Originally Posted by spouse of scouse

Thanks for the link roaringmouse. Pity that the ones who most need to read it are the least likely to - but then again it's hard to compete with 'the sky is falling!' mob.

Originally Posted by Mike at Taree

The media are in a froth "no more refugees being taken by Australia, Hell Hole solution as refugees butchered and eaten by PNG rascal gangs from the Highlands" etc.

The point is no refugees being accepted BY BOAT.

If you can afford to give a people smuggler $10k or even more then you can afford a $900 plane fare to Perth or Darwin or wherever. Then immigration will take your refugee application.


Also if you arrive at the airport you will have your documentation. If arriving by boat you may well have chucked it all overboard - you could be Pol Pot for all we know.

I think another problem here is a thoroughly racist view of PNG by some of the media. Bloody coolie mob of amateurs, should send a gun boat to sort the blighters out and show them how the Empire handles things.

Jeez, white man's burden, what ho

Edit: now I'm on a roll - oh dear, boat people to be sent to and settled in a third world country.

Helllooooo where the Hell have they come from in the first place? You don't see many boat loads of Italians, Norwegians or Scots turning up at Christmas Island.

Originally Posted by Rhubarb65

Yes, I think you are right Mike. Rudd was quite clear that this scheme applies to boat arrivals and does not preclude asylum settlement through the 'normal' UNHCR channels.

I also feel that government is gambling that the bluntness of the message will dramatically reduce the flow of boats in the weeks and months ahead, single-handedly undermining the 'business model' of the people smugglers - it could work

Originally Posted by ozzieeagle

Yehp I saw that interview live, basically he says that this could actually increase boat people numbers as they have a guaranteed safe haven at the end of the journey.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Just imagine if all the developed world shun agreements they had signed up to on the grounds that they were inconvenient at a particular time?

Originally Posted by Mike at Taree

@the troubadour

The point I was making was that if Scots fled because they were in danger of being killed because of their Clan Campbell connections then they would expect to be resettled in a country with broadly similar standards of living to Scotland.

However Sri Lankans etc would have a similar standard of living to PNG or even Nauru so whilst we should assist them if they are genuinely in danger, I don't feel it's our responsibility to bump them and their family up to Versace Hilton standards, give them a house in front of the tens of thousands of Australians in the queue etc etc. I can show you housing commission estates in Brisbane that are now populated by Somalians, Darfurians, etc etc who all seem to be having a lovely time (they would throng onto the trains at Bracken Ridge and Zillmere.) while I know of Australians who are couch surfing to survive.

edit: not trying to demonise anyone, just reporting.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Iranians would definitely be better settled in the west. Carr's complaint was they are too middle class, as if that has something to do with it.

In fact a lot are highly educated and would be a benefit to more advanced countries rather than PNG with limited resources.

Originally Posted by ozzieeagle

Australia would have had to pay if they came here as well.... So it's basically a zero cost increase. Possibly even cheaper, as there will be no ongoing social welfare costs, thats if it gets past the inevitable court challenges that are bound to happen.

I think in the long run.... 12-36 months this 3rd party relocation will be deemed illegal by international or world courts and possibly rightly so on humantarian grounds. I'd say Labour already know this.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

The point seems to be though that these middle class Iranians are economic migrants so could join the queue we all joined.

Unfortunately class or education is no guarantee of a skilled job in a Western country as evidenced by professionals driving taxis.

Why don't Iranians move to another Islamic country?
(silly question?)

Originally Posted by Mike at Taree

I expect they would then be sent to a mainland detention centre for processing and health checks, then back to Manus Island. However if they have become PNG citizens in the meantime, I wonder what the protocol would be.

For example in parts of Australia huge numbers of Pacific Islanders have settled on the strength of their obtained New Zealand citizenships.

If a boatload arrived at a Torres Strait Island beach they would instantly stick out like the dog's proverbials. If any members here have actually been to Cape York, you would be well aware that even in the 21st Century, best of luck to anyone stepping off a boat up there - could indeed be a source of future tragedies. BH's daughter was an anthropologist married to a Park Ranger up there (edit: and I've travelled widely there with a big gun on the back seat for protection) and it's one of the most isolated and desolate parts of the planet, which is why, even after a couple of Centuries of spotting the place the Dutch never bothered with it

Originally Posted by commonwealth

It's actually a good idea if it stops the boats.

Their dangerous voyages cost lives and billions of Australian taxpayers' money.

If they could please wait for their turn while their asylum claims are assessed!

Have nothing against refugees, as long as they're genuine and not a threat to us.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

One may as well say all asylum seekers could be economic refugees then, poor or richer. The poor obviously want to increase their chances while the middle class want a better professional environment. Most that come to Australia from wherever are economic refugees.
While Iranians are Muslim they are Shite which doesn't sit well with most others being Sunni. They do rather well in western environments and Persian culture differs somewhat to Arab of course.

The process at hand has the job of deciding who is a refugee and who is economic. As 90% of boat asylum are judged to be refugees and only less than half of those that come by plane are then the process must be working to an extent.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Unlikely to become PNG citizens and PNG unlikely to accept many if any long term. PNG does not have citizen rights as does New Zealand passport holders.
PNG from what I've heard will only warehouse people for the year and have not agreed to accept all that come to Australia and are classed by UNHCR as refugees. How and why would they?

Australia is hoping the threat will work and the number of boats will decline. Rudd will be able to claim some sort of victory as thus.
Those in PNG will quietly in the future get refuge in Australia and a few to perhaps New Zealand if the plan goes accordingly.

Most is spin to date and the body language of the PNG officials did
not suggest support to any extent of the policy.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

The point seems to be though that these middle class Iranians are economic migrants so could join the queue we all joined.

Unfortunately class or education is no guarantee of a skilled job in a Western country as evidenced by professionals driving taxis.

Why don't Iranians move to another Islamic country?
(silly question?)

Originally Posted by Mike at Taree

If you can afford to give a people smuggler $10k or even more then you can afford a $900 plane fare to Perth or Darwin or wherever. Then immigration will take your refugee application.


Also if you arrive at the airport you will have your documentation. If arriving by boat you may well have chucked it all overboard - you could be Pol Pot for all we know.

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack

The way I see it, T, is an asylum seeker is surely though a refugee first, and then possibly an economic migrant second. Most people joining the queue are economic migrants, not refugees. Noone on a boat should be a migrant first. My view is that if you join a boat you are either a refugee, or a migrant who can't wait. It is of course the case that a true economic migrant should not jump on a boat unless they pretend to be refugees hence the issue.



If it does provide a deterrant - it will be good - unless the PNG side of thing visibly fails and people overspill to Australia - and people start trying their chances again. The solution is lengthy -processing times onshore I guess.

I am not clear what the Howard's Pacific solution was doing which seemed to work.