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 > Border protection > Comments

Border protection : Comments

By Katy Barnett, published 25/6/2010

If you’re an asylum seeker who can get a toe on Australian soil it is much easier to apply and be accepted for a protection visa.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Nice side-step CJ –but not good enough!

Let me remind you of what you said, once again:
“ Leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable”

“IT’’LL BE MESSY BUT IT’S INEVITABLE”

So you are clearly not concerned about any of the human rights abuses that are likely to follow such “Leav(ing) ….[it to ] the Afghans to sort themselves out”

You appear to be interested in abuses only when they reach our shore in the form of asylum claimants.

In other words, you merely latch onto abuses as something to make your “pro-refugee “ case more appealing.

No compassion , No consistency –No credibility !
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 27 June 2010 10:31:16 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
Horus, perhaps you could show how human rights abuses in Afghanistan have decreased due to Australia's military involvement there?

My position is that Afghanistan's problems don't have a military solution. That is the position I've held since Howard committed our military to the ill-advised 'Coalition of the Willing', and it hasn't changed. As time passes the evidence seems to suggest strongly that I was right.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word 'consistency' either.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 27 June 2010 11:04:26 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 agree with CJ that Australian troops should not be in Afghanistan. Arguing for a military presence there is like arguing for migration on the basis that Australians are inept and incapable of advancing the nation on their own. And the argument would be less convincing if the migrants were heavily armed and conducted military sorties against Australian citizens.

A program offering education and assistance with development might be better received and more successful. It would at least be more compassionate.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 27 June 2010 11:07:00 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 & Fester,

The issue is not whether we should or should not be involved in Afghanistan.

The issue is whether it is consistent to argue:
a) That we should cut and run from Afghanistan, and bugger the consequences, while maintaining that
b) When we get boat people claiming sanctuary from such consequences –we are lacking compassion –if we don’t seek to alleviate their plight.

Whether Afghanistan is better or worse than it was before we entered, is a side issue.
Whether or not there are other ways we could have done things better , another side issue.

And, as for the argument that there are no military solutions (another side issue)---can’t agree.
Afghanistan was once a Buddhist kingdom –how was that overturned -- Islam imposed one of its MILITARY solutions!
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 27 June 2010 5:12:33 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
It was scandalous of the Rudd Labor Government to reintroduce a form of racial discrimination into immigration policy by freezing applications for refugee status from Afghans (and Sri Lankans). If Howard or Abbott had done such a thing, there would have been demonstrations across the nation.

I always find it interesting how neither the (pseudo) left nor the overt Right want to even discuss the prospect of 'open borders'. The libertarian Right is an exception, if Chris Berg is any example.
Posted by byork, Sunday, 27 June 2010 5:29:42 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
CJ Morgan,

Oh dear?

What is the problem? I see no reason why the money for each cannot benefit the other... Each and every illegal immigrant can wait in a remote (either Northern or Central Australian) Aboriginal Community.

I have every hope in the World that it would raise the state of living of the Aboriginal Communities so involved (what the refugees think of it isn't my problem, they chose to ask for something, they should be careful what they ask for?)... It is STILL Australia, just not the bit they wanted to be in.

That said, I'm sure the advocates for the Refugees will ensure the media, including the world media, see the conditions in which they are being asked to exist in, the issues they face, the incredible mortality rates, etc.

Quite frankly, I think it is one of my very few good ideas... It would certainly ensure some interesting Kangaroo based meals (Is roo halal?):D It would also help sort out the wheat from the chaff, anyone who found the Aboriginal Community an improvement on where they came from, certainly deserves Refugee Status.
Posted by Custard, Sunday, 27 June 2010 8:17:17 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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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