BAY

Have you got any spare bedrooms in your house ? Why don't you show some compasion let some of the refugees live with you ?

NickyC

They'd perish because anywhere they could be dropped off (undetected) is going to be pretty remote. Do you reckon these boats plan to pull into Fremantle Harbour or Port Hedland so they can all disembark elegantly?

I reckon Afghani people (or anyone who doesn't look like an aboriginal or a cattle station staff member) will stick out like a sore thumb wandering around the Kimberley coastline. That's if anyone finds them still standing before they run out of food/water on their 3000k walk to civilization.

There was a case of some boat people actually making it to land a few years ago. They were all picked up within days, which was fortunate for them, because they wouldn't have lasted long in the area they were dropped in.

BAY

Well I think plenty of them have done a good job at going undetected because you haven't noticed them

the troubadour

Try and understand most the countries that are passed through are under no obligation to accept refugees under law nor do they have the money nor facilities to do so.
Some do remain in limbo in camps sponsored by United Nations as are the Burmese who are being flown in to Oz in fairly large numbers from Thai camps.
is that real enough for your comprehension?

the troubadour

Think most people are aware that the sick aged persons life is often ended prematurely by holding back on certain procedures..no real secret.
But it is wrong to equate the insurance on your car or house with comparison to the value of a human life.
A health system is parament to a civilised society ,above all else one would have thought and is the foundation to all we hold important that enable us to function as human and economic beings

ossigeno

It is fair to say if you're fleeing persecution, you don't travel across the globe. You stop as soon as you are clear from persecution AND the current country won't deport you back to where you came. Anything else is really an economic migrant.

I don't think many people have an issue with asylum seekers. And those that do we shouldn't worry about.

I don't have major issue with economic migrants. But I do with classing them as refugees with the special status that brings.

Australia has spent $00 millions on camps and sweeteners in Manus, Christmas Island & Nauru. Utter waste of money. This is a bigger scandal than a few hundred people arriving each year on boats. All the camps are closed down I understand.

When considering the plight of the boat people, the test to apply is what would you want done to yourself if in the same circumstances? Why should people's opportunities & quality of life be determined by where they were born?

It reminds me of a visit to Jakarta 10 years back. Driving through a rich district with open drainage canal in the middle of the street. Fathers standing in the drain holding their children waiting for the waste water to be flushed out of the pipes so they could be washed. Or the kids who live in the rubbish dumps. These incidents have remained with me.

I do think Australia should have a quota for economic migrants but they apply offshore. The boat arrivals have to be stopped. It's dangerous and uncontrolled.

Economic migrants should be given 5 year temporary visas within regional areas. No convictions within that period should lead to residency.

the troubadour

A bit naive you think.Well actually might agree with you if they landed on Sussex beaches or some point up the Thames..there would be possibilities of disappearing into the massively diverse populations and remaining undetected ofcourse providing they remained undetected being a lot more people around to spot them in the first place.
But to arrive on the Northern Australian coast where there are few roads few people it would be somewhat difficlt to go unnoticed in the sense that they could make it to a populated area and blend in.
.

the troubadour

Very unoriginal...and it will be treated with the contempt that it rightly deserves.

the troubadour

So right NickyC.There was a film called Lucky Miles made a few years back on this exact subject.Well worth looking at.

the troubadour

Yes but can not beat the Brits who are the number one group of illegals in this country,,

the troubadour

It was money well spent by the former Howard government in the political sense showing being tough on refugees.
Christmas Island is the only camp still open and is where all recent arrivals are sent for processing prior to being flown to the mainland if judged to be in need of protection.

Vash the Stampede

Yes, that's a very real possibility. If true, it would mean that these asylum seekers are guilty of a deeply troubling and immoral act. "You have to let us in or we'll burn our boat; then if we die, our blood is on your heads". No country should be forced into accepting people who employ this sort of blackmail.

However, the facts remain unclear at this stage, so I am keeping an open mind.

Irrelevant. Australia is a signatory to the charter as well, and we're not under an obligation to take them either. We are at liberty to refuse any asylum seeker whose claim is ruled invalid.

Nonsense. That is precisely what the UN declaration requires; to whit, that they demonstrate the validity of their claim. If they can do this, then the fact that they arrived illegally is irrelevant. If they cannot do this, then the fact that they arrived illegally is entirely relevant.

Yes they are "more genuine", which is precisely why they get in so quickly. That's the whole point.

Arrive at a country without any identification or evidence to support your asylum claim, and you can expect to be sitting around in a detention camp for quite some time. Arrive through the proper channels after presenting all your ID, etc. and you can expect to be processed promptly, whilst living in the community. The choice is yours.

I wholeheartedly agree.

(a) they only end up in camps for years when they arrive without any identification or proof for their refugee status. 80% of asylum seekers in Australia are processed while living in the community; it is only a minority who remain in the camps, and they wouldn't even be there if they'd applied in the proper way.

(b) give me three examples of asylum seekers who have lived in Australian detention camps for "generations". I don't know of any. This is a gross exaggeration.

Australia does not have an illegal immigrant problem; the numbers which arrive are tiny, even in proportion to our own small population. I do not believe that this issue is a major one; we are not being flooded by illegal immigrants. However, the Bakhtiyari case shows why it is so important for us to maintain our rules and uphold our laws.

Wol

My reference to insurance was intended to demonstrate that there "has" to be a price on life, whether we like it or not.

Imagine a society where there's no financial limit to a life: a court awards absolutely unlimited damages when someone is killed in a car crash. Insurance premiums are therefore also unlimited. Ergo, no-one can afford to insure. OK, it's the reductio ad argument, but the principle is sound.

I have seen the slums of Bombay, Jo'burg, Sau Paulo and the rest at first hand and have enormous sadness at the way many humans have to live. But sadness, sorrow, handwringing doesn't alter the fact that finances are - anywhere - limited.

Anyway, the thread has, as usual, split into different arguments which muddies the water!

To reiterate my own opinion on each:

There have to be strict controls on supposed refugees arriving in *any* country, otherwise the number will increase unsustainably.

The taxpayer should not be forced to put up with deteriorating medical facilities because they are being abused by drunks, addicts and the like.

Incidentally, there are now 5 taxpayers supporting each Australian on benefits: a couple of decades ago it was 16.

(Not counting Kevin's cash handouts as "benefits" <g>)

Vash the Stampede

I was disturbed by the images of young Afghan asylum seekers chanting "We love Australia", as if this is somehow supposed to validate their parents' claims. Australians will always welcome genuine asylum seekers; there's no need for emotional manipulation.

It also made me wonder about the future attitudes of these children. Immigrants from excessively conservative Muslim nations often have difficulty assimilating in secular western democracies, and Australia is no stranger to the problems that this can cause.

I can't help wondering how many of those kids chanting "We love Australia" might be chanting "Death to Australia" in 15 years' time.

sonlymewalter

Excellent points. Emotion should not come in to it as this inhibits rational thinking and decision making. With the best intention we can't save the world but we can make a difference. This has to be fair and equitable and above all else above the law. If we encourage this behaviour regardless as to our emotional involvement then we loose the plot.

Your point re "we love Australia" Vs "death to Australia" is a good one. You only have to look at the home grown terrorists that have been found in UK to know this is possible