BadgeIsBack

You are also at risk of losing your life on a boat - as has been demonstrated. There are plenty of countries you can escape to, naturally.
Remember that it's only recently that boat numbers have swelled.

If you are in real danger you will be happy to go to a designated place and await processing - whether that is Australia or PNG, for a decision. On what basis are these people choosing Australia?

Mike at Taree

Bowen put that quite well, along the lines of "we are not obligated to assist refugees in settling in a country with a particular level of per-capita income, but are are obligated to ensure their safety".

Mike at Taree

In the case of the predominantly Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka who (I'm sure genuinely) fear for their lives and their families as a result of continuing repression and retribution after the defeat of the Tamil Tigers, how about this:

Helloooooooo

BadgeIsBack

Was he on Q and A the other night?

Quite.

roaringmouse

Again, as per that Murdoch article I linked to, Australia receives about 3% of the total asylum claims made in industrialised countries and by comparison, asylum levels in Australia continue to remain below those recorded by many other industrialised and non-industrialised countries.

Check it yourself - I've purposely referenced an article from a Murdoch news source for all the right wingers on this thread that have been sucked in by the "stop the illegals/boats" slogan that has been shouted since the Howard era. One country alone cannot be expected to accept all the asylum seekers from a particular area of the world - in some cases we're talking about a very large amount of people being displaced. Playing a part in accepting asylum seekers is part of being a good global citizen, and Australia needs to fully play its part.

roaringmouse

A lot did go to Tamil Nadu - perhaps you would like to look into that?

Mike at Taree

So if Tamil Nadu is so close, and accepting, why did so many get onto boats to Australia?

roaringmouse

As I said - perhaps you would like to look into that?

Mike at Taree

I'd guess that if they were in real danger and if Tamil Nadu has accepted refugees, then the decision to ignore the few Km from Sri Lanka to India and instead risk the lengthy and dangerous journey to go to Australia would be economic based. As Wayne Swan has suggested. And why numbers have been sent back.

roaringmouse

Rather than guessing... look into it. Learn about the world and refugees beyond the "stop the boats" mantra.

sonlymewalter

He's asked a perfectly reasonable question and you haven't answered him

roaringmouse

Post 65 part answered it. Other than that, I'm attempting to get him to think for himself rather than blindly following the "stop the boats/illegals" mantra - taking the time to learn a bit about the situations may help this.

Mike at Taree

Unlike many Australians I actually do know where Darfur is, and have a very good understanding of the long conflict that took place in Sri Lanka and the fact that many ethnic Tamils there are still being persecuted (not officially but by local forces, police, etc) and would be genuine refugees.

I was probably the only person on his list who could pronounce Dr Majid Mousavifards' name when he was my GP on Bribie Island and we had quite a few conversations about why so many Iranians were leaving the country. In his case he wanted a better more prosperous life for himself and his wife so they could start a family without looking over their shoulders constantly in case a local cleric had noticed that his wife's skirts were a bit short or that he hadn't attended mosque for a few days. He says that since the days of the Shah with his secret police and torture chambers things are actually a lot more pleasant in the country if you keep your head down, but the main problem is the low and falling standard of living which is mostly brought about by the sanctions imposed by the West re their Nuclear Programme. This is basically why so many people want to leave.

Anyway my point simply is not "turn them back turn them back" but more a case of why are they arriving in leaky boats in Australia of all places from the Middle East and Sri Lanka?

For example Iran borders on Turkey with a fairly equivalent, if not superior, standard of living and thence the EU countries. To the North their Azeri province borders Azerbaijan with whom they are ethnically identical and in fact Azeri and Turkish are basically dialects of the same language* and they share the same religion. From Azerbaijan they could enter Russia which, again, only has a second world standard of living but probably equivalent to Iran.

*When I was in Turkey I wanted to visit Baku but couldn't get a visa as it was part of the Soviet Union at the time, however I learned a bit of Azeri when I lived in Turkey, basically you speak Turkish with a sort of Scottish Accent and it gets you there. lol. "a good room" - iyi bir oda / yakhsi bir odakh.


Edit; in the USA There are estimated to be nearly three quarters of a million Iranians (Farsi, Azeri and others combined) nearly all of whom have connections back in the old country. In Australia we only have around 22 thousand. However I'm sure even this very small number have connections and could be able to sponsor relations or genuine refugees arriving by conventional official channels.

I have been to Tehran when I was living in Southern Turkey, helped a mate drive his Peugeot there to sell it. Standard of living and infrastructure seemed about equivalent to Turkey and there was a lot of coming and going at the border. (Edit: and no need for a genuine refugee to make a hazardous boat journey. And no the border isn't sealed. There are several direct trains per day between Ankara and Tehran - I've been on one with my mate when we had sold the car. Lovely restful trip over lake Van on an amazing train ferry - current fare about 40 euros)

In the case of Sri Lanka as I pointed out with a map, there are millions of Ethnic Tamils over the other side of the Palk Straits - many have already been resettled on the Mainland due to the civil war, and according to good Old Trustworthy Wikipedia:


The International Organisation for Migration and the Australian government have declared Tamil refugees as economic migrants.[22] Canada has tightened controls on their refugee program due to various abuses within the Canadian refugee system.[23] A Canadian government survey found that over 70% of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have gone back to Sri Lanka for holidays raising concerns over the legitimacy of their refugee claims.[24]



Now what else should I be reading up on?

Wol

>>The fact that Australia has the resources in place to manage people. Of course if Australia does wish to wipe their hands on the matter do it legally and withdraw from the convention. That would be the honest thing to do. From that point Australia would be free to accept who they wish. <<

That's it in a nutshell.

There's no solution at all with the convention in force in Australia (or any other similar country, for that matter.)

Everyone is fully aware of the humanitarian aspect, and the fact that millions in the world are in fear of their freedom and /or lives. Probably in the same position most of us would try the same thing.

But the fact remains that if any country is seen to effectively have an open door by one means or another, it is potentially liable to be swamped.

What heart-on-sleeve people like Sarah Hanson-Young will never answer is what do they propose when a "maximum" is reached? It's all very well being all gooey and welcoming and saying we can accommodate say 50,000 - but given the tens of millions of potential refugees that figure could be reached in weeks. Then what?

She, and those like her, will never say what "maximum" they will accept, and as importantly, what would they do after that.

100,000? 1/2m? 5m? And then what?

No, the only answer is to tear up the very outdated convention and , on humanitarian grounds, repatriate the boat people back to the place they boarded.

Weescotty

What was interesting was the first footage of boat arrivals/interceptions.
When one was told that they would be getting sent to PNG with no hope of ever getting into Australia he said that had he known he never would have left.
Now hold on a minute, if you are fearful for your life does it really matter where you end up - as long as it is safe?

As for why Australia....
Why would 'refugees' coming from the middle East and beyond travel through up to a dozen 'safe' countries (ie ones signed up to the UN Refugee accords and mostly EU countries) go to the coast of France then try to 'hop' a lorry into the UK?
Answer that and you probably have your answer to why Australia!