The population debate has nothing to do with boats

ytu says:

11:41am | 07/04/10

That’s a lie. We are not a nation of migrants at all. Australia is a country with a native Aboriginal population that was developed by British settlers not migrants.

To be a migrant you need to have something to migrate to - the British had to build the institutions themselves. I agree that non-European migrants will dominate and culturalise Australia in the near future, but they should know how Australia, as we know it, was created and why there’s a church on almost every street in the country.

John A Neve says:

12:17pm | 07/04/10

YTU,
No knows for sure that what you refer to as “Aboriginal population” were the first people here. Also, all I’ve read, suggests there were waves of the “Aboriginal population” arriving over thousands of years, if this is correct? They are a mixed race of migrants.

Further, if you accept that there were people here before the British?
Then the British were migrants.

So as far as I am concerned all Australians are migrants or the children of migrants.  I rest my case.

Mick says:

02:56pm | 07/04/10

Why would we not debate migration? If big business wanted to double the intake to say 600,000, would that then be debatable? Or is a million the magic figure? Or does it never get to a point where it becomes debatable? Or do we just assume that whatever the government does is in our best interests?

We do need this debate as it affects all Australians, from every background, even those that arrived 1 or 2 years ago. All are entitled to an opinion as it will affect the Australia their grandkids grow up in. The “we’re all migrants so we should keep quiet and just accept it how it is” argument just doesn’t really hold any water.

Barry says:

03:33pm | 07/04/10

It’s all about cultureand it’s not funny that Australians are expressing their discontent.  If anyone is entitled to a view, it’s Australian citizens, and we will tell you this:  newcomers are certainly not backwards in expressing theirs.
It’s about highly apparent displacement of Australian way of life by groups of destination-seekers who break our laws before they even get into our country.  They burn and injure themselves, get swift medical attention of the highest standards, while old people wait in agony for 3-4 years for a new knee or hip.
If Australian citizens break our laws, we are humiliated through some sort of punishment.  We are not rewarded. 
For about 35 years post-WWII, immigrants successfully settled here due to their similar political, religious and social beliefs and backgrounds - and they contributed.  They received no allowances, no baby bonuses, and no medicare.  They worked very hard, built businesses and paid their taxes.  So don’t compare the past with now.  They are two entirely different immigration eras.
We now have waves of culturally incompatible people who are encouraged to grow their own belief systems beside or even above our own.  Just because socially cohesive Australia was maintained through the earlier immigration days, does not mean that what has now eventuated is necessarily as good for all and sundry.
Our service men and women died to keep Australia the way it was, not for what successive governments have allowed it to become.
Some of the imported ways of life are causing great social disharmony. 
Colour and race have nothing to do with this.  We are seeing a sanctimonious style of political self-congratulatory over-enthusiasm to provide benefits, housing and generosities for newcomers that Australian citizens have to crawl for.  Many Australians who have been long-time taxpayers and contributors are treated as 3rd class citizens in this regard.
It’s increasingly unacceptable, and Rudd-Labor will pay for it in November 2010.
It’s Australian citizens who are being bullied, not the other way around.

Toby says:

03:47pm | 07/04/10

John,
By your logic the only country that can have a discussion on migration is South Africa!  Jump down from your high horse for a minute, the air is obviously too thin for you up there.

Christian Real says:

03:58pm | 07/04/10

John a Neve, 01.17pm, 07/04/10
John, In a sense you are right Australia is a nation made up of migrants, but our Aboriginal ancestors were the first authenic and original Australians that inhabited this country who were overtaken by the first real wave of migrants to set foot in their Country, the British , the settlers and the convicts in chains that claimed this Country as their own.

Christian Real says:

04:13pm | 07/04/10

ytu 12.41pm 07/04/19
ytu, John A Neve is right,the Btitish settlers are migrants because they came from England, which is another Country to settle here.

Tim says:

04:29pm | 07/04/10

Christian,
surely the fact that Aboriginals also came in waves from overseas makes them migrants too?
As JAN says, the Aboriginals are simply a mixed race of migrants from these many waves.

John A Neve says:

04:33pm | 07/04/10

Toby,
I don’t understand your reference to South Africa, perhaps you could explain?

But I repeat, the fact that migrants or the children of migrants now say who should or should not come here, I find almost funny (sick).
There surely must be a higher form of life than man.

Toby says:

04:31pm | 07/04/10

Cradle of Humanity!

ytu says:

04:54pm | 07/04/10

The British weren’t migrants, they were settlers. The British ‘civilised’ the country so that migrants could come here. (Apologies to the Aboriginals)

How can you not see the difference between a migrant and a settler? You people need to repeat the 7th grade.

Christian Real says:

04:53pm | 07/04/10

Tim says: o5.29pm 07/04/10
Tim, what John , said was “also all I’ve read,suggests there were waves of the “Aboriginal population”,arriving over thousands of years, if this is correct? They are a mixed race of migrants.”
Tim,reading what John said, disputes what you have said in your comments because John, in his comments has never said that it is an actual fact, that it is true, what he has said is that in all he has read “suggests” that there were “waves’ of the Aboriginal population arriving over thousands of years

John A Neve says:

07:37pm | 07/04/10

YTU,
Perhaps you could define “civilised” for us?
If there were people here before the British, they would have had some form of civilisation. In which case the British were migrants. Depending on your point of view, there were many civilisation more advanced than the British one. Having a gun does not make you civilised.

me says:

05:28pm | 08/04/10

“It is almost funny when a nation made up of migrants or the children of migrants, continually debates migration.” yeah, maybe if you’re an idiot.

Brett L says:

08:35pm | 08/04/10

Those people that arrived with Cook and the subsequent colonials were not migrants. They established and civilised this country. They established the constitution, the early infrastructure. They and their descendants are NOT migrants at all. Once the World had established it’s political boundaries movement thereafter is migration. Mr Neve you push a simplistic disrespectful opinion of those early people who worked this land and went to war to die since the early 1900’s. They are Australians!

Luke says:

04:12pm | 07/04/10

Heather Ridout = Rudd. He trumpets whatever comes out of her mouth and she wants a big Australia for business. Although Rudd has realised a big Australia may not be popular for him since his comment and now claims not to have an opinion on a big Australia anymore.

Mavis says:

08:03am | 07/04/10

... nothing? ... 9/11? ... Lebanon? ... Kosovar? .... Didn’t happen?

John says:

08:13am | 07/04/10

I think they were doing a good job in destroying themselves. You can’t lay all the blame on the West. Also religion has had a big part to play.

marley says:

08:23am | 07/04/10

T. Chong - actually, the “vast majority of illegal immigrants who arrive by plane” are not white.  That’s another myth.  Of the top ten source countries for overstayers, only two could be classed as white, the rest are Asian countries, with China fast closing in on the US as number one source.

I agree with you entirely about the hysteria, though.

T.Chong says:

08:36am | 07/04/10

Mavis, you prove my point.
Funny how the actions of extreme elements are projected upon all Muslims.
How about we label all “born again Christians “as murders , following the killings of Drs at US family planning clinics, or all Catholics and Protestants as violent after hundreds of years of sectarian violence that still sporadically occurs, then there are Sihk and Hindu violence, the actions of extreme Zionists in largely unreported attacks againt Palestinians.
Lebanon, you refering to the Israeli backed slaughter of Muslim refugees by Christian proxies?  Kosovar with its parallel in Srebanicia (sic).?
Slippery slope when you start   to villify one religion / ethnic group.

T.Chong says:

08:45am | 07/04/10

Marley: Thnx for info . I stand corrected

Mavis says:

08:58am | 07/04/10

No T.Chong, you just proved my point.

You evaded 9/11, filtered out what happened in Beruit and Kosovar and threw in a few ad hominems. You lot are genuinely dangerous. Answer the question, did they happen?  ...

T.Chong says:

09:11am | 07/04/10

Sorry Mavis . I thought the answer to 9/11 was obvios.
Yes , the perpetrators were Muslim. They may have claimed to do so in Islams name, but that does not mean that all Muslims asked, or backed the terrorists.
You Mavis raised the issue of Lebanon - the killing of Mulims by the Israeli backed Christians, so whats your problem?, an answer you dont like,? or were you completely unaware of what happened? and you were trying for your own “ad hominens”
Mavis , did / do Catholics and Prottys kill each other ?  Have “Born Agains” ever killed in Jesus’s name ?
Do we blame all Christians for the actions of Jesus lovin extremeists?
my “lot are genuinely dangerous” pahleese!
WTF are you ranting about?

Andrew says:

09:12am | 07/04/10

Pfft! Your type of social liberal would be the first amongst those lined up against the wall and shot by these kind of people. And yeah, The less musliims in this country the better. Name two well functioning muslim countries? Headline today: “Woman to go to jail in Dubai for kissing a friend in a restaurant”. (news.com.au website)

I have a significant issue with people travelling to Australia illegally and in so doing travelling through countries they could seek “asylum” in but don’t get the same benefits.

I also think this article fails to address the concerns of most people. Not that 100 boats have arrived but rather the increase. When does it become a problem? 500 boats? 1000 boats? 10000 boats?

You T.Chong are an absolute peanut and we westerners are surely responsible for all of the third worlds problems. Maybe you should go to Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq and offer them the benefit of your opinion. See how long you last if for an instant your opinion differs from theirs.

marley says:

09:16am | 07/04/10

Mavis - not sure what your list has to do with the boat people, most of whom, these days, are Hindu Tamils.

John says:

09:34am | 07/04/10

Your are deluded if think that Tony Burke the first population minister will come up a policy other than one that Rudd and his big business bosses want. The greatest contributor to CO2 emissions is population growth.  Rudd was seen at the Copenhagen climate summit backslapping, hand shaking and networking, but not one rational discussion what so ever about the real cause of CO2 emissions. In fact many reported that there seemed to be a deliberate embargo on any mention of the word population.

Since being in power Rudd has increased immigration without any public debate, until now. The contradiction of the environmental warrior doing good by promoting John Howard’s ETS to reduce emissions, and then pushing for a big population that will increase CO2 emissions, environmental destruction and pollution and not to mention drop in living standards, is obvious. This is a man has no vision or convictions apart from his own personal agenda. This is all about him and making the 1% wealthier and is not about us.

Fred says:

09:37am | 07/04/10

Andrew and Mavis your racism astounds me.  You are implying that because some people of a particular race have done something, that means that all people of that race would do the same.  These generalisations are disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mavis says:

09:49am | 07/04/10

T.Chong, Beirut was a Christian city conquered by Muslims. Might explain why the Christians there did not take kindly to their conquerors, huh? That’s the point T.Chong. I suggest that in future, you include that just in case honesty and balance counts for anything in your rants unless of course you are “completely unaware”.

Nice call Andrew.

Andrew says:

09:51am | 07/04/10

Thanks Fred. Just remember you social liberal views would not get much air in most muslim countries. Those freedoms you so gladly embrace don’t get much air time in Saudi Arabia.

I not a racist I’m a realist. Your soft cultural melting pot attitude is exactly the reason for the rise in middle east gangs and their total disrespect for Australian culture and rules.

Typical, don’t like what I have to say, call me a racist and tell me I ought to be ashamed of myself. It is you who ought to be ashamed of yourself. Open your eyes.

Eric says:

09:53am | 07/04/10

Fred: Repeat after me - “Muslim is not a race. Islam is a religion”.

T.Chong says:

10:17am | 07/04/10

Mavis- you and your lack of knowledge are truly frightening.
You are aware that Israel supplied the Christian militia with weapons and support to launch a completely unprovoked attack against a Palestiniann refugee camp,? and you try to excuse it on the basis of what?  “a Christian city invaded by Muslims” , so that justified the mass murder that occurred? You are a very curios person.
Using your logic,Did the Jews deserve what they got in Warsaw ?

John A Neve says:

10:22am | 07/04/10

Mavis,

9/11, Lebanon, Kosovar all are places where civil unrest took place. But I fail to see the connection with migration.
Just what is your point?

Mavis says:

11:00am | 07/04/10

John A Neve, The connection is they are Christian countries / cities that initially accommodated “SHOCK, GASP,Muslim” refugees then were attacked by those refugees. Hardly “hysteria” if you are in the middle of it.

Mavis says:

11:01am | 07/04/10

T.Chong,
1. “unprovoked?”. Who was firing rockets into Israel?
2. “Warsaw”, the Jews weren’t firing rockets into Warsaw.
No more ad hominems please.

annie says:

11:15am | 07/04/10

mr chong the vast majority of people who arrive as illegal by plane are sent home evetually only 3.6% in recent years have been accepted for asylum. and its not a color thing its a cultural thing. On my last trip back to UK to visit the old home town I went shopping with my daughter in law to Preston, Lancs. I drove up to and went into the car park of what used to be ‘St George’ shopping centre. It is now called The Mall.  Seeing that I have not been in the UK for 2 years and being a little curious I asked a shop assistant in Marks & Spencers just the same as Myers here why the change of name? ‘The Moslem’s in Preston complained that the name ‘St George’ wasn’t suitable for a shopping precinct’. Do you get it?

Ryan says:

11:26am | 07/04/10

@T.Chong: I for one don’t know a lot about the Israel - Palestine conflict but someone told me this truth.. “If tomorrow the Palestinians laid down their weapons there would be peace, if tomorrow the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel”.
Something else, there is no such thing as “extremist Islam”, Islam states that there is one type of Islam and only one Islam, the fact that we don’t see Muslims taking retribution on those that bring Islam into disrepute means that the “extremist Islam” we see is the only actual Islam there is.

Fred says:

11:32am | 07/04/10

Eric I never thought I’d say this, but very good point, I should have corrected myself there

John A Neve says:

11:26am | 07/04/10

Mavis,
The Balkans have been fighting internally for centuries, I am not sure if they even know why they are fighting. 9/11 certainly had nothing to do with migrants illegal or other wise.
The Lebanon, again is an internal issue with a political/religous core,
migrants have little if any thing to do with it.
So your point is?

Fred says:

08:46am | 07/04/10

Eric have a look at this link

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/sp/BoatArrivals.pdf

And then go to Appendix A - your theory of ‘trends toward larger numbers in the future’ doesn’t really work with this example - do you think in 1977 they were probably saying the same thing you’re saying now?

Eric says:

09:57am | 07/04/10

Fred, I’m not interested in ancient history, but in the present and the future.

The trend in boat people has been sharply upwards ever since Rudd changed Australia’s successful policies, and shows no sign of slowing.

AdamC says:

10:54am | 07/04/10

I agreem, the dog-whistle notion is ridiculous. Someone says something by not saying it? It is a logical fallacy that is simply a smear mechanism.

Fred says:

11:38am | 07/04/10

Eric the whole point of the link I posted (if you even read any of it) was that social changes around the world are to blame for the rise in numbers, not a change in our laws.  If you think Howard was successful with his temporary protection visas, look at the numbers - they rose to a record high under the TPV.  And the year Rudd removed those policies there was no rise.  It was the year after that - which the link I posted also points to social changes around the world being the cause. 

If you’re worried about our numbers rising then you should concern yourself with civil unrest in other countries, not our failed policies.

Fred says:

11:29am | 07/04/10

PS 1977 is hardly ‘ancient’

H of SA says:

11:53am | 07/04/10

I think the idea of dog whistling is a little more nuanced and complex than that.

The Coalition has always seen the One Nation votes as “theirs”, whilst also understanding that if it makes their patronage of these voters too obvious they will offend the majority of the electorate. Consider what the Liberal party is saying by keeping someone like Wilson Tuckey on board. He has been publicly disloyal to most of his leaders –including Howard-over his long parliamentary career so he isn’t kept around because the high brass loves him. Its about sending a message to the electorate – that we are the party for the self made millionare, but also for the “battler”

Labor has the same thing with keeping certain figures on board too woo the extreme left, even though at heart they the power in the party is in the hands of working class, socially conservative Irish Catholics not necessarily interested in gay rights ect

It stands to reason that the major parties have deliberately taken the approach of saying things that can be interpreted in more than one way – advertisers have been doing this for years with ads aimed at wooing both genders, in different ways but via one add. Politicians can do this also.

Fred says:

12:11pm | 07/04/10

H of SA, you have worded it perfectly and I could not agree with you more

AdamC says:

12:49pm | 07/04/10

HSA, I should imagine they keep Tuckey because, if they dumped him, he may well win Kalgoorlie (I think that’s the seat) as an independent.

And what has he got to do with dog-whistling? I hear lots of people claining the Coalition incorporated the One Nation vote, but very few instances where Coalition leaders have actually ‘dog-whistled’ some horribly racist slur or whatever. Do people have any examples of an actual instance of ‘dog whistling’? Or is it just, like, the vibe of the thing?

Fred, the problem with your line of argument is that there will always be unrest or conflicy somewhere.  Unfortunately, not even Kruddy can wave his wand and create peace and love everywhere on earth. We need to have policies on these matters which work in real life world.

H of SA says:

02:29pm | 07/04/10

Adam C,

This article by Josh Fear from the Australia Institute has quite a few real life examples of the Dog Whistle in Australia:

http://www.ozbabyboomers.com.au/issues/2009/01_09/dog_whistle/dog_whistle.pdf

The real life examples in Australian politics start at page 17 but I recommend a read of the executive summary in the first instance for clarity about what he means by the dual meanings.

Its a good way of conceptualising it to talk about “the vibe” because proving a dog-whistle is like proving chocolate is better than vanilla- it all comes down to interpretation and opinion.

Indeed, if a dog-whistle couldn’t be plausibly denied it would be very amateur. But I think in most of the examples the politicians know what they are doing and are self aware enough to know that what they say could be interpreted in certain ways.

Ben81 says:

03:04pm | 07/04/10

Fred, that’s absolute garbage.  Boat arrivals almost completely stopped when Howard’s stance on illegal immigration was big news all around the world after the 9/11 hype died down and it got real, almost rabid attention in the world media, and they jumped exponentially after we had a change of government and Rudd didn’t back up his words with action, and repealed a law that made it clear to people that making it to Australia on a boat does not mean almost guaranteed asylum seeker status.  It’s black and white.

There are zero “social factors” that coincidently align with these facts that could have had anywhere near the impact on illegal immigration to Australia as laws and attitudes of the Government directly relating to the issue did.

Fred says:

03:17pm | 07/04/10

Ben81, forgive me for thinking the Parliamentary Library is a more credible source than you

H of SA says:

03:46pm | 07/04/10

Ben,

You are aware that its documented that boat arrivals actually increased after the Tampa incident right?

Evan Findlay says:

05:15pm | 07/04/10

But Eric, Howard let in over twelve thousand refugees and Rudd has let in three thousand, your point is?

Evan Findlay says:

05:21pm | 07/04/10

Ben81, Do you realize that under Howard there were over twelve thousand immigrants to this country by boat. Your argument is shallow to say the least.

Ben81 says:

07:10pm | 07/04/10

Yes Evan I certainly do, and I also remember very well that once the intense scrutiny in the worlds media shifted to Australian immigration the boats stopped coming.  I remember being annoyed by a lot of the reporting, but then pleased at the result.  After a few years where a boat arrival was extremely rare and big news (and every one of them a result of policy failure according to Julia Gillard, which somehow doesn’t apply to Labor…?) we then had a change of government with a change of attitude, and look what happened overnight.

That’s not shallow, it’s fact.

Fred says:

08:37am | 07/04/10

Luke, the first sentence of this article links the 2 together, written by the shadow minister for immigration

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-population-debate-that-the-kevin-rudd-has-already-lost/?from=puff&pos=3&referrer=article

Mavis says:

09:02am | 07/04/10

Wrong Fred, the article clearly states that Kevin Rudd is linking the two.

Fred says:

09:24am | 07/04/10

Oh ok Mavis - where exactly does it say that?  I see a lot of linking the 2 written by the author, but I don’t see where the author says Kevin Rudd is connecting the issue of asylum seekers via boat and the population of this country.

Andrew says:

09:37am | 07/04/10

Have to agree with you Wayne.

BTW population of 36 million = 250% increase on current energy consumption. Any idea how much a 1 gigawatt power station costs? Any idea how far we are behind in replacing our current power stations? Single biggest restraint in the mining industry? Port capacity - no, transport - no, labour - no, ENERGY - yep.

acker says:

09:37am | 07/04/10

@Andrew ...a solar thermal 1 Gigawatt (1000 Megawatt) power station would probably cost about $3-6 Billion dollars to build and would need a vast flat area like the Hay Plains NSW located on a river and accesiable to the SE Aust power grid to support it.

Andrew says:

09:50am | 07/04/10

WHy are we racists when we don’t want people entering our country illegally? Racist to even discuss it. Yours is a typical response from someone with no strength to their own argument.

If a black, white, red, yellow or green guy breaks into my house and starts living on the couch am I a racist to kick him out. Does he scream that because our skin colours are different I must be a racist not to let him take advantage of me? Of course he does, and you probably leap to his defence: he’s disadcantaged, had a hard life, parents didn’t love him, didn’t get the breaks I got, therefore I should support him and the family members he will then want to bring with him to live in my house. Still leaves me in the same spot, supporting this clown because of bleeding hearts like you with your misplaced white guilt. Well keep it to yourself.

Ben81 says:

03:00pm | 07/04/10

Why do you even mention the Tampa, Liz? The situation was responsibly handled and any credible government should use it as an example to live up to if we’re in a similar situation again.

Miko says:

10:19am | 07/04/10

Sorry, this paragraph was left off the front:

The Treasury projection of a population of 36 million by 2050 assumes a annual net overseas migration of 180,000 per annum, whereas current level of overseas migration are at 300,000 per annum and have been for the last four quarters.  If this current level of overseas migration were to be projected to 2050 then the population would be closer to 45 million.

Eric says:

10:51am | 07/04/10

Roland: So people who disagree with you are not human?

No wonder people don’t take your side seriously.

Your ridiculous straw-man diatribe about shooting refugees hardly adds credibility to your point of view.

Kelly says:

10:46am | 07/04/10

Plug up your bleeding heart and acknowledge we do have a refugee program and we do help these people. But there has to be some law and order in the way we control our borders. This is why we have such a great country. Sick of the bleeding hearts who have no idea what they are talking about. Also sick to death of hearing people like you calling us a selfish race. Nick off! Go do some volunteer work in Afghanistan or something, if your so concerned.

BTS says:

10:50am | 07/04/10

Let them all in.  Let them over run the country.  Let them all live at Roland’s place.

Roland March says:

11:14am | 07/04/10

My family came here on covnvict ships. Where did yours come from? certainly not from Aus unless your Aboriginal. Who are you to deny others what we gave to you.? A place of sanctuary

KM says:

11:28am | 07/04/10

Roland March
Well I’m mighty glad you’re not steering this ship.

BTS says:

12:24pm | 07/04/10

‘Who are you to deny others what we gave to you.?’

You established that you arrived here by convict ship, so you didn’t ‘give’ anything?  What personal contribution do you speak of when you say you gave?

Andrew says:

01:41pm | 07/04/10

I’ve read some dumb posts but this is right up there. Definitely in my top 10.

Roland, you keep saying ‘we”. Please don’t speak as if you have the “pulse of the nation”. You don’t and you definitely don’t have the right to impose your misguided moral compass on any one else.

“They have committed no crime…”: Um, derrr… I believe paying a people smuggler to illegally transport you to our shores, deliberately destroying identity papers and deliberately setting fire to boats resulting in death and putting at risk the lives of your rescuers is committing a crime you dope!!!!

Juju says:

02:24pm | 07/04/10

Roland

Most of the so called asylum seekers coming by boat today are from Sri Lanka - they are hardly being persecued in their own country. They are country shoppers and Australia is now, under Rudd, a destination od choice because we are ‘easy’.  Read on…..

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beware-of-asylum-seekers-bearing-tales-of-woe/story-e6frg6zo-1225850659899

Peter says:

02:54pm | 07/04/10

Roland: These people found a haven from persecution when they arrived legally in Malysia and Indonesia. There is no need for them to destroy their identification documents and pay upwards of $10k each to people smugglers to illegally take them to Australia. They are country shoppers pure and simple.

Mavis says:

01:08pm | 07/04/10

What a sanctimonious, patronising, out of touch, elitist diatribe. You are what extremists call “useful fools”. Come back to planet earth, you goose.

Nathan says:

03:20pm | 07/04/10

Where’s the racism on this board, THere is little to none. People are trying to put their point of view accross rationally but youi bring out the racist card because you disagree. How about bringing up facts rather then sitting down crying and point yelling racist racist. The big difference between you bleeding heart leftists and the average rational Aussie is that the Rational Aussie listens to your point of view, takes it on board and then tears it appart without the personal attacks. But you bleeding heart leftists just block your ears and scream racist. No wonder you never get the general public to support you.

Charles Kelly says:

12:47pm | 07/04/10

You’re absolutely right Jason, if these people were not “country shopping to find the best place to live rather than to escape persecution by going to the nearest safe-haven”, then why are they “fleeing” Indonesia?

H of SA says:

11:36am | 07/04/10

James, when I read posts like this I’m reminded of the decency of the majority as oppossed to the loud and public hate of the few.

Thanks for reminding me about the presence of compassion in this nation.

Ryan says:

11:37am | 07/04/10

@James: no one hates asylum seekers, genuine asylum seekers that is. If these were genuine asylum seekers then why did the same amount of boats not arrive when we had the pacific solution?

Fred says:

12:15pm | 07/04/10

Ryan do you think asylum seekers are a set number of people all the time, regardless of the reason they are seeking asylum???

And I’m not sure if you know this, but 1637 asylum seekers arrived during the pacific solution

Charles Kelly says:

12:45pm | 07/04/10

Spot on Ryan. Genuine asylum seekers are welcomed into this country by an overwhelming majority of the population, and the “hatred” is reserved for those attempting to cheat the system by appealing to the deluded gullibility of the namby-pamby snivel libertarian PC types. For many of these illegal immigrants, claiming “asylum” to enter this country is akin to overstating an injury to claim a disabled parking permit - another deceitful act intelligent rational Australians “hate”.

James says:

12:53pm | 07/04/10

Some people hate almost everyone, they are angry at the world and often take it out on those least able to defend themselves.

I take your point about people who aren’t genuine refugees, those people are deported so what is the problem.

The boats will come when people are desperate to get out, even a leaky death trap of a boat seems like a better option to some than to be bullied and threatened in their own country.  Australian government policy has little effect on people who have to get the hell out of a bad situation, it is not like they are doing a comparative analysis on which policy works for them Lib or Labour, they are looking for somewhere to flee.

Charles Kelly says:

01:01pm | 07/04/10

Where is the evidence that these people are so “bullied and threatened” in Indonesia that they have little option but to resort to “fleeing” in a “leaky death trap of a boat”?

Henry says:

01:52pm | 07/04/10

James of SA:  They are not asylum seekers - they are illegal immigrants.

True Asylum seekers would seek asylum in the first refuge available.  These people have conspired with organised crime to travel thousands of miles past dozens of safe havens in order to exploit Australia’s p*** weak borders and get stuck into our welfare system.

These are the brutal facts.

H of SA says:

02:25pm | 07/04/10

Henry,

Not sure if your comment was to me or to James as it a mix of both titles, but the brutal fact is - they are not legal defined as illegal.

Australia is a signatory to the UN convention on refugees which states it is legal to arrive onshore and request asylum.

Whether you feel this is criminal or not is a matter of opinion - but as a matter of legal fact - under Australian law onshore arrival to make asylum request is a legitmate legal activity.

Andrew says:

02:45pm | 07/04/10

James, I am so sorry you feel uncomfortable about my mean spiritedness. Are you ok? I hope your delicate sensibilities won’t now be offended by what I have to say next but you need to wake up.

How are these people “by definition in need of help”. Surely that depends on how you define them. It is convenient I suppose to define illegal immigrants as “asylum seekers” as it tends to excuse all of their behaviour during the “asylum seeking” process.

Passed through perfectly safe countries to get here - no problem, your an asylum seeker.

Destroyed your identification papers so we can have limited ability to establish the truth of any story you tell us - no problem your an asylum seeker.

Set fire to your boat so you had to be rescued which killed some of your fellow travellers and risked the life of our service personnel - no problem your an asylum seeker.

Want free everything at great cost to the rest of us - no problem your an asylum seeker.

Want to bring another 40 or so of your family over to join you - no problem your an asylum seeker.

You, James live in a fairly simplistic world, a world without geopolitics, a fairy land where everyone is really nice to each other.

Let me ask you a question, let’s say, I’m a guy living in say ... a foreign dictatorship ... i belong to a particular religious minority which is marginalised and attacked by the powers that be. I decide to flee this country and travel (perhaps for years) through a number of other countries to finally arrive in Australia where bleeding heart liberals like you open their arm to me and give me a home even though I have refused to play by the rules set down for getting into this country (thereby already showing a disregard for your laws). Then once I have been settled for a little while the head of my ethnic and religous group and I decide he should marry my 9 year old daughter.

Where does she go to exercise her human rights? What do you say when I tell you that you are an intolerant racist for not allowing me to exercise my religous beliefs? Who are you to tell me your law is above God’s law? Why should your laws on equality apply to me?

Think it doesn’t happen? Just ask those living in Londonistan.

Maybe life really is a bit too harsh for you to understand. Have a Bex and a lie down.

Fred says:

03:05pm | 07/04/10

Andrew your generalisations are just plain offensive. 

You cannot say that all boats have passed through perfectly safe countries - how do you know this, which countries, and are they signatories to the UN convention for refugees because if they’re not then of course they’re not going to try and seek asylum there.

You cannot say they have all destroyed their identification - even if there is proof of some of them doing this it is offensive and not to mention stupid to say that they are all doing this

Set fire to their boat?  Yep, this did happen, and it was horrible but you sound like you once again think that every asylum seeker is doing this

And 40 of their family members?  Do you know anything about the immigration process?  Or just what you see on Today Tonight.

Andrew says:

03:24pm | 07/04/10

On the contrary Fred, these aren’t generalisations but citations of particular occurences. If your offended by the truth, so be it. But lets be frank. The examples I have cited are fact. Further where’s your proof that what I say isn’t true? Probably difficult for you to see the truth on the ground from your high horse.

Fred says:

03:57pm | 07/04/10

Andrew rather than asking me to disprove your claims why don’t you prove yours.  Or is that too difficult?  I’ll be waiting…

Andrew says:

04:05pm | 07/04/10

And I’ll be waiting for you to disprove them…tick tock…

James says:

04:24pm | 07/04/10

Andrew people who seek asylum are fundementally no different to yourself whether you like it or not if you delude yourself that you are superior it is only that a delusion.  If you were being picked on by a brutal regime I think you might give you a different perspective on why being able to seek asylum is a good thing, you also might find out you are not as tough as you think.

Too suggest that Asylum seekers all want to marry their 9 year old daughter is really pretty silly.  Did I say that I encourage asylum seekers to break the law?  What is to say that an Asylum seeker won’t be a hard working and loyal citizen an asset to our country?

You know something else, I bet if you looked back far enough in your past you will find that one of your relatives (upon whom your existance is dependant) survived due to the compassion of others, the world can be a nasty place which is why compassion is valuable.

Andrew says:

04:41pm | 07/04/10

James, your assumptions and premises are false. You can demonise me and my opinions all you like. Hey, whatever floats your boat (forgive the pun). What I am saying and what I have put forward to support my opinion are concerns I hear generally across the Australian social spectrum.

Whether you like it or not, there are rules to be obeyed in seeking asylum to this country. It is a clear breach of those rules to pay a people smuggler thousands of dollars to get you here. That is the way it is. You don’t like it change the rules. Otherwise stop telling me I’m a heartless b*stard.

Oh and where did I say a father wanted to marry his 9 y.o. daughter? I said he might marry her off. And if you don’t think that happens think again.

Don’t peddle your arrogant self serving social guilt to me, it won’t wash.

James says:

10:39pm | 07/04/10

Andrew we might be in furious agreement over one thing, I am not suggesting we let in blatantly fraudulent asylum seekers, however asylum is complex and people seem to be way too black or white about it. 

I think the shrill tone taken by people about “the rules being the rules” and the sort of terms used to describe these people “illegals” as pretty ugly, I am just reminding you that these are people and not pieces of sh*t.

You bring up extreme examples of criminal behaviour by someone or other you say is a refugee, what is your point? people who are born here commit child abuse too.  You have to consider that some
(maybe most) people who apply for asylum will be an asset to Australia, they are constantly cast as a burden, you are turning a complex issue into something that is one dimensional.

I have to say you are doing a fine impression of a heartless bastard, you may not actually be one but you might like to read what you have written and reflect you are talking about people.

H of SA says:

12:12pm | 07/04/10

except of course, there activity isn’t illegal at all, shall we drag out the clause Australia has signed up to *again* which states arrving onshore and asking for asylum is completely legal witin Australia?

You may not agree with the behavior BOTC, but it isn’t illegal.

Charles Kelly says:

12:54pm | 07/04/10

If fraudlently claiming “asylum” isn’t illegal, it definitely should be. As far as I’m concerned, they should all be regarded as “illegal immigrants” until such a time as they can prove a legally legitimate claim to “asylum”.

James says:

01:04pm | 07/04/10

@ Bring on the comments.  I take your point about sustainable population, I agree with you in that this is a real problem I don’t support the idea of a “big Australia”.  Most of the people who are increasing Australia’s population are migrants not refugees there is a differerence.

We take 13,000 refugees which is a piddling amount, even for someone such as myself who doesn’t think Australia’s population growth is sustainable.

You can have a sensible debate about population level but before you make up your mind about about refugees put yourself in the shoes of someone who is being threatened by the Authorities in their country, I’m sure you would be greatful to get out of that situation.

H of SA says:

01:07pm | 07/04/10

Should be shouldn’t be, people have their differing opinions. But the fact is it isn’t illegal so to present it that way is a misrepresentation

Charles Kelly says:

02:31pm | 07/04/10

As far as I’m aware, fraud is, and always will be, illegal.

H of SA says:

02:52pm | 07/04/10

Charles,

As you correctly point out fraud is an exceptionally serious crime, and as such has a strict legal definition.

Applications for asylum being denied and fraud are legally seperate issues. While it is possible to commit fraud in the act of applying for asylum (as it is possible to comit fraud in many interactions as broad as writing a cv or becoming married), having your application for asylum denied does not constitute fraud per se as there are many grounds for denying a claim for asylum.

If there are examples of asylum being denied on the grounds of fraud they are not making much news, so I assume its not much of a problem -as this would be a hot news item. Those denied asylum are deported but are not being charged.

Fraud is a felony and for this reason is a serious charge and subject to the same standard of evidence required for any serious criminal charge. It is a principle of our legal system that the onus is to prove a person guilty of criminal activity. If a claim of fraud is to be taken seriously it must be backed with evidence. So in the abscence of a court finding particular asylum seekers to be guilty of fraud by our standards of evidence- on our Australian legal principles we must adhere to the presumption of innocence.

So far, the Australian government under this government and the previous one have not been interested in charging those who have had their claims for asylum denied with fraud.

Charles Kelly says:

03:05pm | 07/04/10

For many of these illegal immigrants, claiming “asylum” to enter this country is akin to overstating an injury to claim a disabled parking permit. Is overstating an injury to claim a disabled parking permit also acceptable in your opinion H or SA?

H of SA says:

03:14pm | 07/04/10

Charles,

No its not ok, but as an Australian citizen I support our values and legal principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

So if we accuse someone of overstating a injury we are obliged to prove it.

Charles Kelly says:

03:52pm | 07/04/10

Well then H of SA, the fact is that our legal system impotently allows many people to dishonestly exploit the current laws regarding disabled parking permits, just as our legal system impotently allows many people to dishonestly exploit the current laws regarding refugee status. If one is “not ok” as you say, then neither is the other. Whereas you say you “support our values and legal principle[s]” which allow people to dishonestly exploit the current laws regarding disabled parking permits, many people vehemently despise the people who do so, which is fair enough - just as it’s also reasonable to hold people who dishonestly exploit the current laws regarding refugee status in the same regard. Clearly in both situations, there are loopholes which need to be closed. When people attempt to obtain disabled parking permits “under the table”, there’s a valid case for assuming that their entitlement is questionable - as is the case when people try to secure residency in Australia in a similar manner.

H of SA says:

04:16pm | 07/04/10

Charles,

I don’t know how much explotiation of parking permits is going on, or any other examples of legal exploitation. There may be a case for law reform for any weaknesses in any of our laws - that’s a seperate debate and also resourcing for investigations comes into it as well.

But my overall point is, as it stands there is nothing “illegal” about an onshore asylum request. Whether those laws need reforming is open to debate. But whether something is legal or not is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of legal fact.

As it stands the term “illegal” is not accurate for asylum seekers who apply onshore either by air or boat.

James says:

01:19pm | 07/04/10

Charles Kelly, you seem too ready to slander “boat people”.  Do you really know how many go through Indonesia?  Can you give me a figure?  Unless you know the details of their case I don’t think you can lable them “illegal immigrants” and frauds.  If they are found to be frauds they are deported.  You seem to be too eager to tar everyone with the same brush for my liking.

If the government of the day took a real disliking to Charles Kelly for no good reason, I’ll be you would be on a boat before you could say hypocrite.

Tim says:

01:47pm | 07/04/10

This is the problem with Australia being bound by a refugee convention that is over 60 years old that was designed for completely different circumstances than we face today.
How do you prove that someone who arrives with no documentation with a story of persecution from areas where very few records are kept is a genuine refugee or not?
Australia should remove itself from the refugee convention while at the same time accepting more people from the overseas refugee camps.

Andrew says:

02:59pm | 07/04/10

James, How can you on the one hand castigate someone for tarring everyone with the same brush when you are doing the exact same thing. The truth is, and this is universally accepted, the vast majority of these people are coming through Indonesia. If you have proof otherwise please share it with us.

Charles Kelly says:

02:50pm | 07/04/10

Once again James, the majority of these “boat people” headed for Australia depart from Indonesia (you’re welcome to prove otherwise) and pay large sums of money to do so. What exactly in Indonesia is someone with a large sum of money fleeing from? As far as I’m aware, residing in Indonesia poses no threat to them? Well James?

James says:

03:27pm | 07/04/10

Charles if they are found not to be Genuine refugees then they will be deported, if they are genuine refugees we should accept them and treat them as we would like to be treated, I trust you don’t have a problem with that.

Charles Kelly says:

04:49pm | 07/04/10

Once again James, the majority of these “boat people” headed for Australia depart from Indonesia (you’re welcome to prove otherwise) and pay large sums of money to do so. What exactly in Indonesia is someone with a large sum of money fleeing from? As far as I’m aware, residing in Indonesia poses no threat to them? So how exactly can ANYONE departing from Indonesia claim to be a “genuine refugee”? Well James, how about you actually answer the questions this time?

Randal says:

05:23pm | 07/04/10

Where pray tell in your magical kingdom of a mind do you think they sail from James??

And just for your benefit the below is the definition of a person whom has illegally entered Australia under our immigration laws:

“...a person who tries to enter Australia without a visa or travel documents is in the country illegally (unlawfully) and is termed “illegal entrant”, “unauthorised arrival” or “unlawful arrival”...”

So what is exactly your point, these people pay smugglers 10’s of thousands of dollars, are flown to countries such as Indonesia (who do not want them) and then sail to Australia, many times passing through multiple countries where they could claim asylum - but they have paid for their preferred destination.

They are told by the smugglers exactly what to do and they destroy all documentation so their nationality and who they are cannot be identified and then they claim asylum from persecution.

The end result is that those who cannot afford to pay are stuck in camps, many for over a decade, whilst those with funds get a way out and their country of choice.

That is why people smuggling is insidious, and why boat arrivals are such an issue, as it’s dangerous and seriously compromises the abilities of others who have been stranded for an seemingly endless time from being given asylum as every time a boat arrives, Australia reduces the number of refugees from the camps they are willing to take.

This is why having a strong border protection policy is important, it deters the smugglers, and people will not pay 10’s of thousands to travel to a country they may not enter, it works and in the last two years of the Howard government these arrivals stopped to a trickle and it is high time the Rudd government got there head out the sand and sorted this.

James says:

07:53pm | 07/04/10

I am willing to concede that some people who pay people smugglers to get to Australia are not genuine refugees.  I am also willing to concede that most genuine refugees would be greatful to be given aslyum in Indonesia and as far as I know most of them are.  However I am also willing to concede that we may be missing out on some excellent citizens but treating desperate people like sh*t and saying point blank that they are not wanted here.

I may be wrong but you come across as someone who sees all “boat people” as a faceless mass and a problem they are people just like you and me and it is just an accident of fortune that you are not in their position.

Randal says:

09:25am | 08/04/10

James, I do not see asylum seekers who arrive by boat as faceless, in fact I see the whole global refugee crisis as a humanitarium tragedy and believe that Australia, along with all countries who can assist, must do whatever they can here and abroad to ease this suffering.

In fact I do not doubt that the vast majority of those who arrive by boat are legitimate and the action taken to destroy ID’s is simply done as an insurance policy, to make it difficut for them to be returned home should asylum be denied.

I also do not believe that we will be overrun by asylum seekers as intake remains the same i.e. 5000 arrive by boat we cut the intake from the camps from 13000 to 8000.

If I was a refugee tomorrow and had the means I would pay whatever it cost to remove me and my family from misery, the issue that I have with this is that it’s not fair to the millions who do not have the means and are therefore stuck in no man’s land, whilst those with funds are able to escape.

James says:

01:12pm | 08/04/10

@ Randal, fair enough I think we might be in furious agreement on this.  My point is I suppose if we take in 180,000 migrants (who presumably are not being repressed), why don’t we reduce migration and up our refugee intake.  I think pinching other country’s skilled people and rejecting refugees is a tad selfish. 

I also think Australia (and the Western world) could lift its game in assisting countries to develop so there might not be so many refugees in the first place.  It is all very well to be a saintly accepter of refugees but if you could reduce poverty and repression before people have to flee I think that would be preferred by all.

Randal says:

02:53pm | 08/04/10

@ James, I think my friend that you and I are in complete agreement and I agree completely with what you have said and my issue is purely with the people smuggling and have no issue with an increase in Australia’s refugee intake and the nation working to make countries safer overseas.

James says:

02:42pm | 07/04/10

Peter who said you were a racist I certainly didn’t.  I agree that at some point we have to draw a line, but let’s get the scientists qualified to answer this question to give us a number about how many people Australia can support.  If we take 180,000 migrants, I’m sure we could take more than 13,000 refugees, who, may actually be hard working and decent people who are loyal to the country that took them in.

History tells us that many refugees make excellent citizens, take Albert Einstein for example.

Evan Findlay says:

05:35pm | 07/04/10

The problem here Peter is that people like yourself offer no credible alternatives. You continually focus on the problem and never the solution. And by solution I don’t mean the usual bomb them, shoot them , turn them back, shallow minded type mentality but an alternative that recognizes our responsibilities, that displays compassion, that recognizes a value and potential worth to the Australian society and economy. Not just the usual slack jaw yokel diatribe that continually haunts these forums.

Another Peter says:

07:29pm | 07/04/10

Evan Findlay: How about this for a solution to people smugglers. Change the UN convention on refugees so that a person found to be a genuine refugee will never be resettled in the country in which they lodge their claim. This will remove all incentive for these country shoppers to pay people smugglers to get them to the land of never ending welfare.

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:39pm | 07/04/10

Sid Meir’s Civilization series are better computer games…..

marley says:

03:56pm | 07/04/10

But isn’t that the whole point?  As long as Australia has massive intakes of immigrants (and I’m not talking refugees) it will always be playing catch-up on infrastructure and services, not to mention housing.  It will never get to the European condition of being well-established with masses of infrastructure.

And I frankly do not see Sydney coping with a doubling of its population - heck, it can’t properly provide for the population it has now, and has little in the pipeline to support the kind of massive growth being predicted.  That’s the kind of thing I would like to see being discussed, instead of marginal issues like a handful of asylum seekers who don’t make a damn bit of difference to the infrastructure issues.

John A Neve says:

05:07pm | 07/04/10

Marley,
I agree with you, but he mess we are in is our fault. We keep puting Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum into government!!

What pressure does the electorate put on government?
Who ever writes their MP? Who ever petitions the govenor?
When was the last time you marched in the street?
Governments do what ever they can get away with and we let them.

marley says:

04:50pm | 07/04/10

The thing is, you get a bigger taxpayer base, but you also get bigger demands for roads, public transport, hospitals, schools etc.  And I don’t see the state governments, for the most part, having either the vision (especially in NSW) or the funds to start building now the infrastructure we’re going to need in completed in 10 or 15 years to cope with the influx. 

A lot of the discussion on population is based on simplistic assumptions - immigration is an economic good (or bad), or it’s morally right because we’re all migrants anyway.  I’d like to see the debate get beyond the homilies and hectoring, and get to the numbers:  I’d like to see the population models linked to the capital investment required to support the different levels of growth.  That could be a real eye-opener for both the pollies and the public.

As to forcing immigrants into less populous areas through binding agreements, I don’t think you could do that really.  People have rights, including the right to mobility and to the enjoyment of family life.  And if a new migrant’s entire extended family are in Melbourne, there’s no way he’s going to happily settle in Wollongong or Townsville. Especially if the jobs don’t exist (and I think Wollongong, for example, has a very high rate of unemployment).

There are just so many aspects to this issue, and I get very tired of it being hijacked by people who are fixated on asylum seekers, as well as by those who believe anyone who questions high immigration levels must be “per force” a racist.

H of SA says:

01:38pm | 08/04/10

More fair points there Marley,

If your interested in more of the facts. I think one of the best respected researchers in this area is Robert Putnam (although he comes from a local community development approach as well as considering migration)- much of his work is publically available, there’s one great public lecture I’ve read which summarises much of his research on this. You can get the transcript this on the Radio National site.

There’s another one online I’ve found where he talks about U.S. migration and some fairly intensive research he has done (not that the U.S. is the same as Australia) about migration and the consequences to the intaking society. I can find the referance when I get home tonight and post it in here you like.From memory much of the findings where that in the U.S. migration distress in the short term (I think about a generation) but was beneficial following this.

I guess if the states don’t have the foresight its something we as citizens need to demand of them.

I know what you mean about it being difficult to restrict human movement - I think it would be legally possible to say people had to remain resident and domiciled in a specific location for a couple of years.

It may rub against our beliefs of heavy handed government from one perspective. But from another, if there is a carrot as well - for example, and accelerated migration process for those willing to voluntarily “opt in” to staying in a regional area for 2 years - I think many prosepctive migrants would accept this trade off.

I’m friends with a couple of overseas students, and even though their visa’s are costly and their conditions very strict they accept that there is an extent to which they need to help meet the needs of this nation as a trade off for the opportunties they have gotten here.

marley says:

07:39pm | 07/04/10

Your choice to be “child-free”  is of course yours. It is, however, almost irrelevant to this discussion.

Most western countries have birth rates at or below replacement.  Yet their populations stabilize or grow, due to migration from countries who are most certainly not “child free.”  That’s the reality.  So, given that there will be pressures from our neighbours to join us, what is your attitude towards large scale immigration and its impact, for good or bad, on this country?  Are you saying that, to protect the environment, we should deny entry to the many Chinese, Indonesians, Malaysians, Koreans and Vietnamese looking for opportunities for a better life?

How do you balance our “ethical” duty to the environment with our ethical duty to our fellow man?

Mariposa says:

11:49pm | 07/04/10

If we don’t take care of our environment long-term by implementing some sort of population control (I know, how terribly non-pc!), that’s OK - mother nature will step in for us, and we’ll become extinct like dinosaurs. We won’t have a country to which immigrants can come to, the conditions will be so bad, it’ll be hard for anyone to survive.

Please go read “Overloading Australia” - it covers all aspects of the population problem, immigration, people’s urge to have kids etc. Yes we can help some people but we’re not responsible for everyone that wants a better life. We just don’t have the capacity to undertake this, as harsh as it seems. Australia does not have the environmental conditions to just keep taking people.

marley says:

11:40am | 08/04/10

B - it’s a lot harder than you think for an asylum seeker to get on a plane to Australia.  He would need a passport (a genuine one) and a visa.  There is no way that most of these people could get visitor visas.  So, they’d never be allowed on the ‘plane.  Hence the boat route.

B says:

01:37pm | 08/04/10

If they’ve gone to all the trouble of organising a boat I can’t see why they can’t organise a passport.  Granted, it may be a bit difficult compared to here but it still makes no difference, the law is the law.  I assume that the policies and procedures the immigration department has are for a reason. 
These illegals are clearly doing it on purpose, showing up with little to zero documentation of who they are or where they’re from to make it harder to send them back.  To scream racism or prejudice about this is plain ignorance.  For all we know there could even be a number of those illegals who could be murders, rapists, terrorists and how do you know they aren’t if they have no ID to check them.  I would really like to know a valid reason why even 1 of them should be allowed through without playing the sympathy/empathy card.

H of SA says:

01:49pm | 08/04/10

The reason people don’t rock up and “just say asylum” as you put it - is the fact claims for asylum are investigated and if found false people are deported.

You have to prove your case, this is why most migrants are by far comming here on a variety of other migration visas rather than boating it in and requesting a protection visa.

Also just for your thoughts about “queue jumping” - did you consider that in the palces in this world which tend to spawn refugees - there might not be much of queue in operation? Failed states don’t have the best migration programs, warlords don’t seem to have much interest in running them and refugee camps are pretty hard to reach through conflict zones.

marley says:

07:07pm | 08/04/10

B - it’s one thing to organize a passport, it’s quite another to rock up to the Australian Embassy in whereever, and convince them to give you a visitor visa.

H of SA says:

03:13pm | 08/04/10

But if they are found to not be a genuine asylum seeker and deported, what’s the problem?

Charles Kelly says:

04:59pm | 08/04/10

YOU may be comfortable with devoting a CRAPLOAD of money and resources to seeing through their lies, but I’d much rather taxpayers’ money be spent on things like schools and hospitals. Then there’s the fact that many non-genuine asylum seekers make it into this country at the expense of those more deserving.

freeman says:

07:01pm | 08/04/10

H,
it would be lovely if we could just deport them, if we could it would not cost us $78000 to process each arrival. it is near impossible to deport
them because
a) you cannot deport them if you cannot prove where they came from (hence the destroyal of their papers) like who is going to accept them
as a deportee if they don’t know that they are infact from their country?
b) there are many international treaties and acts that leave loopholes meaning we have to take them, for example the government must gaurantee that these people will not be persecuted in their own country. how can we gaurantee that when we know so little about them? how could we guarantee that of any individual outside australia?? the argument that they don’t get granted asylum if they are not genuine refugees is a lie.

H of SA says:

02:14pm | 09/04/10

Charles,

I’m happy with it like I’m happy with funding for the police. In a perfect wordl more money would be available for hospitals and schools because we didn’t have tio spend any money on law and order due to a non criminal public.

People commit crimes and it cost money to deal with that. We shouldn’t chuck everyone in jail because some of us are criminals, nor should we turn away all asylum seekers because some aren’t genuine.

Charles Kelly says:

03:59pm | 09/04/10

Well then, all we have to do is to make it 100% illegal to try and sneak into Australia through the back door, and we’d have much more money for much more important things. It’s not the only option these people have at their disposal - it’s just the easiest, and provides the highest success rate for non-genuine refugees trying to cheat the system. Closing the gate on boat-people simply means genuine refugees have to go through proper channels just like everybody else.