Boat People (1 Viewer)

[gerhard]

what did draco actually do to have a term named after him?

 

[walrusbear]

must have been a giant hardarse

 

[erawamai]

ah ...i found the stats. Australia, in 2002, spend 200 million dollars going overboard with asylum seekers (ie by creating a threat and then solving it...at 200million dollars expense. In the same year the Aussie government spent 14 million on long term solution to the refugee problem.

 

[Lozacious]

They probably spent more paying off the media to propogate the storys showing the government being tough and effective; of which it is neither.

The moral of the story, is that John Howard wants to appear tough on this, but behind the scenes he's as bad as any of the leaders before him.

 

[erawamai]

They probably spent more paying off the media to propogate the storys showing the government being tough and effective; of which it is neither.

The moral of the story, is that John Howard wants to appear tough on this, but behind the scenes he's as bad as any of the leaders before him.

Whats better mathmite...boat people wanting to come to Australia and having them killed because they are a massive threat to our security OR no refugees?

 

[Lozacious]

Whats better mathmite...boat people wanting to come to Australia and having them killed because they are a massive threat to our security OR no refugees?

I think we should let refugees in. And it really don't matter if the word gets around that we are a soft touch, because we can handle being inundated by whords of people who wish to breach our immigration cap.

It also doesn't matter if thousands of people exploit this loop-hole.. why should anyone come in to Australia like a normal civilised person?

 

[erawamai]

I think we should let refugees in. And it really don't matter if the word gets around that we are a soft touch, because we can handle being inundated by whords of people who wish to breach our immigration cap.

hahha whords.

There were 12 000 'illegals' between 1985 and 2001. There were 50 000 people overstay their visas in the same period.

I hope you can do the maths. If thats a whord then I have no idea how you describe our legitimate immigration process.

anyways mathmite, what is this immigration cap you speak of?

 

[Lozacious]

Exactly 50,000? No more, no less?

 

[loquasagacious]

Try addressing the statement not disputing semantics.

The point erawami is making is that illegal migration is low. When we compare and contrast these numbers to European states we see that by international standards both our legal and illegal migration is low.

Finally if we think of even 70,000 (people 50,000+12,000+abit) people illegally migrating here in some manner since 1985 we are left far short of anything tangible. Afterall we're talking about approximately 3.5% of the population base, hardly an inundation....

 

[Tarni1]

Yes, another lie produced by the government is that we are being 'swarmed' by refugees..which is completely untrue
As 'Chilout' states:
"In practice most people in long term detention are asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Since 1989, 13,475 have arrived by boat, so in 14 years the total number would roughly fill 15% of the MCG"

 

[05er]

Try addressing the statement not disputing semantics.

The point erawami is making is that illegal migration is low. When we compare and contrast these numbers to European states we see that by international standards both our legal and illegal migration is low.

Finally if we think of even 70,000 (people 50,000+12,000+abit) people illegally migrating here in some manner since 1985 we are left far short of anything tangible. Afterall we're talking about approximately 3.5% of the population base, hardly an inundation....

But do we have to take people? A country should be allowed to say that they don't want any more migrant citizens. STATE SOVEREIGNTY - YAY.

Also by having immigration detention aren't we - in some bizarre, diabolical way, fullfilling our requirement to accept refugees?

 

[05er]

what did draco actually do to have a term named after him?

I think it's another venture in Richard III-esque demonising historiography. As a Roman(?) ruler his laws were regarded as especially barbaric and unfair. In fact, his laws were quite fair.

 

[spell check]

he was athenian

and wasn't a ruler

how hard is it to use wikipedia.com

 

[loquasagacious]

Yes my budding realist as a Soveriegn State we can refuse to accept refugees. However you fail to recognise at least two points:

A) As a weak state motivated by realism we have formed various alliances and signed various treaties. In some way these serve to ultimately guarantee our soveriegnty by binding us up with the global community. The downside (to you at least) is that part of being protected by these arrangements is being legally compelled to accept refugees. It is the age olf dilema when outside the law you are outside both punishment and protection by the law.

B) Yes a soveriegn state we do not have to do what others tell us - eg accept refugees, but why not? What do we have to loose by accepting refugees? What gain do we get by avoiding our obligations under point A? How can this gain be greater than those of accepting point A?

Refugees in themselves are not a threat to state sovereignty and are not in any way the intentional action of another state. For which reason I believe refugees to fall more under the realm of domestic politics and neo-liberal economics than International Relations which is ultimately tangental.

So then it falls to us to present valid reasons to bar refugees that are not to do with state soveriegnty and the like, and I can't think of any beyond the mercenary. Refugees can be barred from entry to serve domestic politics eg to keep xenophobic nationalistic voters on side. However there is no other persuassive argument. We have already proved that allegations of a 'swamping' by refugees is misplaced, both neo-liberal and keynesian economics teaches us that they are not going to 'steal our jobs' (infact there is a persuasive economic argument for increased migration). Practical experience tells us that they are NOT going to turn our citiesinto slums.

So we are left with some simple economics - why bother spending all the money on intercepting and detaining refugees. Other posters have presented the numbers before showing that it costs far more to detain a refugee and deport them than to aid them in integrating.

So in summation there are no good reasons to turn away refugees and plenty of ones to accept them.

 

[loquasagacious]

Why categorise, why not just accept?

Furthermore the 'categorisation' is designed to identify 'real refugees' from non-genuine refugees - why not just let the non-genuine refugees in as well?

 

[Jiga]

Well if illegal migration really is so low, then no body should mind that we incarcerate them for a few months.. I'm sure they don't mind, being safe from the peril that they apparently face back home..They get food and shelter.. They don't even have to educate their kids in Australian schools like they would if they were granted access to Australia.

This just acts as a safe guard and as a way of sorting people out.. It's probably more an administrative thing (they have to sort them into the correct category) then anything else.

Hit the nail right on the head, particularly in regards to the safety issue.

Furthermore the 'categorisation' is designed to identify 'real refugees' from non-genuine refugees - why not just let the non-genuine refugees in as well?

Yes, I agree, then peace will reign throughout the world . The point is that the non-genuine refo's should have come into Australia the correct way, via the immigration department. But no, they are undesirable for any nation so they come in illegally. They also have to send them packing because it serves as a deterance, because if they didnt than any old smow could get on his dinghy and enter Australia illegally, with a virtual slap on the wrist of a couple of months in luxury detention.

 

[erawamai]

I wonder if all these potential terrorists arrested today came in boats. They most probably walked in through sydney airport while John Howard was telling you all that Boat people were the greatest threat to our national security.

I would suggest that none of those arrested today came to Australia as an asylum seeker.

 

[Lozacious]

I never said that.. I'm not stupid, i know that they probably were born here or came in through planes... But the arguement that they are terrorists or need to be checked by a health professional is just another weight for the arguement against letting these people in.

At the end of the day, its not the fact that they are terrorists, or people who have a disease, or people who throw their children over board that Australians care about.... It's just a way for them to justify stoping these people.

 

[erawamai]

I never said that.. I'm not stupid, i know that they probably were born here or came in through planes...

But the arguement that they are terrorists or need to be checked by a health professional is just another weight for the arguement against letting these people in.

At the end of the day, its not the fact that they are terrorists, or people who have a disease, or people who throw their children over board that Australians care about.... It's just a way for them to justify stoping these people.

That made no sense what so ever. The bolded bit reads like it was written by a drunk 6th grader.

 

[walrusbear]

Hit the nail right on the head, particularly in regards to the safety issue.



Yes, I agree, then peace will reign throughout the world . The point is that the non-genuine refo's should have come into Australia the correct way, via the immigration department. But no, they are undesirable for any nation so they come in illegally. They also have to send them packing because it serves as a deterance, because if they didnt than any old smow could get on his dinghy and enter Australia illegally, with a virtual slap on the wrist of a couple of months in luxury detention.

the stupidity of this sort of argument captured in two words