complex but the comments are simple boring politics without insight and the rest I have said.
Posted by mellom, Saturday, 5 June 2010 9:22:58 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
Thanks Susan Metcalfe, mellom, Kumbalia and Slobodon.

<< It is easy to condemn people anonymously from a comment board on the internet and to talk about sending people back to their death, it is nasty, it is cowardly. When people write articles about refugees these days they create a gathering point for muslim haters and bigots to spit venom from the shadows. >>

That is so true. I often argue against the haters and bigots at OLO about refugees, but I must confess that it gets quite depressing at times. I have only admiration for those like Susan Metcalfe and mellom who deal with the reality of refugees' lives daily.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 5 June 2010 9:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First of all I would like to thank Shadow for providing statistics and AlGoreisRich for providing the legal parameters.

Now for the bad part:

Kumbalia- seeing as the statistics correspond most precisely to the implementation and withdrawal of the Pacific Solution I would say it is valid. And did it ever occur to you that being a concern to many people in the countries where most refugees come from, maybe know of people who went, they might actually get news of it? You know, consulates, TV (yes, most of these countries have these things).

Slobodon- oh no! The fact that John Howard personally probably didn't actually care somehow weakens the case! Why? You seem to presume everyone against refugees in any way relies on Howard's integrity or must otherwise cede? I don't get it.

Mellom- speaking of repeating the same lines that lessen the debate (as opposed to quoting evidence), the "oh, if you only heard what these people go through your heart would be moved SO much you wouldn't be so stern" is probably the poorest one in the book. Believe it or not some people are basing their judgement on logic and not on emotions, and aren't remotely swayed by how bad it is as much as considerations of the implications of letting them in.

I think the debate is over if two pieces of evidence fall in and everyone else pretends they don't exist and still wants to make strawmen and spin. It makes me wonder about the average age of the posters here.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 5 June 2010 10:10:21 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
Cj don't let them get to you, they bark loudly but they are disturbed. they want to silence everyone with tough talk, learnt from their political role models. bullying with phrases eg put up or shut up and displaying what they think is toughness can temporarily reduce anxiety when people can't face themselves, its about them and their problems. People who end up in crime can talk that way, adolescents who see the world in angry black and white terms, the bitter, twisted, and personality disordered. these people are all over the comments pages on the internet spreading their anger. If they stopped for a minute they would have to look in the mirror. too scarey
Posted by mellom, Saturday, 5 June 2010 10:16:30 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
Kumbalia,

I thought so. Just bluff and bluster no substance.

Like all the other bleeding hearts that give support to the parasites that traffic in human beings you are simply giving in to sentimentality.

While I would love to wave a magic wand and welcome the starving millions, there are limited resources to do so. Do we allow our refugee policy be dictated by the richest of the refugees and those who profit from human misery, or do take the most in need.

The pacific solution is not nice, but it is the lesser of two evils.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 5 June 2010 11:49:30 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
Mellom,
I have two simple questions for you

a) As you would be aware, most Illegals fly to Malaysia then by smugglers to Indonesia and then to Aus. If a person was a genuine refugee, why would he pay a smuggler more than the air fare from Malaysia? Visas to enter Aus are not difficult to obtain and the air fare is about $1200.

b) Why would a genuine refuggee destroy any travel or identity documents on the last leg of his journey to Aus.

Be good if you can give logical answers.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 5 June 2010 12:38:13 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
Banjo, do you really not understand these things? If not then I think you shouldn't be shooting your mouth off here. Read some reports, senate documents, fact sheets, is all I can suggest, and then you might offer something logical and informed to a debate. Uniformed political opinion is a waste of everyone's time. Why not comment on subjects you understand?
If someone is stateless they don't have documents for a start. I assume you understand what stateless means? In many countries births, deaths etc are not registered in the same way as here, people don't have documents, they dont have passports if they have not left a village their whole life.
Or in fleeing a person often has to discard their id in case they are caught. eg it is very hard for Tamils to get out of Sri Lanka through the airports.
People smugglers take their documents if they have them. If they travel on false papers as many must, these are discarded before arrival as they have been told to do by smugglers and so as not to confuse their genuine identity. rarely are these genuine id documents.
DIAC can check the ID of most after arrival but a very small number of people who never had documents to begin with whose id can't be checked are always an issue for any government to deal with. This is related to people who come on planes with false documents, not boats in isolation, and these are often discarded on the last leg of a plane journey.
Getting a visa to australia is not easy for people known as likely to apply for asylum when they arrive. Relatives regularly cannot come to visit their families here because they are deemed likely to claim asylum. You would have to check with DIAC on specifics of ethnicities and nationalities.
Taking slogans and myths chanted by the opposition and stating them as fact, as if you understand what you are talking about, is deceptive and bad for our political debate. saying something false many times does not make it true.
Posted by mellom, Saturday, 5 June 2010 1:21:42 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
Mellom,
I know the correct answers to the questions. It is obvious that you will not answer accurately because the answers decimate your arguments in support of the illegals.

Firstly, these people have to have documents to fly to Malaysia. If they were genuine they would fly all the way to Aus and claim asylum on arrival. We issue many thousands of visas each year to people from most countries in the world. It is not difficult to get a tourist visa. These people are not stateless as they get docs to obtain flights to Malaysia. They then travel the more costly and dangerous route because they do not have to reveal their identity or any bona fides.

The reason they destroy their docs when enroute to Aus is to make it difficult for our officials to check on their story. Because we cannot adequately check their story or their bona fides we let them in. We really are a soft touch.

If you think otherwise, it is now up to you to present your evidence, which, of course, you cannot do.

When I see the facts change I will change my stance, but you and your ilk just imply this and that with no supporting evidence.

And you have the hide to accuse me of being political.

I believe the vast majority of illegals to be shonsters and con artists and I invite you to present evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 5 June 2010 3:36:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
banjo you should quit before you look really foolish. You can buy a passport in many countries, it is easy! You don't know that? That's how things happen in those countries. And for god's sake get informed. Most of the people travelling to Malaysia dont need a visa to enter. You have ignored all the facts presented to you. People seeking asylum by plane have a much lower acceptance rate than boats. Years and years of official documents are available for you to research and read on these topics but you are not wanting facts. Where do you get your information, from the tabloids? You do know that is not real information? Yours is not an authentic request for knowledge. What is really disturbing is the insularity of your knowledge in not understanding anything that happens outside australia.
Posted by Harimen, Saturday, 5 June 2010 4:10:05 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
Harimen,
Yes, you have it exactly right!

These people break laws and buy their way here and they tell lies to our officials. Then you think we should accept them as fine upstanding future citizens.

Yes, the reason they do not come here legally and apply for asylum is because there is every likelyhood they will not be accepted. The fit young men should stay in their country and help to fix the mess, instead of scurrying away to hide here.

Instead they lie and cheat and impose themselves on us. In short, they take us for a ride.

With thousands of genuine refugees in squalid camps, I cannot think of any reason we should accept gate crashers who have shown themselves to be shonky and deceitfull.

We need to stop the boats from coming and the first step is to withdraw the provision of premanent residence.

Thank you Harimen, you are the only one who supports the illegals that has the honesty to say that the illegals act dishonestly.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 5 June 2010 8:30:51 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
Banjo, I just feel sorry for you...

You really are twisted. Of course people have to engage with shady people smugglers and do what they say to save their own lives. If you want to let your children die thats very sad but others have obligations to save the lives of their families and they will do what it takes to save their lives and they want to live. I would be proud to be an illegal if that's the nasty name you want to label on men women and children who have been through hell to get here. I think the lying on forums like this is much worse than anything people have to do to save their lives, on here it's just nasty politics and I would rather have those people as Australians instead.
Even your leader Tony Abbott admits he lies! You don't think holocost survivors lied to save their lives? Don't you know that any refugee, the ones in the camps, detention centres, living on the streets in Indonesia, they all have to lie to escape and survive. When they arrive in Australia they can finally tell their story and not hide from fear. We have a process to weed out peple who are not refugees.
The naivity you have is breathtaking. I don't think you and your mates on this forum have any idea about life threatening conflict and persecution. Maybe some time spent under the Taliban might help? Karma might help you out there. You must have had it too soft. But maybe you would side with the Taliban and not the victims? That's who you are supporting now. Or more probable is that you would be so terrified you would be pushing others out of the way to get on a boat, and I don't think truth would be on your mind.
Posted by Harimen, Sunday, 6 June 2010 8:56:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be unfortunate if engaging with people smugglers and risking life on unseaworthy vessels is the only way to escape persecution. If this is so, then it is imperative that protective enclaves are set up at the source. This would allow all asylum seekers, not just the wealthier asylum seekers, to seek refuge far more easily and with far less risk to their lives. It would also allow far more reliable assessments to be made, and might also do more to prevent the misuse of political asylum, such as might be used by people escaping criminal prosecution. And by being under UN control, there would also be more international pressure on countries to stop the persecution of their citizens.

And, of course, the parasitic people smugglers would miss out, so there are advantages all around with this option.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:37:50 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
fester it is unfortunate that people smugglers are one of very few options available to people seeking asylum. But where should these protective enclaves be? We keep expecting other countries to shoulder the burden of refugees. Most will never be resettled. If you could get out I am sure you would. Obviously a boat trip is a life risk but for people without choices it is the best of the worst. Why do we expect people to sit in a camp in danger while we argue about super profits on mining taxes?

It wouldn't lead to more reliable processing and the problem is not processing it is resettlement places, there are nowhere near enough. Many in Indonesia now have been processed by UNHCR, it is no more reliable that our more elaborate processing systems. This research gives some insight into why staying in Indonesia is not a good option http://allafrica.com/stories/201006040762.html
I have to take issue with the idea that asylum seekers on boats are wealthy... Deals with sumgglers to work off the money on arrival are common now, or part payment now and rest later, and all the other complex scenarios. every case is different. we only have a little number of refugees coming here, people need to look outside and look at solving some of the problems that cause people to come.
Posted by mellom, Sunday, 6 June 2010 9:59:50 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
and on the subject of lying and criminals. Memories are short. White australia is founded on a convict colony. Lots of anglo Australians now enjoy boasting about their convict ancestry. and we simply took up residence here on the basis that is was uninhabited, so our whole exisitence here is based on a lies. Natural I suppose to fear others acting like us.
Posted by mellom, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:46:36 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
mellom

Where should the enclaves be? Nearer the source, and I would suggest that this does lead to more reliable processing. Citing processing in Indonesia emphasises my point, as Indonesia is not the source of asylum seekers. I suggest that processing asylum seekers nearer the source is also a more efficient use of scant funds.

No-one is denying that most asylum seekers will not be resettled, but why should someone who has engaged the services of people smugglers be more deserving of resettlement than other asylum seekers? This valid perception is a major driver of the people smuggling business. The problem of resettlement is an international problem, not just an Australian problem. If people had no reason to believe that their safety and chance of resettlement were the same if they were processed locally, why would they want to engage the services of people smugglers?

"I have to take issue with the idea that asylum seekers on boats are wealthy... "

If I had no money in Melbourne and faced some sort of persecution there, what do you think might be easier for me: Seeking asylum in Melbourne or seeking asylum in Cairns? And if I weren't fit for earning an income as an illegal worker (e.g. building, hospitality, prostitution), do you think that a smuggler would be as willing to accept an iou?

My view is that the involvement of criminals in the trafficking of people has nothing to justify its support with poor policy choices.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 6 June 2010 10:48:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
but Fester we are not operating in a world where refugees are safe in those camps in neighbouring countries. By all means advocate for better resources to be given to the UN but at the moment its not happening and they do not process people more thoroughly than a receiving country. UN is just a replacement when countries aren't signed to the convention like Indonesia who wont do it themselves. The world doesn't really care about refugees and it becomes every man for himself.
The article about Indonesia gives a few examples of people there, about 15% are in nasty detention centres.
If you faced persectution in Melbourne you would keep going until you found safety and a future. If there was a camp in NSW that you would probably spend the rest of your life in and you would be in danger, have to pay bribes to survive, your family may be raped, wouldn't you try to get them to Cairns?
Noone on the refugee support side supports people smugglers or encourages boats but punishing people is not ok. So treating people with decency and trying to stamp out smuggling in the region is the only option, and trying to solve problems in source countries. When the world starts giving a damn people will not have to live like this. I hope you have met some of the people who come on boats and really understand just some of the predicaments they have faced.
Posted by mellom, Sunday, 6 June 2010 11:21:01 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
harimen,
you presume a lot, most of which is incorrect.

Just a couple of things. Abbott is not my leader. I do not have any affiliation with any political party, nor do I support either of the major parties or the Greens. I am independant.

I do not have mates here on OLO. I put my views on various matters as I see them. Sometimes others agree with me and sometimes not, and vicky versa.

For years those supportive of the illegals have tried to paint a picture of these people being poor, persecuted and destitute. My research leads me to believe this is not the case. They are nothing more than economic opportunists, with money, who are willing to break laws, lie, cheat and buy their way to Aus. If they were truely were persecuted they would stop at the first safe haven or go to another closer country that has signed the Refugee convention.

These are the corrupt, cheating and lieing people you say we should let into our country. Not me. There are thousands of others who do not sell their soul to get economic advantage, that we can allow here.

It may well be the culture in some countries to be corrupt, but that does not mean we have to follow suit. We have bodies here, such as ICAC, to weed out and prevent bribery and corruption and most people with morals do support that. As we have seen with Tampa and Siev X some illegals are even willing to put their wives and children at extreme risk to obtain their selfish goals. I understand that there is another boat 'missing' at present. This is due to our encouragement. And you support these hazardous voyages.

By supporting the corrupt you are showing yourself to have very low moral standards. Before you presume more, I am not religous either.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 6 June 2010 11:58:25 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
"and on the subject of lying and criminals. Memories are short. White australia is founded on a convict colony---....etc etc..---Natural I suppose to fear others acting like us."

So let's get this straight Mellom; because of the fact that over 150 years ago, some of the colonies of Australia were made into PRISON colonies, PARTLY filled with convicts to which SOME Anglo-Celtic Australians are actually descended from (ignoring those who came from the rest of Europe, not to mention Asia), all the people of this country have permanently relinquished the right to put their own safety above any hypothetical criminals and turn them away from our country as penance?

I just love the petty superficialities that enter debates being seriously expected to weigh against or trump practical consideration or concerns of personal wellbeing.

But if you're willing to live under such a system to feel redeemed because your great,great,great,great,great grandpa mugged some guy in London during the 1800s, by all means knock yourself out- but kindly spare the rest of us your shallow childish rants.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 6 June 2010 1:26:28 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
" I hope you have met some of the people who come on boats and really understand just some of the predicaments they have faced."

Well said, mellom, but are the millions of asylum seekers that you dont see in a better predicament or less deserving of asylum? Unlike convicts sent here in past times, an escape is being sought, not a penance served. But should that escape be made easier by engaging the services of criminals whose motive for assisting the asylum seekers is the profit to be made from them?

I put people traffickers on the same rung as drug dealers, taking advantage of vulnerable human beings, but able to conduct their criminal activity only because of misguided policy.

Having enclaves for asylum seekers near their source to me seems the best option. As an example of why I think it the best option, I would ask you to consider a scenario where a sudden sea level rise displaces several million people in Bangladesh. Having a body like the UN with the capability to rapidly establish processing facilities would seem advantageous.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 6 June 2010 6:26:29 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
Fester, it's just that people keep mixing up seeking asylum and criminals, and yes there is a big difference!
you ask "should that escape be made easier by engaging the services of criminals whose motive for assisting the asylum seekers is the profit to be made from them?" This is where the answer is not black and white. We can't blame people for doing whatever they can to escape but no we don't want to encourage people smuggling activity. It is not the simple issue the tabloid hysteria would like it to be. But punishing the victims can't be an answer.
No the millions of refugees that don't come here are not less deserving, but neither are the ones that come here less deserving. Trying to pit these two groups against each other has caused much damage. But in a strange way there is some good to come out of the nasty debate about the people we do see. At least people who would never talk about refugees or notice them are engaging and for the first time many people are understanding that there are millions of refugees in the world who will never find a home. Trying to get anyone interested in the subject when there are no boats arriving is impossible. When faced with the boats many react with vitriol and prejudice but there are others who really engage with helping refugees.
Enclaves are a good short term solution but thousands of Burmese refugees have been displaced in Bangladesh for many years, they live in appalling conditions, some are in a camp, lots of others are not. This has been going on for many years without resolve. People need permanent solutions. Just look at the camps on the Thai Burma border, people have been there for years. They are horrible places. We have to really start caring about what happens to people. The focus on boats coming here is a bit of an embarrassment when compared to what other countries deal with
Posted by mellom, Sunday, 6 June 2010 11:29:46 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
for a great analysis on the ignorance on asylum seeker arrivals based on new polling see http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/06/07/essential_report_as_ignorance/ - says it all really
Posted by mellom, Monday, 7 June 2010 3:42:19 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
*but thousands of Burmese refugees have been displaced in Bangladesh for many years, they live in appalling conditions, some are in a camp, lots of others are not.*

Exactly! Now the fact remains that Australia cannot solve the
world's problems and cannot take them all, so we take 13'000
a year.

There is no good reason why we should first take cashed up
Sri Lankan males and similar, who mananged to push their way in
and ignore the people mentioned.

Next we are throwing a billion $ a year at this, which is hardly
taxpayers money well spent.

The 1951 Convention is well out of date. Its time that we took
all refugees from refugee camps, so that deserving women and
children, even if they don't have 2c, have a chance, and not just
relatively rich young males, as now is the case.

But of course our bleeding hearts cannot think past their tv
screens, for any kind of rational discussion about this. They
remain emotionally overwhelmed, unable to reason.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 7 June 2010 9:15:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby you are a good example of the ignorance factor in the link posted by Mellom. About half our intake is from UNHCR referred cases, the other more than half have to be sponsored by an australian and pay their own airfare They probably have to come up with or borrow about the same amount as those coming by boat. Refugee advocates are the ones YOU seem to have the emotional problem with, but they are actually mostly the ones with the facts and the most able to reason. People who hate refugees are in a childish battle to get their own way and using emotive statements that have nothign to do with people arriving. It wouldn't matter how many times real experiences and fact are presented to you and other people, you can only hear the sound of your own cemented views. The Sri Lanka males are connected to sri lanka women and children they support, their lives are lived to support their families, and protect their families. There are also women and children on the boats, do you hate them as well?
Posted by Kumbalia, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 8:55:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you can see the mentality in people who keep on with the word illegal as their new swear word. We are all illegal. If you've been fined for speeding you are an illegal, or not locking your car. I'm sure everyone posting on here is not so pure. ASIO forge passports, Julie Bishop told us so, they are the biggest illegals of all.
Posted by Kumbalia, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 9:03:02 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
*About half our intake is from UNHCR referred cases,*

Exactly. And if it were not for rich Sri Lankans etc pushing their
way in here, all 13'000 could come from UNHCR refugee camps,
where many people don't have two cents. They are the really
destitute and the forgotten. But they are not shoved under
peoples noses like the present boat people, they don't have the
money like the present boat people, so they miss out. That has
stuff all to do with fairness.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 9:40:35 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
no Yabby, the Sri Lankans on the boats are not taking the places of the people referred by UNHCR. They are sharing the sponsored places which may instead include relatives of Sri Lankans already here. They are probable to have the same level of need. But it is a debateable point and the programs should be separated. The bringing together of the programs of on and offshore was a Howard wedge. The only reason we are having boat arrivals shoved in our faces is because the Oppoisition is trying to win an election. I don't think people coming from camps would see you and other refugee angered people as their greatest advocates. You are denigrating refugees.
Posted by Kumbalia, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 9:54:02 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
and, there is never a good reason to punish anyone who has fled from persecution. Even if they do have money, this is not a crime.
Posted by Kumbalia, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 9:57:16 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
*no Yabby, the Sri Lankans on the boats are not taking the places of the people referred by UNHCR.*

Yes they are. We take 13'000 a year, if less arrive on boats, we
take more from camps. So these rich kids are stealing the places
of far more deserving people.

*Even if they do have money, this is not a crime.*

Oh no, its not a crime. But of course the word is out now in Sri
Lanka, tell a good sob story about being persecuted and Australia
is your oyster. No wonder that those with money are flooding in.

Silly me always thought that helping refugees was a humanitarian
programme to help the most deserving. Clearly that is not the
case, but more like we spend a billion $ a year to satisfy the
emotional needs of some very gullible Australians.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 8:19:54 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 UNHCR last year-

Geneva, Monday, Dec. 7th, 2009 - As many as 50 per cent of the
world’s 10.5 million refugees under UNHCR’s mandate are now
living in cities and towns across the globe. At least twice that number of internally displaced people and returnees are believed to be in urban settings.

“We need to abandon the outmoded image that most refugees live in
sprawling camps of UNHCR tents,” UNHCR High Commissioner for Refugees
António Guterres said. “What we are witnessing is that more and more
refugees live in cities.”
Posted by mellom, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 8:27:29 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
“ As many as 50 per cent of the world’s 10.5 million refugees under UNHCR’s mandate are now living in cities and towns across the globe…”

Spot on Mellon ( sorry MelloM)– and it doesn’t stop there.

I ‘d add, at least 50% or ALL city dwellers in Southern Asia would qualify as bona fide refugees under the Mellom
“We can't blame people for doing whatever they can to escape …they live in appalling conditions” formula .
Posted by Horus, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 10:03:51 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
Horus, I am happy to be a mellon but it's really not worth trying with people who cannot grasp what it is to be a refugee. Being a city dweller or a camp dweller does not give you refugee status. Can't you even try to imagine being outside your country in another country where you cannot live legally, can't work, must pay bribes not to be deported, live on the streets maybe, in fear of being sent back to where you will be killed? and everything else that goes with that. A refugee has a genuine fear of persecution, we don't take people because they are poor, they are the ones you deride as economic migrants just wanting a better life (what a terible crime..). Stereotypes are good only for reinforcing your own prejudice, they have nothing to do with reality.
Posted by mellom, Thursday, 10 June 2010 9:39:57 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
and Horus why aren't 50% of all the city people in Sthrn Asia building boats and coming down if their lives are on the same level as refugees living amongst them without any rights?
Posted by mellom, Thursday, 10 June 2010 9:47:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I recall, "mellon" means friend in Elvish ;)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 10 June 2010 9:51:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mellon is a person's name that means pleasant in some countries. Nice to see the bigots are out in force as usual on the online forum.
Posted by echidna, Thursday, 10 June 2010 10:23:01 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, Mellom, I’m sure I can’t cure your rescuer syndrome. But I ‘ll try to fine tune it a bit for you.Whoever’s been telling you that we don’t take economic climbers disguised as refugees is tell you porkies.

Don’t take my word for it …check it for yourself .

You might recall a little incident involving a vessel called the Oceanic Viking. Remember, it rescued some supposed castaways who turned out to have staged the whole event.

But worse, after being taken on board, they refused to disembark.
They wanted instead to bargain/blackmail: “telling the Australian Government it could end the impasse if it took them to New Zealand, Canada, France or Scandinavia”

Take a long look at that shopping list – it’s not the stuff of desperation . It's the work of some really shrewd shoppers.
Not a single no-frills nations there – all of them affluent, welfare states!

And yes, they got what they demanded !

Then, we have old echidna over there: “Nice to see the bigots are out in force as usual on the online forum”
There’s nothing prejudice about him, ay! He’s just full of loving kindness!
Posted by Horus, Thursday, 10 June 2010 9:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*they are the ones you deride as economic migrants just wanting a better life (what a terible crime..).*

Nobody claims that its a crime, Mellom, just that there are more
deserving genuine refugees out there, who simply cannot afford
the trip to Australia. A genuine humanitarian programme IMHO,
should be helping those, not those clamouring for a 1st world
lifestyle, who can achieve it due to their money, crime or no crime.

Millions of Hazaras and Tamils live in their countries, that is
the reality. Yes, third world life is rougher then first world
life. Nobody disputes that.

What is in dispute is this. If we are going to take 13'000 a year,
we should be taking the most deserving, not those who have the
financial backup to push their way through the door. Its not
about crime, it's a basic ethical argument, which may well be
beyond you.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 10 June 2010 9:47:46 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
Horus that is the stuff of desperate people! If they weren't desperate they wouldn't be so frightened of being returned. They didn't tell the government they wanted to go to those countries, those were the countries who offered to help to get the government out of a sticky political scenario. You can spin in circles but those people were found to be refugees with a genuine fear of persecution, they were in desperate need and now they are safe.
Posted by mellom, Friday, 11 June 2010 9:08:34 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
yabby, yabby, yabby, the money argument just does not wash. If you met some of these people you would see how poor they are and come from villages. a lot have deals to repay the money. but poverty should not determine whether soemone is a refugee or not.
Not all Tamils and Hazaras are refugees and they are not all trying to find refuge. We have a process and anyone without a refugee claim is sent back.
Seeking asylum is chaotic, we are so protected here in Australia from what goes on in people's lives. They are not all standing in an orderly queue waiting to be selected. The places that people on boats are taking are from sponsored applicants, so they are not necessarily of the profile you are talking about. They are usually relatives of someone already here. Only 6,000 (I think that's still the number) are UNHCR referred places and that has remained the same.
The current selection processes are not fair anyway. You have some sort of ideal world vision but it's not the reality.
and to fire guns at boats with women and children and force them back or bring back the horrible camps in other countries where people were damaged so badly is a disgusting way to deal with what you see as such a big problem. why don't we take less migrants, bring it down from the present couple of hundred thousand and take more from the camps that you are so worried about. Fifty thousand less migrants and fifty thousand more refugees from the camps. Mellom or Mellon
Posted by mellom, Friday, 11 June 2010 9:22:47 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
i take that back... they are tame here compared to the Redneck article from yesterday where they are in their element..
Posted by echidna, Friday, 11 June 2010 12:10:47 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
*yabby, yabby, yabby, the money argument just does not wash. If you met some of these people you would see how poor they are and come from villages*

Mellom, of course it washes. Your problem is that you see the
world from your perspective, wear your heart on your sleeve and
want to help "the poor dears".

Life in the third world is rough, I know that, I have been there.
But the fact is, Australia cannot take them all. The solution is
to change and improve things in these countries, so everyone
benefits.

If you and others think that we should take 50'000 a year, you are
free to convince some political party to make it an election issue.
Its then up to the people to decide. If the majority of Australians
don't agree that is their choice and you have to wear it.

What it comes down to is this. The present boat fiasco is neither
fair, nor is it a cost effective way of doing things.

The 1951 Convention is 60 years out of date and should be upated,
so that it is not misused by economic migrants to tell a few spin
stories of fear of persecution and steal the places of genuine
refugees. Its not just a problem here, but Europe too. Those
people streaming from Africa at least are honest and open about
it. They want the Western cushy lifestyle and will risk their
lives to get it. In Mexico its the same
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 11 June 2010 2:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby we are obliged not to refoule people, we can't send people back to their death. You can advocate for that and people who are ignorant of exactly what they are supporting may agree. But decent societies don't punish people. YOu can call me a bleeding heart or weak or caring or whatever you want but if someone is assessed to be a refugee they deserve protection. We are only talking about just over twenty thousand people in thirty years coming on boats. The hatred that is ignited is just bizarre for such a small number. That's all I have to say, needless to say I will continue to give support to people who have been tortured and been through multiple traumas, from boats or land masses, and you and others are free to fight to make their lives harder. Adios
Posted by mellom, Friday, 11 June 2010 5:26:18 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
and just for persepective. 500,000 thousand people are trying to get over the border from Mexico each year. We are discussing a few thousand at our borders with very different circumstances.
Posted by mellom, Friday, 11 June 2010 5:30:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*We are only talking about just over twenty thousand people in thirty years coming on boats*

Perhaps you should have mentioned how many, in the last 18 months.

For of course the easier it is, the more will come. That is
exactly why so many try in Mexico and Africa, people prepared to
die for the cushy lifestyle.

You have no way, under the present system, of accurately verifying
as to who is genuine and who is not. Yet we know that people
in refugee camps are genuine, or they would not be there.

Your first past the post boat race, for those who can afford it,
is a hopeless way of deciding and extremely unfair to those more
deserving. Its also hugely expensive to Australian taxpayers and
its time it ended and was shut down.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 11 June 2010 8:01:23 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) “Horus…They didn't tell the government they wanted to go to those countries, those were the countries who offered to help to get the government out of a sticky political scenario”.

Mellom, the LIST was part of the occupiers WE WILL NOT BE MOVED pitch –it was their blackmail note.
As in, we will only leave the ship on condition we get entry to one of these affluent welfare states --- that’s why they bypassed their cultural and linguistic cousins in Tamil Nadu –it wasn’t rich enough for their tastes.

They didn’t need to compile a LIST to tell the Aust govt what countries might accept them (LOL)
The Aust govt knew that better than them -- Kevin Rudd & co had been running around like headless chickens for weeks, calling in favours, begging those countries to bail him out !
And the “offers” that came, came long after the LIST & demands we lodged.

You certainly have a different way of seeing things—or not seeing things.
You’re not one of those who believes there was no refusal to leave the ship ,are you?

2) “and just for perspective. 500,000 thousand people are trying to get over the border from Mexico each year. We are discussing a few thousand at our borders with very different circumstances”

Another interesting point, Mellom-- 500,000 people trying to cross to the USA form Mexico –just as a matter of interest -- are they also ALL refugees –what do you say?
Posted by Horus, Friday, 11 June 2010 9:04:35 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 don't even think Horus or Yabby that you even read or understand what I write. So it's just a waste of time.
Posted by mellom, Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:02:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the strangest thing about this thread is all the ranting against criminal illegal refugees while supporting a return to currupt deals with bankrupt countries. in this article it points to australian taxpayers money disappearing in grubby deals with unscupulous regimes. but posters here apparently support corruption - you would take australia into ruin! such hypocrites.
Posted by Grubble, Saturday, 12 June 2010 12:38:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The concern is that a refugee can greatly increase his chances of becoming an Australian citizen by engaging the services of criminals. That isn't just wrong, it is abhorrent, and it is also very likely that the criminals are selecting refugees by the ability to pay, not by the humanitarian need.

The situation of refugees is a tragedy, but what is the best way to manage it? A very large sum of money is spent processing the boat arrivals here: Could these funds have been better spent helping refugees in other ways?

Yabby has taken a good deal of time and attention to explain his position. Perhaps his best point is how Australia deals with the international refugee crisis is a democratic choice. For example, I have concerns that Australia's immigration rate is far too high, but immigration policy will only change if enough people are concerned enough to vote for change. Until that happens the most I can do is argue for change.

So, for Australia's refugee policy, the task of advocates is to provide an alternative and convince people to vote for it. But I cannot see you having much luck arguing for an extremely inefficient system that supports organised criminals and selects refugees with the greatest ability to pay them.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 13 June 2010 12:10:38 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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