Australian churches, Victoria, Qld, ACT, New Zealand offer sanctuary to asylum seekers

The lord giveth and he taketh. Suffer the little children to come unto me?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/exgovernorgeneral-peter-hollingsworth-sor...

Does anyone know all the reasons they are in Oz for?

The big risk on letting them stay in oz is the precedent it sets and the possibility others in offshore detention will do the same to get to Oz.

If the reasons are medical that can not be copied, then i guess there is no risk of others doing the same, but if they are in Australia over issues that can be reproduced (even if its a negative one for the individual) then you can guarantee that if they are allowed to stay others will copy and do what they must to get to Oz.

As for sanctuary or whatever by a church what a load of crap, no one is above the law, religion in this day and age doesn't exempt you from the law.

the courts will reject all actions.

People may not be above the law indo but they can play politics. Given the nature of the current government I can't see that they are going to forcibly enter churches to remove the refugees. Trying to wait them out keeps the issue in the news so I think it is a smart move by the churches and, on this issue, they are right. Some of these politicians and bureaucrats will end up like their child abusing predecessors.....in front of a Royal Commission trying to explain why they thought it was justifiable to abuse and torture young children.

there will be no waiting them out....it will go legal in an instant...the law of sanctuary will be rejected in less than 1 week and officers will be dragging them out. the church will look like fools.

...or more likely the govt will look like the bunch of heartless f'wits we already know them to be.

I hope they do, the church needs to be shown that in 2016 they don't have a place in politics.

I do hope the government resettles these people and others in detention quickly in a third country though like Cambodia or PNG as i believe we have already paid for this.

IMO Australia is not an option as would only send out the wrong message to people smugglers and those waiting in Indo and could see an influx of boats with the chance one or two slip through to far that the can't be turned back…then you have the dilemma put them in detention and your back at square one, or also process them and again your sending out a green light, and you end up with a situation that could get ut of control very quickly.

Im not a fan of Liberal governments, but on this issue they have done better than labour the turning back boat policy is working and its one we should all be happy about, no boats reaching our shores mean no need to detain people and detain children.

Remember our refugee intake doesn't change, once the numbers set thats the amount of people we take.

What pisses me off about this issue is the lack of attention by everyone from general public, media, even politicians to the fact, no matter what your view, we all should agree that its totally unrealistic to allow anyone to enter Australia where they like and not pass through immigration, customs, quarantine.

When people do not pass through these areas and could land anywhere in OZ as has happened in the past, we have no control on who they are and in what numbers.

The quarantine risk are huge it only take one person to bring in a human disease we do not have or a disease or an animal as small as a mite that could have irreversible consequences to our fruit and vegetable industry or livestock, or even our native fauna and flora.

If the issue was allowed to get out of control and we had policy that encouraged people rather than discouraged people to enter Australia this way which could happen very easy and quite quickly especially if it was combined with fast processing.

Then we have many other issues that would enter the mix the obvious one is the security risk (yes not currently a realistic one with long processing times, but if we had short processing times its a realistic threat)

Then there is true people smuggling for sex trade or illegal employment, drug smuggling, money laundering, animal smuggling, illegal arms smuggling etc.

If policy was softened long term there is also the real possibility of creating a problem different obviously a we have ocean between us but still similar to USA/Mexico, the supply is SE Asia is definitely there, and if we ever had a situation where people were processed in the community where they could work until they were either accepted or rejected then it becomes more realistic problem as it would be worth the flip of the coin to be granted a new life and even if they were sent home, if they were smart they could go home cashed up with more money than they would ever otherwise see.

Sheepdog wrote:

HappyasS.... I agree with BB......

i agree with BB too...the govt will look heartless. but it wont change the fact that they will stamp on this with the law. there will be no arrests or charges of course, the govt is not dumb. well to be honest the more i think about it, probably more likely than needing to drag them out forcibly is that the church will request that they leave once they lose under law. the leaders of the church know they are not above the law.

peter dutton has already come out saying the church is not above the law....seems pretty clear govt line to me. the logical next step is a legal action if the church actually carries through with its offering and houses refugees. ive got a suspicion that if a legal case is put forward that the church will prefer to back down very quickly and conceed. they have their own lawyers who will probably already be advising them its not likely to succeed should it go ahead.

SD, i get the whole bible thing. and true lots of pollies would be torn. but they have to everyday tear their beliefs against party lines and end up moderating their positions heavily.

Sheepdog wrote:

"I hope they do, the church needs to be shown that in 2016 they don't have a place in politics."

Ummmm..... O....K..... As I asked earlier, what do 99.99% of politicians swear on when they take office, Indo? Yes... The holy bible....
Which government is the most christian conservative government since Menzies?? This government.... Since when is granting babies sanctuary "politics"? In your eyes maybe.... And you dodged this very important question i put to you....... So i'll ask you again;;;;;;;;;

When a country participates in a war, which we are (which we didn't have to) and civilians are fleeing from our bombs (yes - we are doing bombing runs every day), do you think it is our moral responsibility to grant sanctuary to these civilians, or should we return them to our warzone, yes, our war zone, to be used as human shields by either Al Asad or Isis?

Will you answer it Indo....

Yes sadly thats true and its a problem that should be addressed our governments should be 100% secular its crazy in this day and age they are not, I personally believe for most the act itself now has nothing to do with religion and is nothing more than tradition, but its a tradition we no longer need, the sooner its gone the better and the sooner we are truly secular the better.

BTW Just because they swear on a bible or even have a faith doesn't mean they agree with each other, different christian denominations are different christian denominations because they don't agree on how they interpret the bible or the importance of different aspects etc, even among same detonations they often do not agree, I'm sure there would be Anglican ministers that share my view and are against using the church as a sanctuary….watch the media over the next few days and you may even see some evidence of this, but off course it depends what picture the media want to paint.

Im not going to get into my own views on what we should or shouldn't do regarding being involved in wars, but no if we are involved it does not mean that we should take responsibility for an uncapped number of refugees, especially those that do not go through proper channels.

These are all separate issues like i said before our refugee intake does not change, the issue is about how we accept refugees, not actual refuges themselves or the cause of why people are refugees, which is not only as the result of wars, and before current issues like ISIS there was still million of refugees.

The important thing is that we don't accept people who arrive here by boat because if we do the result is all the problems and risk above plus many more, such as economic and social problems and even environmental.

Remember why these people including children are in detention in the first place, because we accepted responsibility for them that is the problem and one we must learn from and never repeat if we don't want to see people including children in detention, its very simple don't take responsibility for them.

Personally i think we need to have balls and part from the out dated refugee convention, so we have a better stance on not accepting people that don't arrive through official channels, this would not mean we would not accept refugees, quit the opposite, to shut up the critics at the same time i think it would be a perfect time to say okay yeah we are getting tougher and we are never ever going to accept one refugee that enters illegally so please don't bother, but at the same time we are also going to double our refugee intake for refugees who apply through proper channels.

If i had it my way in regard to who we accept, priority would be given to those waiting in camps the longest, not those that had recently become refugees, to me that only seem fair.

Weirdly proud of the church today. Don't think I've ever felt that before.

In general, I want a return to the old system of asylum seekers being housed in rural communities group housing and getting a small wage to work on farms while they and their families are processed. I believe that only stopped because it became a politicalised issue to be seen as the toughest bastard's in the world.

Indo says ..... "What pisses me off about this issue is the lack of attention by everyone from general public, media, even politicians to the fact, no matter what your view, we all should agree that its totally unrealistic to allow anyone to enter Australia where they like and not pass through immigration, customs, quarantine" ......

Mmmmm, got a view on the 10s of thousands that come here each year, more yesterday, today, tomorrow that go through customs and quarantine and then
(1) work here illegally
(2) work here illegally under bogus 457 visa arrangements encouraged by the current government e.g. 7/11
(3) study here for a few years coz mummy and daddy back in the big wide world are wealthy enough to send their kids here for secondary and/or university education and then after their course "qualify" for citizenship under our immigration rules
(4)skip their tourist visas and work
(5)invest in the housing market and because they are wealthy enough to tip in the required amount of $$$$ they qualify for citizenship

See its not just black ad white ... if you got the cash to get on a plane it seems you are welcome, its just the poor bastards rotting in Australian Government funded tropical concentration camps that get people here "pissed off" ..........

There are no "queues" for people to wait in, no refugee assessment/resettlement programs in the region sponsored by your government, desperate people do desperate things ... boats.

And as for your question about why are these people here, we don't want others copying them...... are you serious? if so you are one heartless bastard.

I've always though that if the government was serious about people smuggling they would be focusing their efforts on people smugglers. It's strange that the only time we hear about efforts to stop people smugglers is when we are also detaining a bunch of asylum seekers. You do occasionally read about efforts from the Indonesian police in the Indonesian language media, but it is clear that the support is not there for a bilateral effort. I can name two people connected in people smuggling off the top of my head, information garnered through being a freaking surfing tourist... You don't need to be James Bond to get in on the village gossip (P.S if you ever see a big bus of Middle Eastern tourists near Java's darling slabs, take one guess where they are going.).

So I'm very skeptical of any talk of precedents. I say we let them in, reinvest the billions of dollars we are wasting on so-very-borderline policies that are demonstrably destroying lives of innocent people forever (literally innocent - it is not illegal to seek asylum, hence why asylum seekers are not in prison). Put that money into proper processing centers and into working with Indonesian people to break people smuggling networks by targeting the criminals as opposed to their customers. Australia has routinely identified economic migrants and sent them packing, and I have faith in them (for some reason) to continue to identify those fleeing persecution from those seeking better employment prospects.

Ultimately I'm with sheep: we're either literally throwing bombs on houses, or willingly part of the coalition of forces throwing bombs on houses. It's gutless, colonialistic arrogance for a country to play out their war-worship fantasies by teaming up with their American buddies but to then turn their back on the people they purport to be saving.

A point to remember though: babies! Fucking babies!

there are no easy answers to these conundrums .
Floyd , What is our population ? Where do you see it in 20 years ?
What are our standards of living like , how does our social security rank ?
How many islanders travel straight through NZ to get a walk up start here ? ( I love you guys that want to work where work is ) . Right .. How many people in Asia , the Subcontinent , the middle east are disenfranchised and want to live in a well run western society . ( not counting the Africans and South Americans as its probably a bridge too far ...)
People with money like Floyd says come here very easily , what i don't get is some other people get money to pay the people smugglers , but can't weasel their way here by bribing some immediate neighbours of ours to falsify their documents and then travel through . Maybe we should send them to New Zealand instead ?!? Then once they have passed review let them enter ?
Lastly in this modern age ( atleast amongst our bleeding heart community ) define marginalised . Europe has a shit load more money and actual fenced borders , but it hasn't stopped them being overun to the point that they have been forced to open the gates .....

Floyd-Those are completely separate issue's the issue is "About Border control and all the aspects of why we have immigration, customs, quarantine"

Although those are problems some illegal some legal, the important thing is those people enter Australia through the proper channels hugely reducing any risk to Australia, hence its not related to the subject, those issues are about people already in our community.

The important thing to remember and point out on this issue is refugees are not bad people and it sure isn't about race or religion.

And it's also not the refugees fault they are getting on boats and paying people smugglers, if we were in war torn countries and we were one of the lucky ones that could afford to travel and pay people smugglers and by pass the refugee camps, we would and we would choose the best country we could.

However we also need to be mature about this and look at the bigger picture and understand that its totally unrealistic to let people enter Australia this way apart from all the huge quarantine risk an associated problems and we need to support our government be it liberal or labour and work towards reducing the problem and discouraging people rather than encouraging them, everyone should be for this as I'm sure nobody wants to see people in particular children in detention.

Its nice to think your being compassionate but if you look at the bigger picture your not, your actually part of the problem and cause false hope and support a system based on wealth.(money to travel and pay people smugglers)

And they sure are not concentration camps, these people can leave at any time (as some have decided to return home) or request to be settled in PNG or Cambodia.

Also the condition in the camps are also ten times better than any refuge camp and ten times better than conditions that million around the world live under, proper shelter, electricity, running water, fresh drinking water, toilets, free meals, medical care…..I even have friends in Indonesia who live without most of these electricity for only a few hours a day, well water and bucket, water that must be boiled to drink, no toilets just beach or bush, everyday struggle to put a meal on the table, limited access to medical care.

The no queue line is technical bullshit, they say it works as a lottery, however are the chances of being processed the same for someone in a refugee camp and someone in a detention centre?

Roughly the odds of being processed:

Refugee camp 1,000,000/1 (no guarantee you ever will)
Dentition centre roughly 1,000/1 (with a guarantee at some stage you will be processed)

Even if you could somehow avoid all the quarantine risk etc like a system if you can get to Xmas island your in, with a yearly limit on refugee intake what are you going to do with the person and people that turn up by boat after that lucky number is hit?….and if you end up with a situation where you have as many people turning up by boat as your actually refugee limit,then what?

And please don't think numbers that arrive are static or set at a certain amount they are not they change hugely with policy and with an open borders style policy they would continue to grow as time went on with over 50 million refugees in the world there is no shortage, then take into consideration the number of people toughing it out, the figure could easily be another 50 million.

Same with the BS about 95% being genuine refugees, that is also not a statistic that is set in stone and is dictated by policy and in particular processing methods and lengths, not to mention that it would be almost impossible to process people when all you have to go on is their word, or ethnicity etc they will always take more cautious approach.

In regard to cost to pay people smugglers, this price is also set by policy and how easy it is to get to Aus if Australia was to give the green light many many others would start people smuggling business and competition often see's prices drop making it more affordable to more refugees to enter this way…so so many factors.

indo-dreaming wrote:

The no queue line is technical bullshit, they say it works as a lottery.

From Riz Wakil, Aghani 'queue jumper':

Why didn't you apply for citizenship or even a temporary protection visa in Aghanistan?
Unfortunately things are not as easy as some people think that they are. There is no processing centre in Afghanistan so there is no queue. Also, there is no processing centre in Pakistan, or Iran, or Iraq. In all these troubled part of the world there is no queue to join.

I used to get very upset when people asked me this question and when people called me a queue jumper. But now I think that they just dont know. They don't know the reality on the ground. I explain it like this - if a house is on fire, the fire brigade do not ask people to line up in a queue and wait for their turn to come out through the door. They tell people to smash a window or break down a wall to get away from the fire. That's exactly the same scenario as us. People who are desperate they dont have anywhere to go. The so-called queue...it does not exist. It does not exist in Afghanistan. That's the reality about the queue.

Myself, like others, deperately needed protection to live a life of freedom. That's the case with the majority of boat people.

Why wasn't it safe?
At that time the Taliban were controlling most of Afghanistan. There was a genocide against the Hazar population. We believe that 62% of our population has been killed in a systematic genocide.

I was 18 when my father decided it wasn't safe for me. At that time the Taliban was looking for young males to fight on their side so I did not have much option. I either had to go and fight alongside them or against them, and my father decided it was not safe for me to live in Afghanistan anymore.

https://www.swellnet.com/news/surfpolitik/2010/08/19/those-whove-come-across-seas

dandandan wrote:

I've always though that if the government was serious about people smuggling they would be focusing their efforts on people smugglers. It's strange that the only time we hear about efforts to stop people smugglers is when we are also detaining a bunch of asylum seekers. You do occasionally read about efforts from the Indonesian police in the Indonesian language media, but it is clear that the support is not there for a bilateral effort. I can name two people connected in people smuggling off the top of my head, information garnered through being a freaking surfing tourist... You don't need to be James Bond to get in on the village gossip (P.S if you ever see a big bus of Middle Eastern tourists near Java's darling slabs, take one guess where they are going.).

So I'm very skeptical of any talk of precedents. I say we let them in, reinvest the billions of dollars we are wasting on so-very-borderline policies that are demonstrably destroying lives of innocent people forever (literally innocent - it is not illegal to seek asylum, hence why asylum seekers are not in prison). Put that money into proper processing centers and into working with Indonesian people to break people smuggling networks by targeting the criminals as opposed to their customers. Australia has routinely identified economic migrants and sent them packing, and I have faith in them (for some reason) to continue to identify those fleeing persecution from those seeking better employment prospects.

Ultimately I'm with sheep: we're either literally throwing bombs on houses, or willingly part of the coalition of forces throwing bombs on houses. It's gutless, colonialistic arrogance for a country to play out their war-worship fantasies by teaming up with their American buddies but to then turn their back on the people they purport to be saving.

A point to remember though: babies! Fucking babies!

That means working with Indonesia which Australia is not very good at.

Plus for Indonesia whats in it for them?..sure its an issue, but we both know Indonesia has much more important issues to deal with, its actually better in a sense that Indonesia doesn't worry to much about it, as it could be valuable future bargaining power.

From an Indonesian perspective Indonesia should be pissed of with us as being signed to the refugee convention we encourage the problem and I'm sure Indonesia would prefer not to have thousands of refugees passing through or stuck in Indonesia as at some stage many will run out of money and can not legally work.

In a sense it makes sense for Australia and Indonesia to work together and provide processing centres in Indonesia somewhere with logistically advantages like southern area of sumatra where they should be able to be run at a fraction of the cost they can be run in Australia or other silly remote islands like Manus and Naru where cost are high as everything must be shipped in.

However this would also cause problems and would be like a magnet to refugees being more affordable to reach and could see a much bigger influx of refugees to Indonesia causing problems, so is very unlikely to happen.

stunet wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

The no queue line is technical bullshit, they say it works as a lottery.

From Riz Wakil, Aghani 'queue jumper':

Why didn't you apply for citizenship or even a temporary protection visa in Aghanistan?
Unfortunately things are not as easy as some people think that they are. There is no processing centre in Afghanistan so there is no queue. Also, there is no processing centre in Pakistan, or Iran, or Iraq. In all these troubled part of the world there is no queue to join.

I used to get very upset when people asked me this question and when people called me a queue jumper. But now I think that they just dont know. They don't know the reality on the ground. I explain it like this - if a house is on fire, the fire brigade do not ask people to line up in a queue and wait for their turn to come out through the door. They tell people to smash a window or break down a wall to get away from the fire. That's exactly the same scenario as us. People who are desperate they dont have anywhere to go. The so-called queue...it does not exist. It does not exist in Afghanistan. That's the reality about the queue.

Myself, like others, deperately needed protection to live a life of freedom. That's the case with the majority of boat people.

Why wasn't it safe?
At that time the Taliban were controlling most of Afghanistan. There was a genocide against the Hazar population. We believe that 62% of our population has been killed in a systematic genocide.

I was 18 when my father decided it wasn't safe for me. At that time the Taliban was looking for young males to fight on their side so I did not have much option. I either had to go and fight alongside them or against them, and my father decided it was not safe for me to live in Afghanistan anymore.

https://www.swellnet.com/news/surfpolitik/2010/08/19/those-whove-come-across-seas

So why not go to a refugee camp?…I will answer that because he knows he will never be processed id assume things in the middle east work like Asia, where there is always two ways to do something the official way that takes time often a very long time or pay a bit extra and be fast tracked often very fast tracked…like i said i don't blame them, its not their fault for using the advantage of having money, most of us would do the same…but it's one our government should stop, take the loop hole out.

indo-dreaming wrote:

That means working with Indonesia which Australia is not very good at.

Plus for Indonesia whats in it for them?

In a sense it makes sense for Australia and Indonesia to work together and provide processing centres in Indonesia somewhere with logistically advantages like southern area of sumatra where they should be able to be run at a fraction of the cost they can be run in Australia or other silly remote islands like Manus and Naru where cost are high as everything must be shipped in.

Australia and Indonesia are pretty useless mates, but Australian Police and Indonesian Police have worked pretty well together post 2002 when the resources for that to happen have been available.

And you are right, there is not a great deal in it for Indonesia... Which is why Australia should pay for it. We already support the Sri Lankan government (you know, that one accused of war crimes) to police their borders. Financially and materially supporting the Indonesian forces to direct some of their efforts to what is a regional problem makes sense. I can vouch that the Pacitan Polres takes people smuggling very seriously. After they busted a ring a few years ago they had the press photos of it framed and put up in their offices. I'd imagine police in Malang and Timor would take it pretty seriously too. Working with regional agencies rathen than central police would make sense.

A processing centre in Indonesia would make sense. In fact they already exist, but are incredibly understaffed and under resourced. If the whole point is to stop getting on boats then providing a meaningful way to avoid that is crucial. The government has preferred to play politics and use the issue for their own domestic gain, and wants to be seen as punishing people and to show potential refugees that the Australian will literally send you to places where you may be killed or raped and will almost definitely suffer torturous mental anguish if you dare (completely legally) seek asylum in Australia.

I can't for the life of me get behind a policy that sends a five year old child back to an island nation where they were allegedly raped.

indo-dreaming wrote:

So why not go to a refugee camp?…I will answer that because he knows he will never be processed id assume things in the middle east work like Asia, where there is always two ways to do something the official way that takes time often a very long time or pay a bit extra and be fast tracked often very fast tracked…like i said i don't blame them, its not their fault for using the advantage of having money, most of us would do the same…but it's one our government should stop, take the loop hole out.

Woah, bit presumptuous thinking you can speak for him. That you can speak for anyone whose been in that position. There's a lot of info about Taliban operaions inside refugee camps, recruitment etc. They're not safe houses.

And apropos to what DDD and SD have said, we are the ones who created the turmoil in Afghanistan, we are the ones who should deal with it.

Sensitive as this topic is, the government will most likely send some back and keep some.
No matter which way you side, this current refugee issue is a convoluted mess. A mess in Europe (yet to unfold) and a mess here. The current boat smuggling policy is working here. Lives are not lost. However, not working in Europe, lives are lost there.
The Church - geez are you blokes following the royal commission. The archbishop of Brisbane can't remember. Can you truly trust it with still a serious question over its leadership. Maybe add Pell to that to.

Im busy but I'll be back to answer all these questions and more ...... its all one song called the politics of exclusion and no I don't support open boarders ....... later

Have to follow the Govts rules, as too many baddies have snuck in already. Give them a break as they are doing their best to keep us safe and stop the boat invasion madness. I'm a Christian and the church should stay out of this as its more complicated than a simplistic view. Nauru is a nice island and the gates are open for the camp people to wander around so just send em a bunch of old surfboards to keep busy because there are good waves there and I can think of worse places than a tropical island to be while being processed. A true Reffo will be grateful to wait and do things right, an evil one just wants to get on our Centrelink program, bludge and have a bunch of kids and go to the mosque 3 times a day instead of going to work.

Very emotive subject this one.

To use the burning house analogy though, I often wonder if your house is burning down do you run outside and stand on the front lawn? Or do you run all the way to Perth?

The middle east is a long way from Australia and between there and here there's quite a lot of safe, reasonably democratic countries. So one would have to think that seeking asylum within Australia there would have to be an economic angle to it.

Surely there's a better process that seeks to maintain safety and yet acts with compassion......ffs

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153492613721939/

Note the volume and diversity of refugee intake in Australia Post WW2, held in army barracks in rural areas and worked on farms while being processed, until Howard realised he could stoke the fears of the boogeymen and win some votes

http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/changing-fa...

It's a decent analogy Zen, but I feel it's far too simplistic.

To use a different analogy, if there was a war going on in your country and you were an innocent father caught in the middle of it and trying to make a life the way you always had and then a foreign nation flew in a drone from out of the sky far above the clouds and blew your children and wife and sister and parents into hundreds of pieces and left you and your granddaughter alive.. would you flee to your neighbouring country and live in dangerous, hopeless refugee camps with thousands of others or would you try and give your granddaughter a chance of living a peaceful, healthy life where she could be safe and prosper?

Not so much of an analogy I suppose as an collage of true stories, but probably more apt. In any case, the vast majority of refugees are standing on their front lawn, so to speak and almost all of them would prefer their house didn't burn down in the first place and they could just back to the landscapes and people they know and love.

(Also, yep... very emotive,!)

It's worth considering the central thesis to George Megalogenis' latest book, Australia's Second Chance. George, like many other historians, think Australia blew its opportunity big time with short-sighted social policies during the late-1800s. At the time Australia was the wealthiest country in the world, and running neck and neck with America as the chosen destination for migrants from the Old World. A series of bumbling adminstrative decisions collided with the 1890 global depression that saw Australia stumble into its first serious depression and the rudiments of the White Australia Policy put in place.

Australia was perceived as a racist, closed country and because of this we lost the first wave of Jews who went on to found some of the great American companies of the 20th Century, give America cultural clout through Hollywood, and intellectual muscle in the colleges. They shaped the America we knew in the 20th century.

Most other countries were out of depression by 1900 but Australia's extended for another 45 years chiefly because we'd closed our doors to immigration (the Twenties, fr'instance, sure didn't roar in Australia). And not only skilled migrants but the migrants who create new markets and power domestic economies.

So old George thinks the way forward for Australia is to accept migration because that's when we're out our best. Not just in a feelgood way, like we should accept people for what they are, but because an increased population is vital to our economic wellbeing. It has a pragmatic basis in that we'd all benefit. 

That's where his argument bumps up against sustainable population limits and similar issues, however it's worth considering especially when the whole "new migrants taking our jobs" argument rears its head.

Frank Lowy, Peter Abeles have done quiet nicely as have many Jews since the Second World War. Haven't read the book you mentioned but I would suggest we are in different times, very different even to the post world war eras. What some European countries are doing now with respect to their immigrants tends to support this also.

Definitely different times. We can't create an analog for 1890 but it's worth taking the longview and thinking what could be. You reckon America had any idea what a boon all those migrants would be? Turn a dopey, largely rural country into a swaggering superpower? You think there might have been people in the US resenting them coming for purely superficial reasons?

Of course there was. Same as there is here now.

What's wrong with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar - other similar cultural countires as Syria.

stunet wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

So why not go to a refugee camp?…I will answer that because he knows he will never be processed id assume things in the middle east work like Asia, where there is always two ways to do something the official way that takes time often a very long time or pay a bit extra and be fast tracked often very fast tracked…like i said i don't blame them, its not their fault for using the advantage of having money, most of us would do the same…but it's one our government should stop, take the loop hole out.

Woah, bit presumptuous thinking you can speak for him. That you can speak for anyone whose been in that position. There's a lot of info about Taliban operaions inside refugee camps, recruitment etc. They're not safe houses.

And apropos to what DDD and SD have said, we are the ones who created the turmoil in Afghanistan, we are the ones who should deal with it.

No we didn't there has been continuous conflict in the Middle East since the dawn of time . Why do we need to keep importing problems .?!?

stunet wrote:

It's worth considering the central thesis to George Megalogenis' latest book, Australia's Second Chance. George, like many other historians, think Australia blew its opportunity big time with short-sighted social policies during the late-1800s. At the time Australia was the wealthiest country in the world, and running neck and neck with America as the chosen destination for migrants from the Old World. A series of bumbling adminstrative decisions collided with the 1890 global depression that saw Australia stumble into its first serious depression and the rudiments of the White Australia Policy put in place.

Australia was perceived as a racist, closed country and because of this we lost the first wave of Jews who went on to found some of the great American companies of the 20th Century, give America cultural clout through Hollywood, and intellectual muscle in the colleges. They shaped the America we knew in the 20th century.

Most other countries were out of depression by 1900 but Australia's extended for another 45 years chiefly because we'd closed our doors to immigration (the Twenties, fr'instance, sure didn't roar in Australia). And not only skilled migrants but the migrants who create new markets and power domestic economies.

So old George thinks the way forward for Australia is to accept migration because that's when we're out our best. Not just in a feelgood way, like we should accept people for what they are, but because an increased population is vital to our economic wellbeing. It has a pragmatic basis in that we'd all benefit. 

That's where his argument bumps up against sustainable population limits and similar issues, however it's worth considering especially when the whole "new migrants taking our jobs" argument rears its head.

The biggest problem is many of these people do not speak english and no not have recognised skills, ideally morally you want a equal playing field where money is not a factor when determining who we allow in as refugees, however the problem is there is a huge difference between a poor unskilled refugee who can not speak english to a refugee who has qualifications or skills and can speak english and possibly has money.

One can become a tax payer and contribute to the economy quickly, the other is a burden on the tax payer for an unknown degree of time and when you have a large amount of people in this situation, no matter race or religion it often comes with social economic problems.

But anyway thats all another issue because realistically the people who want a new life in Australia far far out number the people we can ever accept, which will always be a problem.

southey wrote:

No we didn't there has been continuous conflict in the Middle East since the dawn of time . Why do we need to keep importing problems .?!?

Well I said Afghanistan not the Middle East. So why not check these out Southey?

Photos of Afghanistan before the USSR and US used it as a proxy for the Cold War, the US funded the Taliban into power, and the US and it's Allies - including Australia - bombed it back to the Dark Ages.

Looks alright, eh?

stunet wrote:

Definitely different times. We can't create an analog for 1890 but it's worth taking the longview and thinking what could be. You reckon America had any idea what a boon all those migrants would be? Turn a dopey, largely rural country into a swaggering superpower? You think there might have been people in the US resenting them coming for purely superficial reasons?

Of course there was. Same as there is here now.

So we should aspire to be the capitalist pig that has shaken this bees nest since the late eightees . And before them the british , French and Germans for the last 1000 years . We are enslaved to the British and more so lately the American military complexes . Are people really this naive . Lose the oil dependence , problem solved . Next .

southey wrote:

No we didn't there has been continuous conflict in the Middle East since the dawn of time . Why do we need to keep importing problems .?!?

That's a bit of a stretch there. My ex-girlfriend, the least brave person on the face of the planet, spent a few weeks travelling Syria in 2008. There were no wars there then. She entered and exit without question. She travelled solo in cosmopolitan cities and rural countryside and war was the last thing on her mind, and presumably on the mind of her hosts. It's Orientalist to the extreme to portray the ME as a place predisposed to conflict.

BTW. If people do think we should allow an "if you can get here you can stay here" attitude.

Whats your yearly refugee cut off limit?

Do you have one?

If you do and you don't believe in turning boats back, what do you do with all the people that turn up after that magic number?

indo-dreaming wrote:

The biggest problem is many of these people do not speak english and no not have recognised skills,

I tagged along on a 'Learn To Surf' day for asylum seekers recently and from the people I mixed with language proficiancy or vocational skills aren't an issue. All could speak passable English and all of them had relatable skills - engineers, mechanics, computer scientists, even a lifeguard from Iran who when I asked him about big waves said he likes them "This big!" and pointed to a 20 foot high Norfolk Pine.

Yeah, it's only a small cohort but willingness to assimilate didn't seem an issue in the least. To a man they wanted to work so much. They're not allowed to work while deemed asylum seekers so feel listless and without purpose. It was the last surf lesson of the course and as they were receiving their certificates of recognition one fella received a standing O from everyone. When I asked what was happening one of the case workers whispered to me that his status had recently changed to temporary citizen and he'd landed a job just that morning.

Fucken hell, bloke was older, bigger, and way hairier than me yet he looked like he was gonna melt on the spot. Grateful? There just aren't words to convey it...

Apparently asylum seekers from Sri Lanka don't have similar skills or English, but these guys, who came from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran (though each called it Persia) were fine. When I spoke to the person who organised the program she said students needed to have a level of English proficiency before they attended the lessons (for safety). She also said she had "thousands" of people who put their hand up to learn meaning all had good English.

indo-dreaming wrote:

BTW. If people do think we should allow an "if you can get here you can stay here" attitude. Whats your yearly refugee cut off limit? Do you have one? If you do and you don't believe in turning boats back, what do you do with all the people that turn up after that magic number?

No definitive answer. Yet as the government spends $1 Billion a year on offshore processing - for what is a purely political ploy - then there's plenty of coin to come up with alternatives.

Also, I don't agree with an open door policy and think all refugees should be screened.