Bermudashorts

Paying people smugglers to get on a rickety boat is not part of the humanitarian scheme and nor should it be. Humanitarian visas should be granted in a structured manner to those that have been assessed as being in need (e.g. people living in refugee camps) - not given out on the basis that someone can afford to pay people smugglers.

OzTennis

I'm referring more to accepting people on humanitarian grounds in general more than the specifics of this case - seems to be resentment in general towards this thread of immigration from some.

You are using the criteria for assessing people on the first part of the migration scheme to assess the people on the second part of the migration scheme.

Are you saying that Australia should only accepted displaced people from English speaking countries, providing they are skilled and not a health and security risk?

To put things in perspective Australia plans this current financial year to accept 190,000 of the first type and 20,000 of the second type. Some argue that Australia could do more on the humanitarian front. However, Australia ranks with Switzerland as having the highest % of its population born overseas (1/4) - largely a result of the post world war 2 migration program.

Yes, Australia would be different today if the convicts could still have been dumped in the States.

roaringmouse

Not all work places in Australia have English as their main language

sonlymewalter

No I am not saying this as you know

I am saying your comparison of comparing boat people with skilled migrants is nonsense.

Pollyana

What about the health issue? Australia is known for its hard line on health checks for migrants, its also apparently facing growing problems with diseases like TB. Large numbers of people arriving from countries where such diseases are rife is bound to cause a rise in problems here if they just enter the country with no checks.
I'm not saying necessarily deny them entry if they are genuine refugees, but they need to be screened and if necessary have their conditions treated first- as would any other would-be migrant - not just turn up on a boat and disappear into society, thus posing a risk to themselves and others.

OzTennis

I am not comparing boat people with skilled migrants, you are. Imagine if the 190,000 in the other stream weren't let in because there wasn't a war or religious persecution in their originating country, they hadn't been so desperate as to probably give over all their life savings to a dodgy boat owner etc. (i.e. using humanitarian criteria to assess economic/family migrants). They are a separate category and assessed and processed differently.

No, I don't want hordes of people with TB and other unspeakable diseases slipping in via an unguarded part of the WA coast under the dead of night.

sonlymewalter

You have a short memory as it was you who compared boat people to migrants not me - here's your quote as a reminder....

sonlymewalter

Yup agree on all points

paulry

This whole situation is bizarre. Here we have one product: Australian PR, being peddled by two groups:

• Australian state and federal government delegations, targeting skilled migrants, and
• People smugglers targeting anyone who has the money to buy their place on a leaky boat to Australia.

OzTennis: do you view both groups as equally legitimate migrants?

paulry

OzTennis

I said economic/family migrants are discussing the why's and wherefore's of humanitarian migrants and find that ironic - how is that me comparing one t'other?

sonlymewalter

why is it ironic? They are both completely different.

OzTennis

Put like that no but I seem to be more sympathetic to humanitarian intake than others and have more of the milk of human kindness.

sonlymewalter

No one is arguing against controlled humanitarian intake.

paulry

Yes the humanitarian intake are a legitimate group who have been properly assessed as needing protection and have waited in a queue for allocation to a safe country. Definitely out of all the groups these are the ones in greatest need of help. Not to be confused with unauthorised boat arrivals who are queue jumping, cherry picking the country and in 9 cases out of ten are not in need of protection at all.