paulry

This is the tragic outcome when people smuggling is allowed to continue.

Beoz

Did you check out the cost to travel? I know its been said before that asulym seekers don't have passports, but surely making every effort to get a passport and travel by air is far more cost effective.

the troubadour

Australia follows behind USA and Canada in its official intake it is true due to the selection process. Other countries Germany for is expecting to dwarf the number of asylum seekers taken by Australia this year by about 20,000.

Such countries don't normally select but are selected in asylum seekers turn up and apply what Australians would call on shore.
If not judged in need of asylum under legal requirements they are returned.
As it should be but are given the legal process in order to have their case heard.

the troubadour

No that is the tragic outcome of people in desperation. Just as likely to perish in disease ridden camps, but to constantly blame people smugglers as the government does is nothing but avoidance of responsibility.

the troubadour

Any understanding into what an asylum seeker is? Why many need to flee? Exactly the same authority that issues passports.
Without passports they wouldn't be allowed on a flight. A sense of desperation is required to board a small boat. That alone does not nor should allow them asylum of course.

paulry

More than anything else it demonstrates the psychopathic greed of the people smugglers in cramming so many victims aboard.

So what is your solution then?

Beoz

A sense of desperation and a wad of cash ...... but bingo .... you get the booby prize. I knew someone wouldn't read my post correctly.

Beoz

So its in the news again, the Sri Lankan boat people. Lots to discuss there but one thing about this one ...... the flood gates could open. Apparently its illegal to illegally leave Sri Lanka and punishable by jail.

So, anyone, whether they are a genuine asylum seeker or not, leaves Sri Lanka illegally, then claims asylum based on the threat of being put in jail if they are returned.

Wol

I've been away for a month or two so haven't been following this thread: has anyone answered my question:

>>The people who are rabidly against the Abbott policy never seem to come up with a viable alternative. Alternatives, yes: but nothing that works.

My answer to them is: fine - everyone has immense sympathy for the genuine refugee. So how many do you think we (or any other country, for that matter) should accept? 100,000? 500,000? 20m? And then, when your limit is reached, what do you do then? There are tens of millions, if not hundreds, who could legitimately pass as genuine. Once open borders are the de facto situation it's not a great stretch of the imagination to see what happens.

The fundamental problem is being a signatory. If we were to withdraw from the convention but keep with the same limit - or even increase it - we could allow the same number of genuine asylum seekers in as now but without the obligation; when the limit was reached that would be IT.

Difficult to see how that could be objected to by the bleeding hearts, since we might actually be admitting more than at present.

And looking down from space it's also difficult to see how exporting citizens of a country helps that country to progress in the long term. <<

Thought not.

Amazulu

Great post

knockoff nige

So you didn't bother to read posts to find out not only if anyone replied to your question but if anyone even had a concern about your point? A threshold needs to be set, who's disagreeing with that. But open your eyes and see the truth that this government don't want to deal with any. They seem to despise asylum seekers regardless of how they get here. Their policies are not about protecting the lives of those travelling by boat. They don't want to give assistance but do because of an international promise.

Ask your question again and you'll probably get the same non response. People who care first about the welfare of others over their tax dollars want better handling and processing of people in need. It's impossible for Australia to fix the problem entirely but we have the capacity to do more and do it better. Holding our hand up and saying 'We're full' is not acceptable in my opinion.

Wol

I've given you the benefit of my doubt and gone right back in the thread. I've read all the posts about the price of German beer, Scandinavian pensions, all the insults and deleted posts.
I still can't see anything approaching a sensible answer to my original - and repeated - question. Nor to the similar one by Beoz (around post 280 or so.) Because there IS no answer, or at least not one which would work.
If the objective is to stop deaths at sea the present plan s doing a better job than the alternative.
If it is to accept all on the planet who are persecuted then the answer is to raise the limit to say 50m. Let's be realistic and say 1m. Then, having established various routes of entry and reached the 1m - what then?
Sorry, but being rude is not the same as answering the question. Nobody's done that yet, and I don,'t expect them to.

knockoff nige

What do you mean 'what then'? If we have a threshold and reach it then we're doing our part. I really don't understand why you think that's the issue. Sure, we can increase it and why not? It doesn't need to go to 500 million. But if we can focus on improving processing ACCEPTING that the boats are atill coming and they're not going to stop and showing actual compassion towards these people in need then we're doing our bit and showing the world that we actually care. This government don't. It's borderline racist.

paulry

So if my rellies in Africa decided to rock up in Australia with a boat would they be entitled to asylum too?

Wol

You really don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?