The Forum > Article Comments > 78 people in a leaking boat ... > Comments
78 people in a leaking boat ... : Comments
By Crispin Hull, published 11/11/2009The 47,000 people overstaying their visas do not make for dramatic news pictures.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 29
- 30
- 31
-
- All
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 9:29:59 AM
| |
quote "The vast bulk of journalists honestly try to get it right. But the media does distort. And the distortion costs Australian society dearly in the way of poor policy making by politicians who keep a warier eye on the ballot box than on the overall long-term public good."
And your article is different how? The argument rages because one extreme comes out against the other other. This is no different. Do we go and pick asylum seekers up from various countries when they request to come here? That is absurd. Especially from a nation that is rebuilding and trying to stop the discontent fed by foriegn journalists not understanding the situation in Sri Lanka. Doubt any knew where is was on the map a month ago, both sides. Posted by TheMissus, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 9:44:28 AM
| |
>>It's not that we don't want to extend the hand of humanity and friendship, it's just the way it is sought, seems to many to be, well, suspicious.<<
rpg, The judgement in the eye of the beholder. When we treat people with suspicion, we are really reflecting on our own motives if we were in their position. Our suspicion/judgement/asessment of any particular asylum seeker could be fully right, partly right or fully wrong. That, at least in theory, is why we have a Department - so they can look into the issues in more detail and make the right call. >>They evidently can afford to pay thousands of $ to people smugglers, but cannot, for some reason, arrive by plane in Australia. Why is that?<< It's probably got more to do with who they know and the logistics of the situation than anything else. It depends on what path is open to them. >>I'm not moved by complaints of the Indonesian detention centers, as the people who end up in them have probably entered Indonesia uninvited.<< Asylum seekers, almost by definition, are uninvited. So that attribute alone isn't sufficient to determine the worthiness of their claims. Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 9:59:59 AM
| |
Crispin Hull is correct about the small numbers of boat people compared to the huge migrant intake and the serious problems that the sheer numbers of people are causing for our environment and quality of life. As rpg said, though, there is no comparison with visa overstayers. Airlines and shipping lines are held financially responsible if they bring people in with invalid travel documents. We know who the visa overstayers are and can return them to sender once they are caught. The same goes for rejected asylum seekers who arrive through regular channels. Countries know that they cannot get away with refusing to honour their own travel documents.
One reason why there is so much drama about the boat people is because there is already widespread opposition to the government's mass migration strategy. According to the latest Nielsen poll (see p. 2, Nov. 11 Sydney Morning Herald) 43% of the people surveyed think that immigration is too high, the same proportion think it is about right, and 9% too low. When asked about Rudd's goal of 35 million in 2049 (less than we will have then at our current rate), 40% say it is too high, 30% about right, and 2% too low. 26% have no opinion. There is nothing better calculated to shift people to the low immigration category than a perception that the government has lost control of our borders. A second reason is that numbers of asylum seekers blew out in Europe from the 1980s. Germany alone got half a million asylum claims in 1992. The UN High Commission for Refugees has admitted that by the early 1990s, the vast majority of asylum seekers in developed countries were economic migrants. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm There is no reason to believe that the same thing couldn't happen here. Sending failed asylum seekers back can be difficult or impossible if it can't be established where they came from or if the home country won't cooperate. See http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108 Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:28:08 AM
| |
rpg: "They evidently can afford to pay thousands of $ to people smugglers, but cannot, for some reason, arrive by plane in Australia. Why is that?"
I do wonder how many people posting this question have actually done any overseas travel by plane. I hope the answer is none. As anybody who has travelled by plane overseas knows, it is dammed near impossible to get onto one without the correct documents - like visa's and passports. Most countries have customs controls in both directions - ie both out and in. You can't even get on a connecting flight without going through the dammed things. As RobP points out, a refugee by definition isn't invited, and thus can't get the required documents. That is why we have special conventions covering refugees who just arrive. It is an acknowledgement they can't do it any other way. Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:41:24 AM
| |
In the case of Tamils there was 5% acceptance in some western nations and 85% acceptance in others. They are political pawns without doubt, there is no reason to accept claims of being a refugee unless you have some agenda against the Sri Lankan government. This is the case with Hillary Clinton and others who view the bigger picture of the unholy alliance between Iran. Pakistan, China, Russia and Sri Lanka from politcal viewpoint. There is country shopping as the huge discrepancy between acceptance rates attest and it is politically driven.
I am sure in my own mind that tensions in the Middle East would have been resolved decades ago had it not been fed by global politics and interference. Now we have people wishing to re-ignite tensions between Indonesia (hell hole?) and Sri Lanka (genocidal?) for political purpose. The whole problem is that the boat people are media stars. This makes them the ideal ground for political motive to be aired. Otherwise why worry about mainly males of "getting themselves into trouble age". Some boat arrival may have or have had good reason. They are all different yet we get the same rhetoric from both sides cut and pasted from their bible. I am sure the Tamils will enjoy quicker reconciliation with the Sinhalese if turned over the reponsibility of their protection to the Sri Lankan government. Any other outcome will only fuel further hostility. This is their only chance of peace. Not sure why people want to ruin it. If so there is another several million of them, best arrange mass evacuation rather than just allow tensions to simmer over the next 30 years. Take full or no responsibility, not just enough to fill your political ends. Posted by TheMissus, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:48:00 AM
|
They evidently can afford to pay thousands of $ to people smugglers, but cannot, for some reason, arrive by plane in Australia.
Why is that? Airfares from Indonesia to Australia are not expensive, they can get a tourist visa and overstay, but we'll have some idea who they are.
They get to Indonesia, we are told, mostly by airtravel - in the case of Afghans they would have to wouldn't they? Some of them spend many years in Indonesia before trying to get to Australia by boat - seems an odd choice surely?
It's not that we don't want to extend the hand of humanity and friendship, it's just the way it is sought, seems to many to be, well, suspicious. We have a large migrant intake every year and try to do our best for people who have been living in "hellish conditions" in many refugee camps worldwide.
I'm not moved by complaints of the Indonesian detention centers, as the people who end up in them have probably entered Indonesia uninvited. That's how they deal with it, and we should just shut up, or are you going to try to reform all parts of the Indonesian legal, penitentiary system, or just the bits you pick and choose when there is a bit of publicity.
We should not have an open door policy for all and sundry who want to come to Australia, we should grow at a reasonable rate if that is the decision of the majority. Where we take people from is in the hands of the Dept Immigration, as it should be, with reasonable policies. We should not be bullied physically or emotionally into doing what the majority do not want to do.
This is after all, a somewhat democratic country, at the moment.