Boat People (1 Viewer)

[erawamai]

The point is that the non-genuine refo's should have come into Australia the correct way, via the immigration department.

All but 3 of the 300 or so of the asylum seekers who Australian turned back and took to nauru were found to be legitimate refugees.

 

[Tarni1]

((This is actually my post, woops)
Undesirable for any nation? On what grounds can you make a statement like this? they attept to come to Australia because they have heard we are a freec ountry etc
They have no choice but to come illegally...many countries they come from ddo not have the facilities so they can apply for a visa. An easy way to explain it (as told by a friend of mine); "Imagine you are in a classroom and the room is on fire. The door is locked, so the next place you go is through the window". This is exactly like their cases - often their countries are dangerous - without the option of going through the 'door' (legal way) they must go an alternate way.

 

[Lozacious]

because they have heard we are a freec ountry etc

It is a free country, only in their absence.

 

[supercharged]

((This is actually my post, woops)
Undesirable for any nation? On what grounds can you make a statement like this? they attept to come to Australia because they have heard we are a freec ountry etc
They have no choice but to come illegally...many countries they come from ddo not have the facilities so they can apply for a visa. An easy way to explain it (as told by a friend of mine); "Imagine you are in a classroom and the room is on fire. The door is locked, so the next place you go is through the window". This is exactly like their cases - often their countries are dangerous - without the option of going through the 'door' (legal way) they must go an alternate way.

Sure if people are fleeing warfare, let them stay for the duration of the war and then send them back. If they want to stay here on a permanent basis, then they should apply for immigrantion through normal means, not as a refugee.

 

[loquasagacious]

As it seems a related question:

The reason people don't apply legally as migrants is the que time, so I have a question why do we not accept more legal migrants?

Were we to do this we would likely even be able to cut down on 'boat people'.

 

[Generator]

That and that many don't have a way in which to access the proper channels within which people migrate.

 

[Lozacious]

That and that many don't have a way in which to access the proper channels within which people migrate.

Good.. then don't come at all.. or.. they could just choose to stay in one of the 20 nations that they stopped into on their way to Australia.. All of which also have to accept refugees.

 

[SGS05]

The money we spend on supporting these refugees could probably be better spent in terms of aid to develop third world coutries and cut down the number of refugees in the future. Turn them all back. Im all for multiculturalism, just not when refugees become Australian citizens and leech off social welfare. Instead Australia should accept more skilled workers and professionals which will boost our economy.

 

[Jiga]

the stupidity of this sort of argument captured in two words

It was obviously exaggerated

The point was that the detention isnt really that bad, especially compared to jail, they get to walk about, they get good meals, and a roof over their head. Seeings as though they left their own nations as "genuine" refugees, they would be happy to finally be safe, fed properly, and have a bed to sleep on.

Im all for multiculturalism, just not when refugees become Australian citizens and leech off social welfare. Instead Australia should accept more skilled workers and professionals which will boost our economy.

Exactly. Thats why these 'refugees' try to go around the immigration department, because their undesirable, whether that be because their criminals or because they are totally unskilled. Add to this they for the most part cant speak english, what are their job prospects? I can think of one, the dole.

And people will say 'Oh, it costs more to stop them, they need to build ships etc to patrol', thats a load of shyte, the Navy already patrols the NT etc for illegal fisherman, and they run excercies their in any case, so refugees or no refugees, it doesnt incur any more costs than it does to run a Navy nomrally.

Lastly, as for multiculturalism, Im not against it, but I think Australia really is losing it. Just go to Cabramatta, its like 10 to 1 Australians (Not meaning to be racist, but its a fact of life), thats leaving out Hurstville, and Bankstown for the most part.

 

[erawamai]

The money we spend on supporting these refugees could probably be better spent in terms of aid to develop third world coutries and cut down the number of refugees in the future.

Bahaha we don't. In 2001 Australia spent over 200 million dollars to make ignorant of red neck voters believe they we making sure we didn't meet our humanitarian obligations. Conversely Australia gave 14 million to the UNHCR in order to ensure 'lasting solutions' to the refugee issue.

As for the Australian aid program its mainly made up of tied grants with interest. In other words it must be paid back WITH interest.

Turn them all back. Im all for multiculturalism, just not when refugees become Australian citizens and leech off social welfare. Instead Australia should accept more skilled workers and professionals which will boost our economy.

Turn them back even when they are in a sinking boat...turn them back even though they may be genuine refugees. Turn them back so they die in international waters?I can't believe that people would be prefer that people who are actual refugees get turned back.

Sadly hardly anyone knows what they are talking about. SGS05 do you know that Australia sustains 12 000 offshore refugees a year? It has nothing to do whether they go onto welfare of not. Most of them don't.

The sad thing is that the government doesn't want the Australian population to know that there are onshore and offshore applications for asylum.

 

[erawamai]

Good.. then don't come at all.. or.. they could just choose to stay in one of the 20 nations that they stopped into on their way to Australia.. All of which also have to accept refugees.

Distination shopping is a problem with the current convention. However, as I'm sure you know mathmite, as a well read and intelligent person who knows exactly what they are talking about, that many of the nations that these people stop at on the way through are not signatories to the refugee convention. The core obligations under the Refugee convention is non refoulment. If they land at one of these non signing membres of thr Refugee convention (usually indonesia) indonesia can sent them back to their country of origin regardless of whether they are a genuine refugee of not.

 

[Jiga]

I think immigrants are good for a nation. Just look at the US, its like one big happy family.

 

[SGS05]

Bahaha we don't. In 2001 Australia spent over 200 million dollars to make ignorant of red neck voters believe they we making sure we didn't meet our humanitarian obligations. Conversely Australia gave 14 million to the UNHCR in order to ensure 'lasting solutions' to the refugee issue.

As for the Australian aid program its mainly made up of tied grants with interest. In other words it must be paid back WITH interest.



Turn them back even when they are in a sinking boat...turn them back even though they may be genuine refugees. Turn them back so they die in international waters?I can't believe that people would be prefer that people who are actual refugees get turned back.

Sadly hardly anyone knows what they are talking about. SGS05 do you know that Australia sustains 12 000 offshore refugees a year? It has nothing to do whether they go onto welfare of not. Most of them don't.

The sad thing is that the government doesn't want the Australian population to know that there are onshore and offshore applications for asylum.

where did you get all these info from?

 

[Jiga]

Million dollar figures are chicken feed when you consider the amounts of aid we give to other nations in total.

 

[Lozacious]

where did you get all these info from?

I think his source is known as H.I.S-A.R.S.E.

It's a library institute which is often frequented by those on the left.

 

[erawamai]

It's a library institute which is often frequented by those on the left.

Its usally done by reading. Maybe one day you will find your way to a library. You may even learn about the society which your white antecedents created which you seem very intent in not advancing or learning about.

I thought it was well know and very much accepted by the Australian PM that Australia will take 12 000 genuine refugees a year...as long as they are offshore applicants.

I mean don't you getfrightened by the fact you are doing the HSC? Actually learning things!

 

[erawamai]

Million dollar figures are chicken feed when you consider the amounts of aid we give to other nations in total.

Do you not read? These are tied grants often with interest. For example billion dollars given to indonesia was a tied grant. It all has to be paid back.

 

[Jiga]

Do you not read? These are tied grants often with interest. For example billion dollars given to indonesia was a tied grant. It all has to be paid back.

So we should just give away billions of dollars for free? Money doesnt grow on trees.

Also, the whole purpose of the 'tied grant' is to help countries get back on their feet and get some economic growth happening.....which will lead to making their repayments much easier as more people work = less transfer payments, more tax revenue and all the other stuff associated with increased EG.

Im not 100% sure on this, but didnt the US give loans out to countries like Japan and Co after WW2.....and look where they are now? The theory works!

 

[Lozacious]

you seem very intent in not advancing or learning about.

Why don't i seem intent on advancing or learning about it?

How is letting in refugees, advancing the nation?

 

[erawamai]

Why don't i seem intent on advancing or learning about it?

Refugees have nothing to do with it. It's the fact that you seem to know not even the basics of the current migration scheme. How are you supposed to defend you point of view when its pretty clear you know as much about immigration procedures, Australian history and politics as general maths people knowing about 4 unit maths.