Boat people? Australia? no I am thinking of the worlds problems with people looking for a better life.
Should we fail in Afghanistan, we surely will, how many refugees will want to leave.
If starvation and generations of brain washing, half a century of Chinese self interested support see,s north Korea fall how many refuges will leave.
If a war broke out between India and Pakistan how many boat people?
How can the world do better for these folk?
Iran, now soon Turkey sees people wanting western style freedoms and others wanting Islamists style who will win? how many refuges?

I imagine, lots, from all examples.
Except North Korea- there will likely be no collapse or refugee exodus until some allied powers invade it.

North Koreans will likely flee to China, South Koreans (if a war) will likely go to Japan, America and Australia.

Afghanis and Pakistanis will flee mostly to one of the immediately neighbouring Islamic countries, or to Europe or Australia, Indian refugees in any war will try South East Asia, possibly China, or Australia, Europe or America.

Most local countries already have large communities of the corresponding refugees that have integrated fairly well, so there will be little opposition unless large foreign powers demand they shut doors- or are under more sectarian divisions (like some parts of Malaysia).

As far as attractive Western countries (including us) are concerned, who WILL see a lot of arrivals- the Iranians and Turks wanting Western Lifestyles (or are Sufis) being displaced by Islamists should be given a chance and let in (after checks to ensure that is who we're getting)- others might need to prove their compatibility a bit more first to the countries they try to enter. It depends on how secular the Islam-wary nations believe the arrivals will likely be.

For me, refugees are owed our efforts to determine if we should give them a chance.
For those who are fundamentalists, harbour too incompatible attitudes or views, engaged in criminal/militant conduct and generally won't likely pass as good neighbours (at least as far as the average Western local), Western countries shouldn't be obligated to take them.

If?
If?
If?
If?
If?

Sounds like you're not wanting "genuine", informed discussion.

Sounds like you're trying to push an ideological opinion regarding refugees.

I'll take a guess . . . I bet you're anti "boat" people (regarding refugees on Aussie soil). Am I right, or am I right?

"nuff said!

Now you have me worried.

We had better start building lots of small patrol boats, with big guns.

Face some facts benq, your views are not the only ones.
And if? after ww11 refuges by the millions found new homes all over the world.
This country's greatness in a big part came with those who came here.
Greens, mainly rich middle class voters, are not going to detract from the fact hundreds of millions if they could would swap countrys now.
Look at Zimbabwe, and KH has not convinced me his north Koreans would all go to China.
But he has highlighted why China is propping up a family enslaving a whole brain washed slave country.
benq, rather than blind throw away lines understand we, the whole world, should plan to do some thing about the dreadful life these people run away from.
We invade Iraq and Afghanistan and will leave without changing that life, prop up people who run such country's
All the bleating in the world from PC driven folk will not change the fact humanity must address this problem.

And when did I say my views were the only ones? Show us the "quotes" to back up that false claim. You can't ....... of course.

Of COURSE humanity must address the problem. BUT...... the problem is NOT refugees. The problem is the conditions that refugees escape from. The fix for that is long and slow, and is technology and communications based ......... for example some parts of China already have a greater standard of living than the USA or Australia (the right wing stigma against all of China that they are totally underfoot and disadvantaged is NOT accurate). It will take several hundred more years to eliminate the social and religious and political conditions that lead to impoverished (and not impoverished), war torn , displaced, disenfranchised people fleeing their homelands.

Until we get rid of the God bothering and politics and ideologies, we will continue along the primitive path from whence we came.

It's interesting that some people get in a fluff about "boat" people, but never even think about "plane" people. People should drop the prejudice, bigotry and inhumanity towards "boat" people, and work towards the "real" solution I've outlined........ a solution that will take many lifetimes to properly implement owing to human nature being what it is and it's primitive nature and unwillingness to "CHANGE".

There is NO "quick fix". In the meantime, DON'T punish the victims because of fear or paranoia that they'll come here and do to us what we did to the Aboriginal people of this land.

benq just as God botherers say let God fix it you take it that anyone concerned with the problem is anti boat people there for wrong.
Conservatives now watch the ALP too proved votes matter, more votes can be lost in letting your boat people in than stopping them.
However the problem is huge and boat people nothing in respect of what may happen.
Do you think mass refuges ,millions, is unlikely to ever take place?
Do you think ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD could house a million refuges in say a year?
Would intervention on humanitarian grounds in Zimbabwe be better than doing nothing?
Are you happy with the grub running Afghanistan and stealing American dollars while doing nothing for his people?
And if the UN had any reason to exist, any at all, it should intervene in every such country to make a better life for those who need a home.

If?
If?
If?
If?
If?

Cripes! Must be some contagion – I’m glad I had my flu shots.

IF... only we could equalize everyone and everything, there wouldn’t be any more “refugees”.
Since, there wouldn’t be any osmotic impetus for anyone to move from move from lesser to greater, ‘cause we’d all be lesser.
(at last, you’ve found something that you and CJ Morgan...and Kim il jung can agree on!)

“ some people get in a fluff about "boat" people, but never even think about "plane" people.”
Yes, SOME people do, but MOST people are concern about BOTH.

“ There is NO "quick fix" --- AGREED

“ In the meantime, DON'T punish the victims –AGREED again , EXCEPT, the real victims here are Australian defense force personnel who have to rescue such schemers, often at great risk to their own lives, and the Australian tax payer who has to fund their upkeep.

PS: I wonder if those illegals involved in blowing up SIEV 36 will ever face justice –betya it’ll all be swept under the carpet and forgotten!

Dear Benq

you say:

//the problem is NOT refugees. The problem is the conditions that refugees escape from.//

Actually, I don't think the heart of peoples annoyance over 'boat people' is that they are fleeing from awful conditions. The root of our anger is that they come through a number of countries first.. just to get 'here'.

This raises the issue of "country shopper/genuine refugee"

A close inspection of the UN convention will reveal that it provides only for the nearest place of safety and has zero about 'economic betterment'

If these people have the financial resources to pay people smugglers.. then, they have the resources to buy a plane ticket.

If...they don't have documents which would enable them to get a plane ticket..then the first port of call is the nearest high commission or embassy.

But even this is stretching the convention to breaking point... because it comes back to nearest.

Then there is the issue of disqualification due to behavior which the convention deems disallows them. This includes violence and criminality. We've seen those behaviors already, and I'm hoping names were taken so they can be immediately deported without recource to any legal process whatsover.. as they are not now entitled to it.

The following website adds another perspective
to the topic:

http://www.australiansagainstracism.org/code/resources06.html

cont'd ...

The following websites may also be of interest:

http://www.safecom.org.au/myths.htm

and

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s417232.htm

Dear foxy.. if you post material like that.. please expect it to be criticized or at least for more relevant information than the type peddled by "migration agents" and left wing lawyers.

According to the convention Article 1.C

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

Now 'that' is where our system breaks down. Even when wars are over (Sri Lanka) the subjective opinion of the applicant is believed more than the reality on the ground.

In our situation.. the is an 'industry' which believes by default that the only person worth listening to and believing is the person applying. Such a situation is fraught with suspect motives and potential for abuse.

Article 2
General obligations

Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

Sooo...... riots and ethnic fighting in detention camps are ok ?

Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming DIRECTLY from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Please note very carefully.

a) The word "DIRECTLY"
b) The word "ILLEGAL"

Article 32
Expulsion
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

Please note the words

a) National Security ('our' assesment..not the applicants)
b) Public Order. i.e..riotous behavior, fights, piracy

Seems to me Foxy that the Convention is our the side of the genuine refugee only and 'not' on the side of the country shopper or rioter.

Sorry foxy you are forever my Friend and respected even understood, but I disagree.
People I like and admire like CJ Morgan will be confronted but it is the way I see it.
I HATE the life many refugees run from.
I hate the fact we every western country, can take only so many, that if we open our doors we will be flooded.
Foxy the answer lays not in our need to house the world.
I hate but understand more Australian voters will change there votes to get less refuges, unhappy with that.
IT IS true, an election has been lost/won on the issue.
Like the Aboriginal debates we so often have reality shouts at me we need solutions must work for them.
Am I wrong to remind Greens their ideas and thoughts are never shared by majority's,never will be, that every day Australians want to help but increasingly regard our culture as under threat, our right to be us as just that.
Must we think always in terms of others suffering we can enforce, if we do it for humanity not oil a better life at home.
I willingly would contribute to more tax's, but not to feed criminals in office in slave nations.
If we insist boat people become the focus of this thread then yes stop them, all of them, bring only those in camps here.

Posted by Belly, Sunday, 27 June 2010 6:36:24 AM
" ... Am I wrong to remind Greens their ideas and thoughts are never shared by majority's,never will be ... "

Well, let's hope you are right *Belly* coz if the prevailing temperature goes up and you all start sweltering in fear of an ever more regular "lick of the flame" then I imagine the majority will soon enough come round to embracing something of some of the current principals expressed by the Greens, irrespective of whether the corrective measures are carried out by them or not.

..

Whilst I am not a member of any political party, I express pro Green sentiment for 2 principal reasons.

1. Unlike most politicians, *GreenBrowny* appears to be an Honourable and decent Human Being

&

2. From a scientific perspective, green house pollution must be halted.

Dream on Greens are my second parking bay on election day.
It is not policy's on environment that concern me.
It is the package as a whole they push.
I have always been aware it is the home of middle income people who inhabit a different world than me.
And an ABC radio interview with former QLD senator John Black, unloved but not a fool, showed me more.
Most Greens are well off, most send their kids to private schools, most fail to understand just what the impact of some policy's are.
We, could have an ETS now, two conservatives crossed the floor post Turnbull.
Bob Brown, yesterdays minnow, could have given his votes, he put environment second.
On this I stand firmly, greens are forever and ever a minority.
BUT in NSW no option exists, a greens upper house is the only out come that will serve Labor voters migrating from a party that long ago left them.
Note that woman Noreen what ever from Wollongong dragging my party's name in the mud.
For those I upset with my frankness party first always, defeat best serves us in NSW.

Its always easy to cherrypick facts and observations to support an existing belief, for example the homogeneity superimposed on immigration to this country. You will always see "The last decade of migration", "The last 50 years of migration", or "Immigration patterns since the second world war" etc. etc.
In reality, this country is defined by immigration patterns of the last 222 or so years (leaving out the Dutch, Maccasans, Islanders, and PNG folk coming and going).

Some migration has been good and some has been bad, opinions vary wildly according to ones background. As our society becomes more and more PC and highly strung about appearing to embrace complete and unquestioned acceptance of foreign folks, the assumption is automatically that we are giving them an unfair hard time for coming here without asking first. Probably we are in some cases, but if you're coming from some hell where the Taliban is tearing out your fingernails or something then a few years at Villawood or Christmas island sounds ok.

Comparing post-war immigration to today's is not really possible, as social expectations were completely different. People came to work and improve their lives, and were mostly from a similar European background. This surely had it's bad points as well, but cannot be compared to today's immigration policies as bad points are identified retroactively (by any government).

Dreamon, for me, it's simply a matter that the big two parties keep:
-giving themselves inappropriate payrises
-selling public assets to corrupt companies whom they mysteriously join post-politics
-take bribes
-stands behind property developers and stomps on the people that try to resist
-Pander to religious fundamentalists
-Deliberately sabotage infrastructure to force people to use privately owned premium-PRICE alternatives
-Put public interest behind self interest or (some) business interest
-Pander to religious extremists
-Shut down important areas in the city for silly private functions that are of no benefit to many Sydney siders at all, but a huge detriment upon easily millions.
-Willing to turn into a police state to protect said functions
With only ONE party opposing ALL this.
I don't agree with the Greens migration and multicultural/law policies one bit, but to me the above issue is simply much more dire and more important to my vote.

It is much cheaper and quicker to come to Australia by plane - of course you have to be a legal entrant to pass through the airport doors. Boat people are illegal entrants who just try to make it to shore. Hence the amount of expense to intercept and in processing them.
__________________________

If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labour.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afgan border illegally you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you wil be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may not be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will considered a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be imprisoned in a political prison till you rot.

IF YOU CROSS THE AUSTRALIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET:
* A JOB,
* AN INTERPRETER,
* FREE LEGAL AID,
* A DRIVERS LICENCE,
* A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,
* WELFARE,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN = YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DO NOT GET ENOUGH RESPECT.
Compare:
The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:

WEEKLY BENEFIT AUSTRALIAN AGED PENSIONER $253.00

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN AUSTRALIA $472.50


WEEKLY SPOUSE ALLOWANCE - AGED PENSIONER $56.00

WEEKLY SPOUSE ALLOWANCE - REFUGEES $472.50


Additional
WEEKLY HARDSHIP ALLOWANCE - AGED PENSIONER 0.00

WEEKLY HARDSHIP ALLOWANCE - REFUGEES $145.00


TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT - AGED PENSIONER $16,068.00

TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT - REFUGEES $56,680.00


Who foots the Bill - we do.

I think most of the posts on this thread are not taking into account
what the cause of the mass migration may be.
If it is caused by a war, then generally it will mainly be from one
particular country.
However if it is caused by a shortage of fuel for farming and food
distribution, then we can expect millions, if not tens of millions of
people to be on the move.
You could in these circumstances expect to see tham arrive not in
fishing boats but large ships carrying perhaps 10,000 people each.
However in that circumstance a fuel shortage may only have internal
effects in each country as the people will not have any money at all
having previously spent all their resources on escalating food prices.

So perhaps the people would split into two groups, those that foresaw
what was about to happen and joined the ships while they still had
some money and those that were waiting for their government to help.

Either way it will not be pretty.

For every person who arrives here by boat ten arrive and stay illegally by air.
For every one of that combined number 100 sit and wait in a camp.
If the world said ok lets clear the problem, take all camps boats air, we would see millions say it can be done let us do it.
If every working human in the world gave just $100 maybe we could save just one country say Zimbabwe as a safe home for its own people.
But remember world events do change that million refugees could come in your lifetime.

No, most of the posts don't give a phuck what caused people to decide to Country shop their way here... They are not genuine refugees under the UN's own definition, if they were, they'd be in Malaysia or Indonesia.

Personally, I dislike the fact that we are allowing people to come here illegally and live in a better fashion than 'some' Australian citizens.

They have no right to be here, why on earth should they be allowed to remain? They "CHOSE" to break the law, any other immigrant that comes here and breaks the law is deported, why the discrimination?

Oh that's right... To save looking in our own backyard and in an attempt to avoid dealing with the intractable third/fourth world conditions OUR CITIZENS live in, we'll make ourselves feel "worthy" helping some scheming, country-shopping queue jumper to stay here?

Nope.

For me, charity starts at home. We have NO OBLIGATION TO ANYONE until ALL Australian citizens live in conditions we'd be happy to have our own family live in. Don't agree, why ever not? I mean, it certainly doesn't seem like an awfully nasty thing to insist upon, does it?

I mean, as far as obligations go, our Government, being the servant of the people, is first and foremost obligated to the Citizens of this Country, not the UN (they don't actually control us YET). Why is it such a terrible thing to suggest we help Australians first? Is it racism? Is it some remnant of a cultural cringe? Is it some fallout from the "Sorry" stuffup that let people feel that they'd done everything that they could be expected to contribute to ATSI people?

No. I will agree to allowing refugees in WHEN and only when, ALL AUSTRALIANS live in first world conditions. Until then, so sorry, we have our own people to worry about. But tell you what, if you are that keen, keep floating South, there is a whole continent with no-one on it, try there.