Philo

You are wrong to assume that refugees are a drain on society. They may need government and community assistance to begin with but most have trade or professional qualifications and are perfectly capable of supporting themselves and their families once they get back on their feet.

Australia is currently experiencing negative natural population growth. So surely we can afford to provide protection for 10 to 20 thousand refugees a year without placing the pressures on our carrying capacity that you allude to. It's the skilled migration program aiming to attract over 100 thousand people a year which is more likely to exacerbate population pressure. I would argue that this number be reduced in favour of assisting those who far more desperately need our help. Especially when you consider that many of these skilled migrants are being poached from countries that can ill afford to lose them.

BOAZ_David, As I mentioned above, history has shown that going to the Embassy in Indonesia hasn't worked for anybody for the last few years so it's not surprising that some would seek an alternative. That's what gives the smugglers a market in the first place but risking your life on the high seas seems a pretty extreme way of "shopping".

I'm not saying I disagree with all parts of the policy and I'm certainly not advocating a free-for-all, it's just that I'm trying to keep some sort of perspective about the whole thing.

Yes this is a problem, but it's not the "crisis" the government would have you believe, when you consider the thousands of illegals already walking the streets that came by other means, not to mention the hundreds that are now being imported as cheap labour. I wonder how many of them will be going home after their Visa expires.

These people are not a serious threat to our society and are at most an inconvenience. True, some European countries are having problems but their refugees have been in the tens-of-thousands and Europe has a history of oppressing minority groups in any case. If would be unreasonable to expect such a rapid surge in immigration to pass without problems.

I'm also a little disappointed in how easily people can be fooled by this government who exploited and exaggerated the situation in order to win an election and have now painted themselves into a corner, morally speaking.

A perfect example of both Wedge and Dog-Whistle politics in action at the same time.

If you want a clearer picture of what's really happening, ignore the shock-jocks, tabloid TV and the Daily Telegraph and read some of Hansard from time-to-time, and I don't mean the ten second TV grabs that go to air.

Oh, and no offence taken - better a bleeding heart than no heart at all.

Wobbles
that was quite a good post :)

Yes.. I am sympathetic to the view that 'Wedge politics' and sound bites are certainly not a glowing commendation for our political mentality. Its also a bit of an insult to a thinking electorate.

Sadly, most people who are consumed with consumerism and are persuaded that the daily grind is their lot in life, probably do most of their political thinking on such a basis.

I'm all for humane treatement of people, and having lived a very basic lifestyle for 8.5 yrs, as a missionary, trust me when I say that just to have the simple neccessities of life, such as a roof and some walls.. food and a nice cuppa and a biccy, is very humane. I don't find the detention centres inhumane at all. What I do find is that people who are in the 'refugee business' be it lawyers or migration agents or the socialist alliance etc exaccerbate the problem by conveying the message that if you can create havock and disruption "It might help your cause" (whereas in reality it helps the cause of those seeking their pound of flesh from them)

Lets get back to fundamentals.

By coming to Australia, risking all they do, they are in fact 'choosing' Australia as their preferred destination. This is not what the UN charter is about, which is 'safety'. As long as we continue to recognize this, then detaining people until an ultimate destination is found (a host country)which might be Australia, is not wrong.

The Alternative, of allowing them to live and work in the community, will probably prove MORE disruptive if they are denied refugee status, as they have put down roots already and formed relationships.

There is a frustrating loop here. I am all for 'quick' processing.
Barriers are:

1/ Discarded documentation
2/ Appeals against decisions <-- this is where 'long stays' begin.
3/ Refugee Industry people seeking political or personal milage from their plight, including relatives who may already be here.

Personally, I don't feel cultural,linguistic or religious factors are sufficiently taken into account. If you have been reading some of my other posts, you will see this as in harmony with my own strict policy of selective migration based on cultural/social/political compatability. I find the UN charter on human rights re 'discrimination' as laughably naive and plain wrong.

Wobbles (continued)

We must avoid at all costs the message "If you can get here, you can stay here" for obvious reasons.

The reason for the rebellion and animosity in the detention camps is not at the conditions in my opinion, it is about the possibility that they may not be allowed to remain in their 'shopped/chosen' country.

The fact that they are willing to risk a dangerous sea voyage is in fact strong evidence that 'this' is the country of their choice, but unfortunately, an assylum seeker does not have the luxury of such a choice. They have the issue of safety and that alone.

Your comment about better a bleeding heart than no heart at all is certainly true. But there is another side to that coin.
If that 'heart' is more directed to outsiders than ones own family, does it not raise some questions ?

Vigilance and Policy based on:

1/ An understanding of human nature
2/ Historical examples without number.
3/ The social integrity of our existing nation.
4/ The clear and contemporary example of problems in the USA with illegals 'asserting' themselves. ("We did not cross the border, the border crossed us")

Is not heartlessness, in fact I tend to think it is a heart for those nearest and dearest. Don't we prioritize the allocation of our 'heart' in daily life ? :)

BOAZ_David,

Thanks for your well expressed and well considered opinion.

You've given me some valid points to consider.

Thanks also for not being one of the screaming zealots that prowl some of these threads.

Perhaps we will cross paths again on another thread. We may have more in common than it seems.

Until then, all the best.

B_D,

I agree with all you said and you stated it well. wobbles also said he "guessed it was the country of origin that was the problem". That is wrong and nor is it racism or prejudice.

Most Aussies feel we are being taken advantage of by the ME assylum seekers because they have passed through, flown over or bypassed other countries of safety to get here. The last leg of their journey involved leaving physical safety to embark on a perilous
voyage,putting themselves, and children, at risk. The object being to get access to our welfare system. Here we keep them totally and provide free legal advice, and allow numberous appeals to unfavourable decissions. The distruction of any documentation also impedes our varification of their claims. They are free to leave our country at any time.

Most people believe that our criteria for refugee statue is far easier than the UN criteria, and if the UN criteria was applied few would qualify. If they can stay long enough we will then ease or bend our own rules to accomodate them.

The Papuans will garner public support because they have came here directly and have only to establish persecution. Their processing did not take long. We are willing to give them sanction but if they use us as a political platform their support will wain