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 > Move all asylum-seeker processing onshore > Comments

Move all asylum-seeker processing onshore : Comments

By Beth Doherty, published 15/11/2010

People who review what can be life or death matters must consider the basic rules of Australian law

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Well if our population is the problem (and for our major cities it most definitely is) then surely we should prioritize people that would contribute to our country instead of detract, and prioritize the immigrants that would integrate and have a positive culture, regardless if they are refugees or regular immigrants or not?

If its that serious a problem, we cannot afford to make a concession for refugees- especially not at the expense of people expecting to contribute to Australia;
Then we should be prioritizing immigrants Australia would welcome and need, even at the expense of refugees (except for those that would still fit into the latter category- in which case it would be fair to raise their priority well above).
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 3:07:55 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
King Hazza

What you propose is a false dichotomy. We should screen economic migrants to ensure we get the people who will contribute most to our society, AND accept humanitarian migrants on the basis of need an immediacy. And we should trat both with fairness and decency.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 3:30:03 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 not a false dichotomy- regardless of circumstance, the physical presence felt by any new arrival in terms of resources and space will be very much the same for us, and no amount of difference of background circumstances will state otherwise- and refugees should not be exempt from a single consideration that others are held to; if a refugee would fail entry requirements a normal immigrant would be held to, that person should be sent back and their place given to someone more deserving.

Also, if we DO make a concession, it must ONLY be for those coming immediately from regions who would make a good case to immediately come to Australia and that any neighbours are either too hostile or very much incapable of housing them (Sri Lankan Tamils make a good case- except members of the Tigers). Those from countries with plenty of alternative havens (especially the Middle East, unless they are Sufi Muslim, secularists, Christians, Zorastarians or Jews) cannot make such a claim that their need to come all the way to Australia is still higher than the normal immigrants anymore.

It boils down to prioritizing one group at the expense of putting the other in limbo; and to me, the prospective students, accountants and doctors from modern and civilized East Asia are a much better contribution to our country than a tribalist Wahabi whose tribe is losing against a bigger wahabi tribe in his home country, and the neighbouring countries in the Middle East which he COULD have taken refuge in just aren't lucrative enough.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 16 November 2010 4:47:19 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
ALL assylum seekers and country shoppers should be processed OFF shore.

End of story.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 7:15:58 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
Briar Rose, to answer your questions of 15 November:

<< … how would you suggest the Australian government prevent some groups being slaughtered by other hostile groups, in their homelands? >>

There is only so much that Australia can do about conflicts in far-away places. We’ve just got to do our bit, through the UN or with other allied efforts, or provide unilateral assistance to some of our close neighbours. But we can’t have an input into all of the world’s conflicts. We’ve been doing our bit. As you say, we’ve been “giving it a whirl” in Afghanistan and Iraq … for better or for worse.

<< Are you imagining a situation in which we revive conscription in this country so we have enough soldiers to protect people in their home countries so they don't have to become refugees in the first place? >>

Absolutely not. I’d just like to see our international aid effort increased to the UN recommended level. Foreign Minister Rudd says that the government has increased and is further increasing our international aid effort and that he is working hard on making sure that it is properly targeted. I’m pleased to hear it … but I won’t believe it until reputable authorities confirm it.

Rudd has launched a massive review of our foreign aid program: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/rudd-orders-review-of-foreign-aid-program/1999461.aspx

Australia can and is taking step towards increasing its international aid effort very considerably above the current level. But of course we can’t hope to stop refugeeism or ‘asylum-seekerism’ any time soon.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 11:54:57 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
<< And what do you suggest we might do about the refugees from countries from which even the UN has to withdraw? >>

We should take our fair share of refugees, which I’d suggest should be in the order of 20 000 or perhaps double the current intake to about 26 000 per annum, within our formal refugee program.

This increase, above the current 13 700 would be a whole lot more than the number of onshore arrivals accepted as refugees.

If there is an urgent need to accept refugees from a trouble-spot that even the UN can’t work in, then fine, within our formal immigration program. But only up to a reasonable number that is not above or excessively above the annual intake, and only for as long as other countries take their fair share and Australia is not the sole host country.

<< International aid and asylum seekers are two completely different issues, and it makes no sense to conflate them. >>

I’ve got to disagree. I see them as intimately related.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 11:56:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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