Why are we so afraid of people seeking asylum?

Tom says:

09:18am | 07/07/10

Eric,

When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, by boat or otherwise, they are processed in order to determine whether they have a genuine claim as a refugee or not. If they do not, they’re deported. Explain why this is not effective border control?

Can you explain how letting in genuine refugees and excluding those who aren’t will make Australia an ‘impoverished hellhole’? Sri Lankan Tamils and Afghan Hazaras flee racial persecution and authoritarian regimes. What makes you think that a few thousand of them each year can or would lead to Australia becoming impoverished, or a hellhole?

It sounds like you would sacrifice the dignity, rights and humanity of a few vulnerable people for the sake of a feeling of insulation or protection from the harsh realities of the world.

You value the ability to feel smugly ‘secure’ above the real big picture - firstly, that the victims of civil war and strife need somewhere to go, and we have the resources to provide them with asylum, and secondly, that asylum seekers pose no threat at all to the Australian way of life.

Such paranoid posturing must be seen as the egotism it is, and rejected utterly in favour of policies that preserve human rights, equality and dignity, in the present and in the long-term.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:21am | 07/07/10

Well said Eric , the bleeding hearts can’t see the problems associated with blanket acceptance of every leaking fishing boat loaded with people who are unprocessed on issues like health , criminal element , terrorist infiltration , or the blatant open fact of illegal entry.
Abbott has the correct , firm , quick action policy to deter the perception that Australia is a soft touch for illegal entrants .

DD Ball says:

09:23am | 07/07/10

I like migrants, and want more of ‘em. It isn’t compassionate to drown at least 170 people at sea, or to charge them $5k to over $20k for the privilege of drowning, facing unending internment and deprivation. I agree that refugee camps are bad, but that is the fault of the UN and not Australia, and Australia is not helping by undermining UN process. Gillard claims the 170 deaths are not many compared to the scheme of things. I beg to differ. I applaud Mr Abbott for having stuck to his ground. I remind the world that Australia can hold more people, but we need good infrastructure management and the ALP are not capable of that.

Liz says:

09:24am | 07/07/10

When we loose our compassion we are truly in danger of living in a country that is a hellhole.

Dom says:

09:31am | 07/07/10

Eric

You do seem to be afraid - how exactly would Australia become an “impoverished hellhole” by humane processing of asylum seekers in accordance with international law? There is no logic in your comment whatsoever. I think YOU do not see the bigger picture and, frankly, you do not understand the debate or the facts. 

Also, some people seem to be willing to sacrifice a few people’s lives for the sake of short-lived political gain and a few minutes of taming their anxiety.

All the article does is pointing out that there will be human collateral damage by having a one-size-fits-all policy.

Stephanie says:

10:05am | 07/07/10

The compassion argument is what ALL asylum seekers count on to be able to stay here, so of course all of them would have very similar stories whether true or not… after all that’s why actual terrorist threats have been allowed into the country… (remember the burning boat scenario not too long ago, they all got asylum and then some were found to be real threats and they had lied, surprise surprise)

Brynn, what you don’t mention, and of course we know WHY you don’t mention it, was how much this young man PAID the smugglers…

Surely if he had the money to “pay” to be smuggled, he had the money to get real valid documents! Don’t you think?

JC says:

10:36am | 07/07/10

To all those asking Eric how Australia will become an “impoverished hellhole” buy a ticket and fly to London. take a look around, go visit a housing estate. Talk to the locals. Then you will see what comes of uncontrolled borders.

James says:

10:40am | 07/07/10

Stephanie, much like Eric you’re making gross assumptions that when thought about are pretty ridiculous.  Particularly, your claim that “Surely if he had the money to “pay” to be smuggled, he had the money to get real valid documents! Don’t you think?”

Just a few things, based on logic…. If the bloke is fleeing persecution do you think he’s going to ask those who are persecuting him for a few nicely coloured and stamped pieces of paper as he runs away from them? These are people who’s lives are threatened by systemic persecution.
Secondly, from my small reading of very informative books such as Human Rights Overboard, its made clear that in a lot of instances nations such as Afghanistan don’t always have a passport style of documentation like in Australia. Some people who leave under particular circumstances aren’t actually required to carry any documentation.

James1 says:

10:53am | 07/07/10

All your post tell us Stephanie is that you have never been to Afghanistan.

Stephanie says:

11:05am | 07/07/10

James1, no need to go to Afghanistan, I come from a so called third world country, from which many ppl lied to be allowed into this country and many of them do not learn the language, do not work and are a drain on this country… I too emigrated but the correct, proper way, filling paperwork, going for medicals, testing my language skills and paying for the privilege of being assessed.

I have travelled to many many countries, and more lately Europe, I don’t need to GO to Afghanistan to see what’s happening here, you just need a tiny lil bit of common sense AND to read true stories not the heartpulling crap that’s normally written in the media!

Common sense says - If you have $20,000 to get knowingly smuggled into a country illegally, passing through many countries which have embassies and/or consulates in which you can make a asylum request and you CHOOSE not to do the right thing, you get put at the back of the line to wait whilst the people who DO the right thing get priority.

Pretty simple with common sense ruling the brain isn’t it?

James1 says:

11:13am | 07/07/10

Stephanie,

So you paid your way into Australia?  How are you any different?

Richard Ure says:

12:14pm | 07/07/10

Eric,

“impoverished”? Frank Lowy? Please explain.

Dark Rider says:

12:35pm | 07/07/10

Stephanie, you are totally correct in what you say, but the bleeding hearts need to continue their futile argument to maintain their feeling of superiority over those who have a more realistic view. Don’t waste your breath on them, and be content in knowing that the vast majority of this country’s people agree with you. Democracy at work - don’t you just love it ?

Stephanie says:

12:52pm | 07/07/10

HAHAHAHAHA you’re too funny James1, I paid the fees as required by the legitimate immigration application process :D hahaha you should apply for a senate position with Labor, you’re too good at putting the Labor spin on things hahahaha that a well needed belly laugh on this cold Sydney day, thank you

James1 says:

01:18pm | 07/07/10

Actually Stephanie, I like significant parts of Abbott’s policy announcement far more than Gillard’s.  I don’t like the TPVs, and I think his talking about turning boats around is just rhetoric, but I think he is onto a winner with the rest.  I don’t go for this partisan stuff, I think about political parties and their positions on issues on the basis of merit, and call them as I see them.  You come across as a rusted on Liberal Party voter, with very little ability to examine issues for what they are, and not in the light of the political spin of your choice.

Peter says:

01:26pm | 07/07/10

Its a pity the Indigenous people didn’t adopt Eric’s attitude towards people invading their land. Only then would be be without such xenophobic clap trap. Being human has its critics, embracing other humans suggest we are part of a world population with all the foibles of community. We have no rights more or less than any other human being on this planet. Globalisation is inevitable with or without you Eric.

Stephanie says:

02:03pm | 07/07/10

James, firstly apologies as I did not see your post above James1 until now.

Secondly, let me enlighten you… an Afghan ID card or Tazkera is a legal requirement in Afghanistan must be gotten for EVERY male and optional for females (typical!) from any and all Afghan Consulates & Embassies hence IF these so called asylum seekers really are genuine, they can stop at any of the countries that they decide to pass through and get ID oh! for a whole 50c US… I’m guessing since they had tens of thousands to come here illegally then they can afford the 50 cents, common sense?

(If yuo’d like to verify the information please visit the UN Refugee Council website)

Ms. Meg says:

04:03pm | 07/07/10

Eric, we are part of the human race and have an obligation to help those in need. To offer a safe haven for asylum seekers will not sacrifice our country it will enhance it. Liz and Tom - you are both absolutely right. Thank you Byrnn for such a wonderful article. We can only hope the mugs in Canberra read it!

DJ says:

05:27pm | 07/07/10

@Peter, that’s a ridiculous statement, the Brits had better weapons no matter about these laws, this was waaaaaaaayyyy before government came about, sheesh, think first

Aptitude Design says:

07:02pm | 07/07/10

People don’t like gatecrashers: why can’t they wait for the invitation, instead of : Coming, ready or not! Too bad about the rest, who have to wait even longer because someone else won’t wait. Bad manners makes no friends. Yes, the photo is just like all the others: having been to India, I can tell you that one picture tells a thousand lies [ because it shows only what they want you to see, not the rest of the scene]

Darryl Price says:

08:48am | 07/07/10

That never happened Lee-Anne. Sounds nice and emotive though. Gee they must be bastards. I read somewhere on the internet that most Libs drowns kittens for relaxation.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

12:37pm | 07/07/10

Lee-Anne, what about Labor’s [new] policy? The author of this peice, and youself, are focussed only on the opposition’s policy announcment?

Did you oppose the “pacific solution”? If so, why are you not (along with all the other good progressives) jumping up and down about the actual government’s (not opposition’s) pacific solution v2.0?

I was ammused when I heard Labor’s (predictable) policy announcment yesterday… amused because I knew “the left” would be deafly silent on the issue, and I knew that somehow, they would manage to use ALP policy to demonise the liberals. It’s pathetic really.

JulesG says:

12:37pm | 07/07/10

Actually Darryl, it did! It’s accepted by most people, even their own (and not to use your robust vernacular) that the Libs are less empathetic and socially minded.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

09:22am | 07/07/10

Yes iain m you are correct.  This is the very problem that England now faces and it is quite serious too.  My concern is a long term one, not a short term one.  Has the author of this article and others like it, been to the UK at all say, 25 years ago, and then recently, say in the last 13 years of Labour Government?  Where Christians are not allowed to wear crucifixes at work but Seikhs must be allowed to wear their turbans at all times regardless and muslim women their burquas and so on.  I had a letter from a friend recently (she’s anglo-saxon) and she informed me that she had been spat at as well as physically assaulted
where she lives in London.  London is over crowded with immigrants:  immigrants whose cultural believes are totally at odds with English ones and who, upon arrival, insist that their beliefs must prevail whilst English culture must disappear because it “offends”.  I don’t want that attitude here thanks, we have enough of it as it is without it growing any further and who is to say that these people are genuine refugees?  How do critics know so much and others ignorant?  What I want for our country is orderly and controlled immigration.

Stephanie says:

10:32am | 07/07/10

JCG I agree with you, I’ve been there and its disgusting, they tell you on the tours, newspapers, radio and whilst you wait for the metro, that you have to be careful with such and such immigrants by nationality, its not just England, also Spain, Italy, France (but the latter had the balls to do something about it)

Jon says:

11:04am | 07/07/10

Thank you Julie, this is Australia’s furture. Just visit London. The Labor party solded out its own people and the legacy of a secular society for cultural relativism. The outcomes are plain to see.

Ben says:

11:54am | 07/07/10

It is also important to bear in mind that asylum seekers make up a tiny proportion of immigrants - if you are worried about cultural change, it seems your concern about asylum seekers is misdirected.
In any case, the article says that Abdul was sticking up for women’s rights and was persecuted for this reason. That sounds consistent with Australian values

rick says:

12:10pm | 07/07/10

@ Ben: Yes, because Abdul could never think “what can I say for them to like me more and be compassionate? Oh yes, that I want gender equality”

Moreover, surprise! a female lawyer - and she seems to have taken the bait.

I acknowledge that it could be legitimate, but c’mon, don’t be that innocent either.

B says:

09:49am | 07/07/10

I agree with your comments Gary. This sounds harsh but we don’t just walk into someone’s backyard without permission. We need rules and laws in our country. While it is heartbreaking to hear stories such as Abdul’s the truth if the matter is that Australia cannot help every person who is in danger or is being treated poorly in our world. It would be fabulous if we could but it’s just not possible. I believe this article borders on emotional manipulation. I am sure we could find a similar story on someone who lied in their interview.

People smuggler’s are criminals. If we allowed every boat arrival to settle in Australia their criminal activity would flourish. I am convinced of this.

I am all for Australia increasing its refugee processing overseas (or neighbouring countries if the country in question is unhelpful) and combining efforts in the region to eradicate people smuggling networks. What have the US and Australia etc efforts in Afghanistan actually done?

Finally I do a lot of work with homeless people and disadvantaged Australians and see the shortage of housing here. Do not even get me started on the dire situation our indigenous people are in….

This is not a simple issue and sadly justice cannot prevail for everyone.

Ben says:

12:03pm | 07/07/10

I agree that it is preferable for people to come to Australia legally. However, this is not possible for many people. As you say B, you wouldn’t go into someone’s backyard without asking them first normally - but you might if you were being attacked right?
The point is not to allow every boat, just to allow those, such as Abdul who would be persecuted. There are other stories and I’m some other applicants have lied in their applications but many don’t and they should not be punished by sent back to die at the hands of the Taliban for this.

Also, I am not sure how the actually very tiny numbers of asylum seekers make things worse for homeless people and indigenous people. These seem to be unrelated problems and there is no reason why we need to help one group rather than another.

alex says:

08:44am | 07/07/10

So there’s no emotional manipulation on the other side, Eric? Give us a break from the hypocrisy.

AliceC says:

01:22pm | 07/07/10

And baseless fear is also a trap. God forbid you show a small amount of compassion to anyone trying to flee persecution, torture or death.

Doh says:

09:08am | 07/07/10

Who is Kevin Rudd?

That’s right: “Tough but humane”

“racist inhumane nation”

But didn’t comrade Gillard say that concerned people should not be called racist??

Nef says:

11:45am | 07/07/10

I agree Martin.
And I wonder how history will judge us? Probably as selfish people sitting in our ivory castle looking down on the rabble with our superior air.

6c legs says:

01:45pm | 07/07/10

Absolutely SPOT ON!
Thank you Andrew, your post hits the nail on the head.
Australians are no different to people from the UK or US in regards to a “fair go” - the “fair go” is a myth that we like to perpetuate. The only “fair go” the majority of Aussies believe in,;is one for them and their immediate family.

Thanks to the author for actually doing something to help these poor buggers whose only crime is to want to live in a ‘decent’ country, that has half way decent laws.

Sim says:

03:23pm | 07/07/10

Yes Andrew.

WHY SHOULD WE PAY THEM CENTRELINK BENIFETS!

What about a young AUSTRALIAN mother living in her car with her children.  Freezing in the middle of winter.

We can’t help her?  But lets give free money to people who just spent thousands to get here, yeah lets give them some money back, while and AUSTRALIAN mother lives in a car.

How about you support the Illegals, and my tax dollars can help Australians?

Sally says:

03:47pm | 07/07/10

Sim,
I don’t claim to know the young Australian mother in her car, so I can’t comment on her individual circumstances.

We do live in a country, however, where you are paid unemployment/single parent/sickness benefits, benefit from a state school education at worst, have access to subsidized medical care, access to birth-control and counseling and legal aid.  If, with all this you cannot make a go of it , that is unfortunate.  There may be external forces at play, bad choices or sheer bad luck involved. 

This argument does not change the fact that if you are a genuine asylum seeker (in fear of your life) without language, money or education on your side, you may temporarily need a helping hand.

Do you honestly believe that if not one asylum seeker was admitted from this day forth, every Australian would be rich and housed and educated and healthy?

Sim says:

04:26pm | 07/07/10

Sally,

Good points.

I’m certainly no expert on the asylum seekers.

But everyone keeps saying there isn’t really that many people arriving by boats, only a couple of thousand a year.  Dont worry about it…

But it just costs so much to house these people.

http://www.news.com.au/national/opposition-claims-cost-of-housing-4200-asylum-seekers-has-topped-344m/story-e6frfkvr-1225858583721

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/christmas-is-asylum-seekers-costing-1b-20100511-uui9.html

If these figures are even close to accurate, that is a lot of money to house such a small number of people.

I just dont want Australia to experience what the UK is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1428673.stm

Hopefully, we are better than that.

James1 says:

04:29pm | 07/07/10

I can comment on that lady, assuming Sim is talking about the same story.

She was there because of her own actions.  She told the reporters that she was too ashamed to ask her friends and family for help, for a place to sleep for a while.  But not too ashamed to force her children to sleep in a car.  Where most people would swallow their pride and do the best for their children, she put her pride first and her children second.  That has nothing to do with asylum seekers, and everything to do with one person’s selfishness.

Sim says:

05:48pm | 07/07/10

James1, if indeed we are reffering to the same lady.

It appears i have choosen a poor example.

Gwendolyn says:

03:44pm | 08/07/10

Sally I wish everyone shared your insight… to assist asylum seekers, in reality, would have an insignificant impact on the potential welfare benefits of other Australians as alluded to above. Centrelink has stated that only 3% of individuals recieving a Newstart Allowance income support payment had recieved a refugee or humanitarian or permanent protection visa. I believe as a wealthy and developed nation we need to assist our ‘fair share’ of refugees and asylum seekers. We need to make a greater contribution.  Thank you Brynn for allowing us to gain another perspective removed of political rhetoric and scaremongering. We are “spoilt” and need to remember its by pure chance that it is not us trying to make a better life for ourselves in Australia. I am ashamed that we as a nation choose to decide our future and elections over such an issue. I believe as voters we need to spread our focus, and not be seduced by politicians who want to benefit by playing to some peoples empty and ignorant insecurities.

iansand says:

09:56am | 07/07/10

Australia is the closest country that is a signatory to the UN convention.

Richard says:

10:54am | 07/07/10

@iansand: Iran, China, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are all countries bordering Afghanistan that are signatories to both the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. Cambodia is also a party to both and is closer to Pakistan than Australia is.

James1 says:

11:14am | 07/07/10

And of course, Richard, Cambodia is much better equipped to take refugees than Australia.  Or perhaps we should live up to the example set by Iran, which currently has an estimated 1 million Afghan refugees.

Tim says:

11:25am | 07/07/10

James1,
so you don’t actually believe in the convention then?
You think that the country “best” equipped to take refugees should have them forced upon them?

iansand says:

11:48am | 07/07/10

Richard - Those countries are actuall producing refugees.  They are in no position to accept them.  This is a problem that is a lot bigger than a couple of thousand people arriving here by boat.

Gwendolyn says:

03:52pm | 08/07/10

Really good point iansand. So important to mention. We should stop being so egocentric. This affects over 40 million people. Not just the couple of thousand we are so concerned about fleeing persecution and arriving here by boat.

newstime2010 says:

03:10pm | 07/07/10

That is correct ! 10 Points!
But the question no one can answer is. How to stop people getting in the back way?
Do you have another 10 point answer?

JC says:

10:43am | 07/07/10

The idea is the man comes out here, gets refugee status, gets a job then sends for the family. Thats why all those idiots saying “the number of people arriving by boat is minimal, only 2000 as apposed to the 10,000 by air” (or whatever the numbers are) aren’t seeing the big picture. it might only be 1 arriving by boat, but once he’s allowed in he brings another 10.

Gwendolyn says:

03:56pm | 08/07/10

Excellent point. Fear has won many an election and unless people start looking at facts for themselves will continue to do so.

Joan says:

10:12am | 07/07/10

`to start building infrastructure inland. ` Exactly, where, what,  who will go there, and to do what?

Julie Coker-Godson says:

01:57pm | 07/07/10

Um, Sneakers, whereabouts in the inland do you propose they go?  Out “Back o’ Bourke” there are water limitations amongst other issues.  The arid and semi-arid areas of Australia could only support so many as most of our people live along the fertile, well watered, coastal regions of Australia (when not in drought!).  And what employment opportunities would there be for these new arrivals inland.  The people who are there now are living hand to mouth thanks to the drought and most of the shops and banks and retailers have left those smaller inland towns.  Perhaps Wagga would be large enough but, again, we get back to sustainability as in water supplies, especially inland.

James says:

10:50am | 07/07/10

Well Joan, at least he is alive and still has a full life ahead of him with the opportunity to make differences for the Afghan people - if not now then in the years or decades ahead. He can’t do much if he is shot dead, which would presumably be a key reason for him leaving given his home country is currently subject to an Australian-backed war.

Joan says:

02:52pm | 07/07/10

A guy that scuttles away from a fight in his country - thinks only of himself, does not think of Afghanistan or its people - just thinks of himself.- don’t expect him to go back and help with anything and don’t expect him to lay down his life for Australia ever-  but do expect him to stretch his hand out for any hand-out Australia is prepared to give

Nef says:

03:13pm | 07/07/10

Joan. I am sorry for you. What an outrageous attitude. If you were being hunted in your country what would you do - stand in line to be killed or escape & live to fight another day?

B says:

10:48am | 07/07/10

Great response.

James1 says:

10:59am | 07/07/10

We do take care of Australians already Stephanie.  The mechanism we use is called the welfare state, and it does not need to be expanded.  I would much rather our welfare state support a few extra refugees from places like Afghanistan, than have the resources given to dole bludgers expanded any further.  The simple fact is, most migrants end up in work eventually.  Avoiding work is the only effort that dole bludgers are happy to pursue.

James says:

11:05am | 07/07/10

If you travel all the way from Afghanistan or Sri Lanka to Australia, through ridiculous conditions by land and by sea then you are prepared to be a part of the Australian nation and do your part. Time and again that is what has been shown by refugees who seek jobs as soon as they are granted status and are able to walk free.
So your assumption that they’ll suck up our precious taxpayer dollars is plainly unfounded on this front.
To those who might argue - though it’s not clear from you personally Stephanie - that refugees who seek jobs are doing so at the expense of other Australians is similarly illogical. Australia’s unemployment rate is currently close to 5.2%. Thousands of new jobs are created every month to maintain such low rates.
You can’t have both arguments here. Either you are willing to accept refugees who want to work - and not be a burden to society - or you have other (non-economic) reasons for your dislike of them.

Jon says:

11:28am | 07/07/10

Over 150,000 Australian citizens living on the streets, in cars, motels and mostly women and children. No one cares about them. Overseas issues are much more fashionable.

James1 says:

12:24pm | 07/07/10

We do care about them Jon.  Our caring is even demonstrated through all the assistance they can receive from the welfare state.

Stephanie says:

12:37pm | 07/07/10

James1; I agree with that we give too much already to bludgers who are perfectly capable of working but choose not to; however and this will include the response to James… it is flawd to this that most refugees come here and actually work after being allowed to there was another article on the punch be it about a month ago I guess, that had great links from one poster. In these they actually showed the number of refugees that had come to Australia and how many actually worked after getting their permanency approved. I don’t want to try and speculate on what those numbers were as I do not recall the exact amount and I’ve tried to find it for about 30 min now and have not found it (yet) to post here, but I’m sure there are posters here or even the same person who may be kind enough to re-port for your information

However, having said the above, I do believe also that members of Australia’s existing population should be taken care of before these illegals… remember the Oceanic Viking parked off the coast of Indonesia because illegal immigrants didn’t want to disembark and they demanded to be let in as refugees? Well every day that those ppl stayed on that boat they EACH cost the taxpayer, $448… The ones that are staying in that Motel in QLD are costing tax payers $198 a day each… I mean, can you not see that plenty of elderly Australians who worked their whole lives for this country, whom may have fought for this country but due to the rising cost of living they cannot afford to have their heaters on this freezing winter would dearly love a but of that cash?

If you believe Australians get enough help you’re sadly mistaken, I do charity work and have done for over 15yrs! And I have seen how the middle class has dwindled.

We do not have the facilities nor infrastructure at this point in time to accomodate the people already living here, let alone this influx.

I guess it makes sense to me that we take care of our own, there’s a great saying “Charity starts at home” I think this should apply first and foremost.

James, in specific to you. Most of the job being created at the moment are either casual or part time, argument therefore is null and void as most people cannot survive by working casually or part time and need to supplement their income accordingly.  But on your other unclear point by me re refugees taking Australian jobs… I didn’t post that because I don’t believe it… I think anyone who wants to work can find a job (or two)

James1 says:

01:20pm | 07/07/10

Stephanie, I remember those figures.  They were for migrants since 1996 more generally, and not specific to asylum seekers.

James1 says:

01:27pm | 07/07/10

I am a PhD student Stephanie.  I am not middle class.  I am amongst the poorest of the working poor.  Yet I manage to support a family living in one of the most expensive places in the country.  I see, at my daughter’s school, the dole bludgers with their cars and social housing and dole payments, eating MacDonalds every morning, smoking cigarettes and picking up their kids, drunk by 3pm.  And I also hear them complain about having no money, and wondering why the government will not give them more…

So please excuse me if I would rather any extra money went to people fleeing terror and persecution rather than those drunk parents.

Stephanie says:

02:14pm | 07/07/10

James1, I suggest you get your reading skills in order, as a PhD student you will need them! I specifically said at the beginning of my post this to you

“James1; I agree with that we give too much already to bludgers who are perfectly capable of working but choose not to”

I guess just like them, you chose not to read that, as you only refer to that in your post.

I alone have a mortgage as well as an investment property, I do volunteer work for Lifeline, St Vinnies and about 3 other lesser known charities, ... you know why? Because this country is a privilege to live in and therefore it must carefully choose whom to let in and we must always give back to the people in this country.

You must live in such an effluent suburb that you do not see the homeless, the elderly struggling to eat or keep warm and the queues at the hospital emergency room… you just focus on the dole bludgers… oh well, as it was said above, there’s no point trying to argue a very valid point with such narrowmindedness

James1 says:

02:36pm | 07/07/10

“Effluent” suburb?  What is this, Kath and Kim? 

And no, I am not narrowminded.  It’s just in my family, when someone is struggling or old, we (the family) look after them.  I blame the condition of the elderly in this country on the collapse of the extended family, not the government or a few asylum seekers arriving by boat.  And I see the solution as lying with the extended family, not the government.  All governments do is mess things up.

Stephanie says:

03:10pm | 07/07/10

Oh dear Lord, my sincere apologies, effluent was meant to be affluent ... amazing what a letter can do!  (sorry I don’t understand your Kat & Kim reference, I have never seen the show)

Anyway, again a valid point from you, yes families should take care of their own as most older civilisations still do today, however, that changes absolutely nothing, unfortunately its an un-pleasant reality that whether you blame on families, governments or other is still a very worrying reality and its all of our responsilibities to address, since the governments mess things up, we must attempt to be heard and vote accordingly.

Hence quite simply as I put it in my original post above… Lets solve our citizens problems first and foremost… especially the elderly which seem to be almost forgotten by every single party.

James1 says:

03:30pm | 07/07/10

Fair comment Stephanie.  However, why must it be only one and not both?  Why can’t we both increase our intake of refugees, and do more to look after the elderly?  I would argue though that the former is a matter for government policy, the latter less so.

And the effluent things is a joke from Kath and Kim about bogan-style malapropisms (although I am not saying you are a bogan - you clearly know the difference between effluent and affluent).  I recommend Kath and Kim very highly - it is a very insightful piece of social satire.

Jon says:

04:06pm | 07/07/10

James1, ‘I am amongst the poorest of the working poor.’ Well thing is, the money we save by having a better policy can be used to help people like yourself and the 150,000 who still living on the streets tonight.

Stephanie says:

04:24pm | 07/07/10

oh! that one’s simple James1 because unfortunately for both sides, governments can’t get one right, let alone both :(  they should focus on fixing one problem completely before entering other areas outside our own… pretty much goes with your analogy of extended family taking care of eachother…

I have heard much about Kath & Kim, I may be brave and watch but to be honest just to hear ppl mock the apparently very popular “look at moi” as I have seen it written… scares the hell out of me! lol

Richard says:

05:33pm | 07/07/10

Yeah James1, lets increase the pension AND throw open the floodgates for any poor migrant from overseas to be housed in hotels at taxpayer’s expense… Its not like we have a government deficit of at least $40 billion already… or do we?

James1 says:

05:34pm | 07/07/10

Jon, I don’t need help.  I can help myself, in line with my philosophy.  I would be much happier if it went to people who need it more than I, asylum seekers included. 

Stephanie, I guess where we disagree is in the most viable solution to the issue.  I would argue for putting the money spent on punishing boat people into intelligence and Federal Police operations to break up the people smuggling rackets.  The money saved by putting boat people in the community would be much better spent on a law enforcement and intelligence approach, IMHO.  And please don’t let the “look at moi” stuff put you off - Kath and Kim can be far more subtle, and indeed cruel, than that.  So go on, be brave and have a look.

Jon says:

08:12pm | 07/07/10

Jame1, Good for you! I think Stephanie makes some very good points in her comments.  However I don’t believe politicians when they say every going great in Oz. Things are getting tough here, housing shortages, unemployment etc. Our first priority has be for our own citizens even the one’s that you find so hard bare. I am sure like you and many others I wish for world peace, but I can’t see that happening soon, or if ever. So we need and very strong policy to control population for the benefit of all the people of Australia. After all, that’s where our loyalties are. Don’t they?

Short of exporting the Australian way of life to many of those troubled countries, that so many in world seem to desire. Which seems a bit paternalistic, and I‘m sure that they won’t like our beer any way. I can’t see any improvement unless these troubled countries can become Secular democracies and ditch their theocratic ways. Democracies are not easy to obtained or maintain. Even this one seems to be under some internal threats.

Peter says:

11:51am | 07/07/10

What exactly are our values and culture that they would be “rejecting”?

John Band says:

01:28pm | 07/07/10

This is nonsense. I lived in the UK up until last year. It’s in a poorer economic situation than Australia and has worse weather, but is otherwise almost exactly the same in terms of political debate, levels of PC and health-and-safety, and integration of immigrants. Citing it as a worst case pretty much proves you have no idea what you’re talking about (an anti-immigration campaigner with no idea what they’re talking about? Say it ain’t so…)

donaldoz says:

03:00pm | 07/07/10

Because i came from Britain after the war, I should take exception to your post, but I’m afraid it is true. Not one politician here has the guts to even mention the rising tide of Shariah law seekers. Most of these came here as ‘asylum seekers’. You are a wise man to recognise the threat

James1 says:

11:19am | 07/07/10

In any case, with the welfare state being what it is, the only people with “problems” are those with self-imposed problems like gamblers, alcoholics and drug addicts, or that tiny minority of mental health patients that slip through the cracks (which Tony Abbott professes to want to deal with anyway).  Personally, I would much rather help the small numbers of desperate people from places like Afghanistan than use the money to line the pockets of drug dealers, bottle shops, and state governments (through pokie revenue taxes).

James says:

01:28pm | 07/07/10

Hang on Aussiewazza… are you forgetting September 11? I mean, Big George Dubbya Bush did say Mission Accomplished way back in 2003 but my understanding is that the whole event is still unfinished. We went to Afghanistan and Iraq because of September 11 and we are still there. That would make the war “our” war (read American and Coalition Forces). But if you want to volunteer to head to Afghanistan to fight “their” war in exchange for a genuine Afghan refugee I won’t hold you back. Judging by your past comments you must be under some sort of torturous extremes to be forced against your will to sit at your computer and comment at The Punch instead of being out there ‘amongst it’, where the real action is carrying guns.

for the sheeple says:

03:26pm | 07/07/10

James, it’s not MY war.

I am not stupid enough to believe that some arabs in caves conspired to fly planes into the world trade centre. And how about that tower 7 collapsing into its footprint in 7 seconds ... was that the arabs too? LOL

Jon says:

09:17am | 08/07/10

for the sheep, yeh sure! The dumbest US President in world history, manages to plan and execute one of the greatest illusions in world history and then still manages to keep it covered up for the past decade. This is also the same man who has destroyed US economy and gave us the GFC. Give me break!

franklin says:

12:36pm | 07/07/10

How much did he pay the smugglers who brought him here? Why could he not have used this (usually large) sum of money to begin a new life in the possibly safe (though perhaps not as “easy”) country he travelled directly from?

Brynn please also answer this question.  Could not the money that was spent on people smugglers providing travel to Australia for one asylum seeker have been used to take all of his family members (including women and children) out of the danger in Afghanistan and into one of the several UN member states that are signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees located in the immediate area of Afghanistan ?  Why does only one person need to flee the danger in Afghanistan and not the whole family, most especially the women and children ?

Les Argen says:

01:42pm | 07/07/10

I can give you generic answers:
1. Indonesia. NOT a signatory to the convention. Has an unemployment rate several times ours. Does not give asylum seekers or even those recognised as refugees by UNHCR the right to work.
2. Less than the people who come here by air and claim asylum.
3. Good point - there is no ‘queue’ because Australian immigration officials can’t possibly visit every refugee camp. So only those given the opportunity to make an application for asylum to Australia are in the queue. It’s a small, very exclusive queue. Kind of like a night club with a velvet rope. 
4. “Deserve”? Where to start? I think you’d agree that’s an unanswerable question. Does this guy deserve it more than some unknown person somewhere else?

In sum, those in camps visited by Aus officials are given preferential treatment. The rest fend for themselves. Some of them, in desperation, get on boats to come here.  You can rest assured they come from countries and camps where they were never in the queue, nor would ever have the chance to be (from memory Australia’s “offshore” refugee program hasn’t resettled Afghans for years). And by scrounging together their life savings and getting on a leaky boat across open seas, they show the kind of entrepreneurship that this country will need to keep replenishing if it is to continue to be a wealthy, comfortable nation.

Jenni says:

12:39pm | 07/07/10

Adele - you are very, very wrong. There are currently over 12 million refugees living in squalid conditions in over 700 refugee camps worldwide. These people often have no access to clean water or medical aid, and own little more than the clothes on their back. Many of these people will wait months just to see a UN representative before being able to even place their name on the list to seek asylum. This is only the beginning of the process. They will then wait longer - often years - to be found a safe place in one fo the few countries (Australia included) that will accept these refugees.

THIS is the “queue” and THESE are the people being displaced by those lucky enough to have the funds to pay a smuggler to transport them - usually from a relatively safe location - to Australia. Every time someone on a boat is granted residency in Australia, they increase the waiting time for people like this.

This is not my definition of a “fair go”.

B says:

04:32pm | 07/07/10

What a fantastic articulate response Jenni

AliceC says:

01:27pm | 07/07/10

And therefore they are allowed to stay here ilegally, after their visa has run out? Double standard if you ask me, and a hint of racism (they are like me, so it;s ok).

Hamish says:

04:39pm | 07/07/10

AliceC, your response shows a complete ignorance of what happens to people who overstay tourist and work visas. They do get deported, whether from USA, UK, Canada or whatever other country you care to mention. This has happened to people I know. If they refuse, they also get sent to detention centres.

Unlike our boat people friends, these people also enter the country through legitimate channels with passports and other paperwork.

Gaz says:

07:07pm | 07/07/10

As Tony said on TV last night, he’s not running for pope, he’s running for prime minister, therefore he’ll do what’s (ah) in Australia’s interests.

Jenni says:

12:52pm | 07/07/10

Well said Franklin. I am tired of being labelled as racist or lacking in compassion when all I want is to see all refugees/asylum seekers treated equally according to need. Too many people are ignorant of the horrific conditions faced by refugees in camps throughout the world, and the length of time it may take for them to make it to a safe place through proper channels. Sadly, many of these people will not make it out alive - tens of thousands each year will die from cholera and dysentry, while many more (mostly women) will fall victim to acts of violence from which they may not survive.

All the while, those who have the means pay scumbags vast sums of money to come here by boat, where they will have a wait of usually a few months (compared to years), with access to health care and accomodation which those in the camps can only dream of.

Les Argen says:

03:59pm | 07/07/10

Jenni, you shouldn’t be labelled a racist and it’s unfortunate. Your concerns are legitimate, but 1) as I said earlier, there is no queue unless you’re in the right place at the right time and 2) the outcome of the policy you advocate has been to lock up people who arrive by boat for years while allowing those who arrive by air to live in the community.  Indefinite detention, research proves, is one of the best ways to induce psychological trauma.

There is also a simple way to ensure that we don’t deprive those 13,000 people of their offshore spots each year: take the onshore arrivals in addition to the offshore ones.  We took 12 or 13,000 offshore spots when immigration was about 70,000 per year and we’re still taking that many now that our immigration is 200-300,000 per year.  Problem solved?

Stephanie says:

02:23pm | 07/07/10

wrong! if they apply as an immigrant its totally different to applying as an asylum seeker.

DUH!

JulesG says:

04:39pm | 07/07/10

This is my whole point. You can’t apply as an asylum seeker you have to arrive and then seek asylum - DUH

Peasant #3167 says:

10:25am | 12/07/10

Can the bleeding hearts please tell me why they destroy their ID?
I don’t mean stamped VISA’s I mean just ordinary ID.
And tell me why 80% of the boat people are men? When our humanitarian policy is meant to first help women and children being persecuted by the men.

Peter L says:

01:37pm | 07/07/10

Get real. More uninvited, non processed, disadvantaged, familiar, tourists, and refugees, arrive by air. The so called boat people are dramatically exposed by the press because they are an easy target and the non thinking fraternity follow the illogical sequence. “Take us back” Tony, the self confessed Christian exposes the hypocrisy of one love one God and well being to all mankind. All we need now is a few kids thrown into the water.

Richard Ure says:

02:26pm | 07/07/10

Bigos, so you KNOW holding radical beliefs about women’s education and doing more than blogging about it does not mark you out for re-education and special attention generally?

And you KNOW the Karzai government has its hands on the levers? In which case, why are Australian soldiers being killed there?

Sally says:

02:45pm | 07/07/10

Same argument could be used for the Gillard and Abbott families.  Why did they not stay in their country of origin (Wales and England) and improve conditions there?  As repeatedly pointed out, look at the mess the UK currently faces.  To think these strong, intelligent people are fixtures in our political landscape, when so much could be done from within, back home.  I’d say more could be done than in the corrupt, brutal warzone that is Afghanistan.  Then again, maybe they just enjoy the opportunities this country presented/continues to present, much like the people currently wanting to come.

Bigos says:

03:38pm | 07/07/10

@Sally - Like Richard you make no sense. Abott and Gillard are not refugees, they’re immigrants.

James1 says:

04:32pm | 07/07/10

Maybe they read it in an email Bigos.  If it is in an email, then it must be true, right?

Sally says:

06:10pm | 07/07/10

Thanks for the help Bigos.  I do know the difference between asylum seekers and immigrants.  My point is immigration is a choice.  You are afforded the luxury of applying, waiting and eventually resettling, or if refused, returning home to try again.  Immigration stems from choosing a better ( or the potential of a better) existence.

If you are genuinely seeking asylum, there is no choice.  Stay and be persecuted, detained, tortured, killed.  To flippantly suggest someone who opposes the Taliban regime go home and “work towards what he believes” is ridiculous at best.  If it’s so easy, you could always volunteer to accompany Abdul, write a few emails, talk to a few Taliban blokes, educate them.

Bigos says:

10:07am | 08/07/10

@Sally - Maybe there is more to Abduls story then the author presented. My point is Abdul was safe in Pakistan where he chose to obtain false documentation for further travel rather then apply for Refugee status with the UN there. While we don’t know the motive, we’re left to assume he did so because he chose Australia as his final destination. Abduls presecution ended in Pakistan/Indonesia where he was safe from the Taliban and had the facility to register as a refugee. I’m still left wondering how he was given Asylum just because he “strongly believes” in education for women. Also his choice of final destination is dubious, you don’t see refugees clamouring to get to China, Mexico or virtually any other signatory to the UN convention in Africa. I think the economic motivation also plays a large part.

ace says:

11:21am | 12/07/10

@ Bigos
1. neither Pakistan nor Indonesia are signatories to the Refugees Convention - which is why peopl are are unsafe there- they are at risk of being ‘refouled’, or returned to Afghanistan.
2. because Pakistan is not a signatory to the Refugees convention, it does not offer refugees the rights afforded by that convention - so, no - education, including womens education - is not an option for Afghan refugees that are not formally recognised by Pakistan. People in this situation are forced to live in the ‘informal’ economy with no access to legal work, education, etc. they inevitably end up exploited, with no future for them or their children and the constant threat of being returned to Afghanistan. Is this what you call safety?
3. a “very strong belief on the right of women to education” would be classed as a political opinion under the refugees convention. if Abdul had a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason, he’d be entitled to protection. it seems the australian government agreed with him.
4. chances are, if his life was threatened by the taliban for this belief, he can do a lot more for women’s rights in Afghanistan by being here in Australia and giving voice to these issues than he could do in a shallow grave in Afghanistan.
5. the karzai government does believe in womens’ education. but you miss the point that the karzai goverment does not have control over what happens in many parts of afghanistan. “non-state” persecution, such as persecution by the taliban, is recognised under Australian and international law as persecution falling within the maning of the refugees convention.
have any other questions?

ace says:

11:23am | 12/07/10

@ Bigos
1. neither Pakistan nor Indonesia are signatories to the Refugees Convention - which is why peopl are are unsafe there- they are at risk of being ‘refouled’, or returned to Afghanistan.
2. because Pakistan is not a signatory to the Refugees convention, it does not offer refugees the rights afforded by that convention - so, no - education, including womens education - is not an option for Afghan refugees that are not formally recognised by Pakistan. People in this situation are forced to live in the ‘informal’ economy with no access to legal work, education, etc. they inevitably end up exploited, with no future for them or their children and the constant threat of being returned to Afghanistan. Is this what you call safety?
3. a “very strong belief on the right of women to education” would be classed as a political opinion under the refugees convention. if Abdul had a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason, he’d be entitled to protection. it seems the australian government agreed with him.
4. chances are, if his life was threatened by the taliban for this belief, he can do a lot more for women’s rights in Afghanistan by being here in Australia and giving voice to these issues than he could do in a shallow grave in Afghanistan.
5. the karzai government does believe in womens’ education. but you miss the point that the karzai goverment does not have control over what happens in many parts of afghanistan. “non-state” persecution, such as persecution by the taliban, is recognised under Australian and international law as persecution falling within the maning of the refugees convention.
have any other questions?

Ryan says:

09:08pm | 07/07/10

Yawn, theres that racist/xenophobic BS that is trotted out every time.

Gregg says:

10:18pm | 07/07/10

You’re not an accountant are you Les?, for they do a pretty good job at making figures talk as they want!
Saying we should be encouraging the 7000 odd asylum seekers to get the quota filled is not quite the way it is and if you have a look at the Immigration department site you’ll see some figures
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm
2006–07 2007–08 2008–09
Refugee 4134 5511 6022 6003 6004 6499
Special Humanitarian 8927 6755 6836 5275 5026 4625
Onshore Protection 788 895 1272 1701 1900 2378
Temporary Humanitarian Concern 2 17 14 38 84 5
Total 13 851 13 178 14 144 13 017 13 014 13 507
The table is not printing out as good as on the Immigration Fact sheet but you can see the numbers for Special Humanitarium are not so small as you would make out and Onshore protection figures have been considerably smaller.
Whatever the figures, a boat arriving asylum seeker who has had considerable finance will take a place that could otherwise be filled in the SHP classification by someone in more dire straits.

Jenni says:

11:01am | 08/07/10

Thank you for the link Les, I found it very informative and it did help clarify many things for me. Unlike some others, I’m happy to learn and also to admit when I’m misinformed. Kudos to you

Reading that article, I’m very curious as to why Australian gets so few official applications from those waiting in the refugee camps (0.5 % of 1.18million in 2009 means only 5900 applicants). Based on that we could probably offer a place to ALL of those who apply each year.

Question - given the vast sums of money spent on detention centres, and taking into account that *most* of those arriving by boat seem to be coming from indonesia, wouldn’t it be cheaper to set up an Australian assessment centre in Indonesia? If most of those coming are, in fact, legitimate refugees, we could save them the trauma and risk of the boat journey by assessing them there and - once approved - flying them over. I know that idea will getb a lot of bleating about the cost of flying them from Indonesia to Australia, but surely that has to be cheaper than running Christmas Island?

As I’ve stated a few times, I have NO issue with asylum seekers, my only beef has been in ensuring that the limited places we are able to offer go to those most in need. I feel a little better having read that article, so again, my thanks

Gregg says:

12:40pm | 08/07/10

@ Jenni,
For 2009 the .5% is a figure on asylum seekers, the total of 1.18M being far less than the 15M in refugee centres and the 11,100 we take is only .075%.
Despite there being 15M, Australia received only ~ 50,000 applications and that is just far more than it is deemed we can handle, housing, employment etc. all needing to be considered in resettlement.
Given possibly low total applications I imagine that a lot of people in refugee centres may just view it as a temporary dislocation and would have a goal of returning to what they called home.
The asylum seekers are those that have not got to refugee centres, in some cases because there aren’t any and on the Jenny Brocky SBS show a couple of weeks ago, a successful asylum seeker in the audience claimed he had been advised by UN people in Asia to take a boat and bypass the queue!

Joe Blow says:

12:59pm | 11/07/10

franklin, how long did it take you to dredge up that article .... from 8 years ago??!!  I’m assuming that the Howard govt fixed up the inadequacies of their processing system during their last 5 years of government.

Lin says:

08:59pm | 09/07/10

Thank you franklin! I cannot believe the naivety of some people, I mentioned recently in another blog the example (from the Australian) of a Tamil whose asylum claim was rejected, then he proceeded calling gay helpine and promptly he got his refugee visa.

Press says:

06:44am | 12/07/10

50,000? Where on earth do these people dream up this stuff? Does Peasant actually *believe* this total tosh? Puhleeeease!

Press says:

08:42am | 12/07/10

Cute. Peasnt is deliberately misrepresenting two different counts as if one led directly to the other. They’re not.

Peasant’s comparison is a nonsense and he knows it.

And cut out the insults, ta. You know nothing about me. Making snide assumptions only shows you up for what you are. A cheat.