The only morally bankrupt people in this whole sorry saga are the people smugglers and their "agents", who seek to turn a profit from this tide of human misery!

The facts are, our inherent national character is about a fair go, rather than a soft touch!

After all, we have a generous refugee policy but reserved for those whose Properly documented legitimacy cannot be questioned; given they are already eking out an existence inside bona fide refugee camps!

Given these "other folks" fly to the transit countries,if they were genuine asylum seekers, they would likely find it less costly and infinitely safer to fly on to here on a tourist visa obtained or arranged by the same travel agent that got them as far as the transit country! And having landed apply for asylum!

Replete, with the personally identifying paperwork or impeccable forgeries, that enabled them to fly to a foreign destination in the first place, still in hand!

The fact they can afford all that, then the exorbitant boat fees strongly suggests economic migration as uninvited and unwanted guests, rather than the alleged asylum seekers!

What prevents genuine Asylum seekers from flying a little further! And then apply for asylum once landed!

There's a whole lot of emotive BS written about this topic! And this seems more of the same!?
Rhrosty.

"And if that’s true of corporations, then what of nations?

Indeed.

Justine the situation with nations (translation: states) is always worse, for two reasons:
1. a state is built on its claimed monopoly of coercion. No-one is forced into buying Coca-Cola. But try not paying tax and see what happens. States get all their revenue based on their coercive powers, otherwise tax would be voluntary, wouldn't it?
2. states also exempt their directors - politicians in their official capacity - from the laws against misleading and deceptive conduct. The directors of corporations are liable to prison for their deceptive misrepresentations, but politicians can and routinely do make false misrepresentations involving billions of dollars, on which people rely in voting for them. But no prison for them.

On the other hand both coercions and fraud are illegal for companies.

Therefore even the best state is always categorically morally worse than the worst company. A state is literally a legal monopoly of force and fraud. This eliminates any claim to Christian anything based on the actions of a state, Justine. You have made a fundamentally confused and categorical error in your thinking about the issues.

It's easy to preach from the housetops about how caring you are. But Justine, it’s not the thought that counts, unfortunately. It’s the costs.

The question is, are you willing to pay the costs of the values you protest? Or are you merely using the collective “we” as a convenient hide to cover up the fact that you are trying to use the state to force others to pay for your pretended values? That is the question.

Fortunately, we have solved that issue on OLO. Below is a deed and declaration that enables you to prove that you are not a fraud and a liar in what you say in this article. Simply print it out in Word, sign it, and post the original in PDF back into this thread.

Anyone who agrees with you can do likewise.

“DEED AND DECLARATION OF TRUST

I, the undersigned, hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I hold the whole of my property, both real and personal, ON TRUST to pay for all the costs of dealing with asylum-seekers to Australia with the compassion, and to the standards, I proclaim as good and morally necessary.

This includes all costs of:
• Ensuring their safety at sea and safely landing in Australian territory
• Health and identity checks
• Accommodation, food, health, mental health, sport, recreation, training during processing
• The costs of determination of refugee status, including all reviews administrative and judicial
• The costs of administration, including all premises, equipment, travel, accommodation, staff, salaries, tax, superannuation, workers compensation, holiday leave, flex leave, long service leave, maternity leave, study leave
• The costs of resettlement including income support, housing, and training
• Full indemnity for any crimes, including full costs of legal, court, admininstrative costs, and impact on victims..."

I declare that current asylum-seeker policy is hard-hearted, I oppose the callous treatment of the dispossessed, and I am determined to live with myself in good conscience, and therefore I publicly undertake to cultivate the kind of character that I exhort everyone else to live up to.

On that basis, I make this solemn declaration as legally binding with the intention that any person in Australia should have and does hereby have a legal action against me in law and equity for judgment as to the whole of my property in repayment of any and all of the above costs, in satisfaction of the values of humanity I have publicly declared without so far having to, or ever intending to, put my money where my mouth is.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED

Justin Toh”

For some reason, Justine, all the other pretenders to concern about asylum-seekers have just gone quiet and slunk off at this point. But perhaps you’re different?

Either post the signed original back into this thread, or admit you’re a fake, but if you don’t reply, it means you’re a fake, okay? Fair enough?

OK, let's take the logic of 'accepting boat-people' to its semi-conclusion, without overdoing it:

Premise: The people who get on boats to come to Australia should be accepted in Australia.

Slight hitch: if they are going to be accepted anyway, why expect people to pay exorbitant fees just to get on leaky boats ? Why not just fly them direct, for the lower price of an air fare ? Whoever meets the criteria of 'refugee' and has the fare ? [Pity about those poor buggers in Africa]

Hmmmm ..consequence (1): If we can't favour person A over person B, then whoever can show that they are a refugee, and has the fare from Jakarta, can fly here and be processed, and accepted as a refugee. No quotas need apply.

Consequence (2): Why just from Jakarta ? Why not direct from Karachi, Amman, Ankara, Beirut, Cairo, etc. etc. ? Qantas can open up new ports of call just for the increased trade.

Now: should we introduce the topic of 'economic migrants' as well ? If they wish, can they come too, no restrictions ?

Better get a bigger airline.

Joe

Loudmouth

"(1): If we can't favour person A over person B, then whoever can show that they are a refugee, and has the fare from Jakarta, can fly here and be processed, and accepted as a refugee. No quotas need apply."

As things are now, there are no quotas for asylum-seekers who apply inside Australia, only for those who apply outside. That's the underlying legal reason why they try to get into Australia by boat. Because if they apply in, say Karachi, and satisfy the definition of refugee, their application can still legally be rejected. Whereas if they apply onshore, and they satisfy the definition of refugee, they can't legally be rejected.

The purpose of the Convention is to *stop* us from favouring person A over person B, so long as they can get themselves into Australia. So it's the Convention that's causing all these problems, not asylum-seekers per se.

That's also why the gumment, of both parties, want them to apply offshore: so they can control the numbers.

"Consequence (2): Why just from Jakarta ? Why not direct from Karachi, Amman, Ankara, Beirut, Cairo, etc. etc. ? Qantas can open up new ports of call just for the increased trade."

Indeed. Why not pass a law that anyone who has a claim to refugee status can fly into Australia and lodge an application?

Justine

So far as I can tell, the author is not calling for an “open border” policy of accepting all refugees, merely for more humane treatment of those who do make it to Australia. I’d support that. Specifically, I’d support:

- A strict limit on detention on children, with the norm being that children are placed in the community pending determination of their refugee status.

- No indefinite detention without trial – a commitment to determine claimants’ refugee status within a reasonable period.

- An end to offshore detention and processing.

- Greater transparency, including allowing media access to detainees, and permitting professionals such as health workers to talk to the media without losing their jobs.