the_gripmaster

What do you have to say about the Government's policy on asylum seekers?

Can Australia really afford so many asylum seekers? What good do they do to the economy?

bcworld

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sh...0refugee.htm#d

The number of people granted asylum in Australia in 2008-9 was 2378.

That's a component of the whole humanitarian program which has remained steady at 13000 - 14000 per year for many years. This is clearly a number Australia thinks it can afford.

What good they do the economy is irrelevant as they are granted visas for humanitarian reasons. Some of them will have skills, others not, much like many people arriving under the family program whose skills are also not assessed.

Aussie30

I think that Australia is a very wealthy country which has a lot to offer Asylum seekers and we could definitely do more by treating them better than we have been and accepting more into our country. I think they offer the opportunity for most of us, who have never experienced the horrors that many of these people have endured, to provide, care, support, understanding, education and a new life to people much less fortunate.

Devlin

It's not about the economy!! This is about humanitarian need. Given the large number of economic migrants allowed into Australia, asylum seekers make up a tiny number of them.

I don't see hysterical xenophobia when it comes to the THOUSANDS of visa overstayers every year, yet a few dozen asylum seekers arrive on a rickety boat and it's an outrage. Give me a break.

kporte

If they are genuine asylum seekers, they need help. The cost is irrelevant. The cost on a black hearted soul that would deny a fellow human in need is greater.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

...and that is the moot point. How many are genuine asylum seekers and how many are just, queue jumping, economic migrants?.

Petals

Whatever they are and wherever they are from how do we stop them? While people have money to give to people smugglers it will continue. I believe they are jumping the queue because they have the cash to pay and getting on a leaky boat does not come cheap evidently.

Aussie30

Maybe if you educated yourself about 'Whatever they are and wherever they are from' you would be more sensitive towards these people. Yes, some of the people who come over on boats have paid money, usually by selling everything they have. A lot of the time they end up paying with their lives, many people die before they even make it.
Do you honestly think that people would go to the extremes of selling everything they have, risking the lives of themselves as well as their children, as well as the risk of being thrown into a detention centre if they even make it, just to jump some so called queue?

Why would you want to stop Asylum seekers from coming to Australia? Where would you suggest they go?

fish.01

I think the money and political capital spent on opposing them is a total waste of our resources given we have already agreed to the levels coming in, they are a tiny fraction of our population and most are found to be genuine.

I think the amount of time some politicians use opposing them is a total waste and could be better spent on productive things for our country. They use the issue for political gain rather than spend the time on something that might be far more worthwhile. Total waste of resources. Lets just process them efficiently, send back the minority dodgy one's, welcome the others and get on with other stuff that will make a far bigger difference to all of us.

bcworld

Most of the concern seems to resolve around boat people - I believe under both Howard & Rudd well in excess of 90% of these have been granted asylum after making their claims - this is an indication that the government at least believes they are genuine.

No one seems to care or realise that the majority of Australia's asylum seekers arrive legally before subsequently claiming asylum - boat people make better headlines.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Well the obvious answer to that is "yes" because that's exactly what happens already.

How about the first safe country they come to... as per UN charter.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

What a complete load of bollocks...

Offer a completly open door policy and the amount of people trying to come through that door would sky rocket. What would be the point of having an immigration policy, based around a points system if, as you are suggesting, all you need to do to get round that is turn up knowing one word of English, "asylum" and your in?.

ABCDiamond

That is a question that I would like to hear a detailed answer to...

My view is that their are two types of Asylum Seekers:

1: The genuine ones who wish only to get away from the violence etc

2: Those that want to get away from the violence and poverty/lifestyle that they have, and do not want to accept less than getting both options covered.

My views differ on each type.

kporte

I've got a spare room at my house. I'll take one in. Anybody else?

bcworld

Indonesia seems to be a much talked about stepping stone to Australia.

But does Indonesia always adhere to UN regulations on the handling of refugees?

Not according to the Australian government:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2....htm?site=news

"One is the discussions we're having with Indonesia, but unless the Indonesians will agree to these people being processed under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines, that option simply will be ruled out by Australia."

(former) Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews

I totally agree with your point about no open door. What I struggle with in these debates is the is the way in which people seem to suggest that anyone who doesn't follow the ideal, correct or legal pathway to claiming asylum is automatically an economic migrant.

Imagine the situation - what's that dear? We're being ethnically cleansed? Tomorrow!? Oh just hold on while I pop down to the department and arrange a passport and some visas so we can legally enter the country next door.

Fact is, people will cross borders illegally in this situation. They might cross borders illegally to a neighbouring country, and end up being offered refuge in Australia, they might directly violate Australia's borders and be processed here. They might travel to Australia legally and then claim asylum...I'm not sure if they're then still considered to be the queue jumpers many people on here are fixated with? I'm sure the last route would cost less than a people smuggler...seems like some people would be happy if the people claiming asylum appeared to have less money so that might be more palatable?