aussietobe

That's nonsense. Most Australians accept the refugee program as long as its orderly and as fair as possible (and people paying people smugglers to come here on boats means people in camps have NO chance). There are at least 40 million refugees in the world - we open ourselves up to that where we will it end? At what point do we say no more? I am sick to death of Lefties claiming the moral high ground and calling everyone else a bigot just because they don't want open borders. ATM this debacle is costing $17 Billion dollars a year and is importing people who are prone to being on welfare for a long time. Australians are generous people and do not deserve to be smeared as just 'I'm alright thanks jack', selfish pricks. Thankfully most middle of the road Australians are sensible and not willing to do what is stupendously stupid and open the country to endless arrivals f people on leaky boats.

spouse of scouse

I hope you feel better after all that I'm not a leftie, I'm not a rightie, I didn't call anyone a selfish prick, I don't claim the high (or low) moral ground and I don't believe in open borders. Wrap your laughing gear around that.

Oh, and I'm a third generation Australian who's lived here for all my 55 years, and I'll damn well say whatever I like about the government who runs my country and the people who do or don't live in it.

Now where's my black marker pen and torch.....

Beoz

For the very few that actually cone on a boat there are 1000's queuing up going through the correct immigration channels. Do you think its fair the those going through the correct channels be punished for the selfish nature of a few who choose boats?

spouse of scouse

I'm going to live in the UK as an economic migrant, bloody Perth prices are a shocker

Beoz

Nothing wrong with being an economic migrant as long as its done in the right way.

kips

Might do the same. Price of some fruit and veg ridiculous.
$4 for one avocado in Coles in Raine Square last week.

Amazulu

With the left, that moral high ground is mighty high

Democracy is government by the majority, and the majority are getting what they want

Bleeding heart lefties/liberals/greenies/other assorted wankers don't like this but that's the way it is

Jacqui

A child was interviewed on tv last year, a survivor in yet another asylum boat tragedy. She said that her parents had refused to board at first because of the state of the "crappy, unseaworthy boat" and they were told that this was just the boat that takes them out to the nice ship that's anchored further out. They probably looked towards the horizon, saw a ship in the distance, and felt foolish for worrying after all

Beoz

I wonder if they were also told that Australia was visa free. I doubt it. The parents obviously knew they were doing something illegal.

GarryP

Seems it has to be repeated again. Seeking asylum is NOT criminal. The point of the UN conventions etc. is that refugee has a legal status and the signatories hold that those claiming asylum won't get charged with any immigration 'crimes' etc.

Refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to - but since there are no signatories between, say, Afghanistan, and Australia, none of those countries count as safe countries. Hence they are entirely, legally, in the right in claiming asylum from australia. And not entertaining those claims by going outside the borders of the country and dragging boats back to Indonesia is pretty likely to be judged criminal itself in the end.

Here's the factcheck on it :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-2...an-law/5214802

Oh, and here's a factcheck on that "more per capita" claim - seems it doesn't stand up and Australia is pretty far down the rankings :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-2...intake/5270252

old.sparkles

If you are from Afghanistan and you head for Australia then there are no signatories in a direct line - but afghans neighbours appear to be and although I wouldn't want to go to Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or China they are all signatories so should be safe for a refugee

Beoz

Yep good point. The point of asylum is that you are escaping something in your own country. How many signatory countries are in a direct line from Afghanistan to the UK?

GarryP

How many come to the UK by boat?

GarryP

Yep, but I wouldn't be surprised if getting over those borders were impossible/a nightmare.

Thing is, put yourself in the position of someone who realises they need to 'get out of dodge', since, say, the taliban are gunning for your daughter. Even with that hanging over you, you are going to take a pragmatic decision of which direction you are headed. It's no real surprise that people head for rich, western countries - you'd do the same. If they can get on a plane - great, there are loads of places you can go to claim asylum, and you are likely to aim for one as above, on the basis you are more likely to end up there than someone stuck in a resettlement camp in a 3rd world country (less than 1% resettlement per year).

If you can't get on a plane, what do you do? Chances are you still have a destination in mind, and you take the route you can. Even if that's overland and by boat. If you could claim asylum in Australia by getting to an Australian embassy, I'd guess most would take that option instead.

The problem is the entire asylum system is a mess. It was designed for smaller numbers, more accepting countries, shorter journeys, and temporary occurrences in the main. The contradiction is that moral people would accept that you should give asylum to those in peril; but that the total number in peril is too great for countries to cope. Nobody wants to address that contradiction since the only obvious solution route is what the UN was set up for - dealing with dictators & tyrants. But that means military action, and countries generally aren't up for that.

Beoz

None that I'm aware of. But in the case of those hitting Calais and boarding the back of a lorry bound for the UK, the question must go out as what it wrong with France and the other countries crossed before it.

From what I understand, and I could be wrong here, but France has some type of card in place you need in order to obtain employment where the UK doesn't, so the idea of working and going AWOL at the same time is far more appealing.

Escaping a problem in your own country is perfectly acceptable but it doesn't excuse those who other agenda's on their mind.