Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The Lowy Institute tells us that Australia's
approach to asylum seekers is unrealistic and
unsustainable. At a time when international
co-operation on refugees is most sorely-needed
Australia is retreating inwards by trying to
seal off borders to people in search of protection.
In the past those coming by boat - more than 90 per
cent were found to be genuine refugees.

The Lowy Institute points out that the numbers of
asylum seekers attempting to arrive in Australia
cannot be characterised as a "crisis" on any
objective measure.

At eh peak in 2013, 20,587 asylum seekers came by boat
to Australia in search fro protection. We're told that
while that figure was certainly higher than in previous years
it paled in comparison to the 173,100 asylum seekers who
entered Germany in 2014, or the 138,000 Syrians who entered
Turkey in just a few days in September last year.

On a per capita basis, between 2010 - 14, Australia received only
2.2 asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants.

This represents less than 2 per cent of the world's asylum
seekers.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/time-to-change-our-perception-of-asylum-seekers-20140724-zvmnm.html

Loudmouth,

"Economic migrants ? They should take their chances as economic migrants, not as bogus refugees. Think just for a bit beyond your opportunist stick-up-the-@rse-of-the-government mentality, Poirot: the more bogus 'refugees' that take the place of genuine refugees in any quota, the fewer genuine refugees would be taken within that quota. Isn't that so ?"

Yes, indeedy - still no ranting about those who come by air? Even though they are more likely to be economic migrants than the desperates on the boats who, in the past, were deemed to be 94% genuine?

It seems I'm not alone with my "stick-up-the-@rse-of-the-government mentality" - it doesn't seem to matter how many stunts Abbott pulls and how many times he plays dress-up, he can't budge Labor's 6 point two-party preferred lead.

Here's an article detailing an email from the Save the Children's Fund head in Nauru warning his employees not to speak up - sent in June.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/06/detention-centre-staff-warned-not-to-speak-out-nauru

"Detention centre staff were warned not to speak to journalists and other organisations about “anything that happens” on Nauru and Manus Island before a law forbidding disclosures came into effect."

"Guardian Australia can reveal that the Save the Children operations manager on Nauru, Tony Still, warned staff on the island not to speak to journalists – or to external organisations – about “anything that happens” at the detention centre.

On Wednesday the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, appeared to contradict Still’s comments, when he said “the airing of general claims about conditions in immigration facilities will not breach the ABF act”.

An email obtained by Guardian Australia reveals that Still emailed all staff on the island warning them about speaking out from a “sense of anger and desire for retribution”.

It was sent following the announcement of the imminent closure of the school for child asylum seekers at the detention centre. There is no clear child protection framework at local schools outside the centre and concerns have been raised that child asylum seekers may be subject to corporal punishment."

Hi Poirot,

"Yes, indeedy - still no ranting about those who come by air? Even though they are more likely to be economic migrants than the desperates on the boats who, in the past, were deemed to be 94% genuine?"

Sorry, I don't get your point. With sixty million refugees around the world, what percentage could afford to buy a plane ticket to Australia, let alone the luxury of paying thousands to a smuggler ? I respectfully suggest: about 5 %. Those are the ones you are crying your crocodile tears over. By gee, you're nearly as good as Baby Sara :)

Meanwhile, the other 95 % rot in vast tent camps. I would also suggest that the quota - hopefully increased soon - is selected from these most desperate and destitute refugees. Sarah's 'out-of-sight' refugees.

Economic migrants take their chances, get in line, flash their qualifications, get relations tov sponsor them - but most certainly should not take the place of genuine refugees.

I'm sure you would agree :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe, Australia with an already large Greek population, should if push comes to shove, take a humanitarian number of Greeks if they want to migrate to Australia, I would have no problem with that. I have no problem with the genuine refugee and our need to accommodate as many as our resources will allow. It may not sit well with many who oppose resettlement and have a fortress Australia mentality, the reality might be beyond them to comprehend.

Hi Paul,

Then you would support an increased quotas of genuine, destitute, desperate refugees ? I certainly would.

As for economic refugees, including those poor buggers in Greece, they also would have to wait their turn. Of course, if they have skills that Australia (and Greece) need, then they might move up the queue.

But both queues are very, very long. We certainly are the lucky country, for the time being.

Joe

Paul,

It looks as you are the one suffering from a sense of humour failure. You seem perfectly happy trolling others, but start foaming at the mouth when on the receiving end.

Poirot,

Considering that the cost of a plane ticket from Jakarta is a fraction of the cost of getting on an illegal boat. However, the problem for the economic migrant is that he arrives with full documentation, which compared to those on illegal boats who tear up their documents and make up stories, their applications are far less successful