bcworld

Er yes, and that was the point I was originally making in response to Mohogony's post!

My dentist in Brisbane would refer to herself as a Vietnamese boat person...she didn't come to Australia in a boat though.

ponyrama

Thats because when they were in Vietnam they lived on boats - like house boats, on the rivers and things. A lot of them still do. So there are "boat people" and then there are "boat people" - them that live on boats and them that arrive on boats.

What shall we call the people that live on boats and also arrive on boats then?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Queue jumpers?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Same claptrap as usual. Open door policy then? Anybody and everybody who turns up by boat should be let in then?

Full of reasons, as usual, as to why Australia should just fling its doors open to anybody who arrives and says the magic word "asylum", but never any answer as to why that's OK for them to push others out of the queue to enter Australia.

Lets be clear on this... most of those coming to Australia at the moment are from Sri Lanka, where there is NO war, where the traditional homeland of the Tamils is next door in India, where they could get to be catching a bloody scheduled ferry. They are economic, queue jumping, migrants.

Broad Shoulders

Where did I say that??????? I believe we have a duty, like other nations to take these people in. Whether we do though is a different matter. All I have seen to date is the same old claptrap as usual about "Boat People", when it is clear that they are only a small player in this issue.

I believe all of this should be managed through a clear plan for the future, something none of the politicians are offering, they are simply trying to offload the issue...or even in the case of asylum seekers in general just sweep it under the mat.

As for your response...same usual claptrap that I expect from you...shoot from the hip.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Come on then, lets hear your "clear plan for the future". You're fond of complaining about the politicians actions, what would YOU do.

ponyrama

Even if they have a visa and have paid for a very expensive ticket on the Queen Mary 2 after living a life on a naval vessel, serving Queen and Country and getting a few medals and that? Surely not!

Broad Shoulders

Other than that being a ridiculous question, which I expect nothing else of you in these types of debates...
I'm not a politician and nor do I intend to be, therefore I am not privvy to budgets and diplomatic pressures that come with this field.

However, I would look to make a cap on the number of migrants allowed in each year. Whether it be through asylum or via skilled migratory. Then maybe offer up a percentage cap of the number of asylum seeker visas granted access each year of those migratory caps. ie: no more than 10% of the migratory visas are to be through asylum. This would not stop the boats from coming in as I don't think this is a real issue. I think all seekers claims should be assessed in country rather than offshore...other than those who are making the claims in their country of origin. In all there should be a ticketing policy on all claims, no matter where the claim is made. There could be different categories of priority (political threats, families etc) which would then mean that there could be no case for "queue jumpers" to exist (just like you get when you go to a Medicare office).

I don't pretend that this is a viable answer, as I said I am not privvy to other info...but it should be a debate that is held without the right-wing political point scoring bullsh!t that we are seeing now. Behind these game players in parliament there are actually some clever guys who I am sure could draw up a very good solution that would benefit all involved, but the people using it to win votes right now have no interest in actually resolving the problem.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Why is it a ridiculous question? You are fond of spouting off about how the politcians have no interest in resolving the problem... but like all, with those sort of view, generally have no answer of your own.

I actually quite like some of your musings... stuff like "no more than 10% of the migratory visas are to be through asylum" sounds great, but no doubt you would be amongst the first to be up in arms if/when that 10% is reached and Australia would start turning back everybody who arrived after that and tried to claim 'asylum'.

Ever thought that the politicians who are undertaking "the right-wing political point scoring bullsh!t" are doing so because they think it reflects the feelings of a large part of the Australian public?