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

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?

I don't have a number. But I have feelings about the rest of the comment.

I feel that given the support and resources of the government of the day, people working for immigration can differentiate between genuine refugees and otherwise. So I don't believe in a 'if you get you can stay here' policy, because not all who can get here are genuine. I trust (foolishly under this current government) immigration officials to make the call on that one.

I also don't believe that most people in these regions want to come here. Most people would rather stay home, or close to home, and most would prefer to be able to go back sooner rather than later. So when we hear the number of refugees around the world, it would be wrong (and arrogant) to think that they all have their eyes on Australia.

I also feel that if the $1billion + (literally) that is spent on sending people to island nations was spent on other things, like training and education, then the fears that we will be swamped with skill-less non-English speakers could be calmed. I've taught English to new migrants before and, like Stu said, I've always found them to be incredibly enthusiastic about learning to fit in to their new country (much more so than the immigrants we are used to bumping into across Nusantara, that's for sure).

If I was forced to play in to the hypothetical, I'd say one million. In this hypothetical situation we are redirecting the $1 billion spent on border patrol to programs to turn genuine refugees into genuine Australians (whatever that means). I doubt there are a million people in the world willing to sell their worldly belongings and risk their lives to get to a country so far from their home.

stunet wrote:

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?

I'm not excusing " others " actions ... This region was and still is very Tribal . Good luck with your egalitarianism there !

stunet wrote:

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.

I totally believe that, present and even past policy ensures that we generally only see people from the mid to high class those people do not want to sit in camps, they have money to by pass camps and in any country those of higher class generally have better education levels and in many non speaking english countries, english is an important language to learn, however if we changed policy and encouraged more refugees to arrive and people smuggling was basically allowed to be, then the prices would fall and the guarantee of being settled would see us crack into the much larger lower to mid class demographic where we would see much more refugees with little to no english skills or other skills/qualifications.

I don't know the % of english speakers in those countries compared to Sri Lanka it may not even be that much different? it could just be Sri Lanka is closer to us, hence to get here is more affordable hence we already possibly see refugees from Sri Lanka that are mid to low class without english skills.

southey wrote:

stunet wrote:

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?

I'm not excusing " others " actions ... This region was and still is very Tribal . Good luck with your egalitarianism there !

"Others" = Australia, champ. My reason for accepting migrants is based more in humanitarianism but the recent wars can't be ignored. The argument that we're somehow absolved because they were always tribal is borderline pathetic and it simply doesn't pass the stats test. Check when the boats started coming. Yes, just after we bombed the bejezus out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

indo-dreaming wrote:

stunet wrote:

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.

I totally believe that, present and even past policy ensures that we generally only see people from the mid to high class those people do not want to sit in camps, they have money to by pass camps and in any country those of higher class generally have better education levels and in many non speaking english countries, english is an important language to learn, however if we changed policy and encouraged more refugees to arrive and people smuggling was basically allowed to be, then the prices would fall and the guarantee of being settled would see us crack into the much larger lower to mid class demographic where we would see much more refugees with little to no english skills or other skills/qualifications.

I don't know the % of english speakers in those countries compared to Sri Lanka it may not even be that much different? it could just be Sri Lanka is closer to us, hence to get here is more affordable hence we already possibly see refugees from Sri Lanka that are mid to low class without english skills.

You seem to be shifting your position. Last post you said no migrants speak english or have skills, this post you say we generally see better people educated and wealthier people. Which is it?

Sheepdog wrote:

Well.... You know me..... I'm the last bloke you'd expect to be speechless.... But I am... So much could be said... So pointless to say it.

I'm feelin' ya, Dog. Fuck sake. Who are some of you people?

heals wrote:

southey wrote:

stunet wrote:

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?

I'm not excusing " others " actions ... This region was and still is very Tribal . Good luck with your egalitarianism there !

"Others" = Australia, champ. My reason for accepting migrants is based more in humanitarianism but the recent wars can't be ignored. The argument that we're somehow absolved because they were always tribal is borderline pathetic and it simply doesn't pass the stats test. Check when the boats started coming. Yes, just after we bombed the bejezus out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have always had to fight Britains war for obvious reasons , and unless your 80 years old - heals then neither of us ejected the government that started us bowing to US political pressure . So when I say others I mean the main instigators . We - the Australian populace since federation and then the cold war post ww2 have been implicated for our inability to vote out lapdog politics . But it's like an immovable object .

heals wrote:

southey wrote:

stunet wrote:

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?

I'm not excusing " others " actions ... This region was and still is very Tribal . Good luck with your egalitarianism there !

"Others" = Australia, champ. My reason for accepting migrants is based more in humanitarianism but the recent wars can't be ignored. The argument that we're somehow absolved because they were always tribal is borderline pathetic and it simply doesn't pass the stats test. Check when the boats started coming. Yes, just after we bombed the bejezus out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heals, if you are going to use 'boat statistics' then you will need to take each year on its own. Times and circumstances were different, governments were different. One key point is however, that people did die coming by boat - at any period. 'humanitarianism' is a subjective word. hence any migration policy based purely on that is flawed. My only hope is that the government does organise work for the refugees coming from Syria - that I know, is essential.

Michaelia Cash? Pauline Hanson? Gina Rinehart? A hybrid?!

dandandan wrote:

If I was forced to play in to the hypothetical, I'd say one million. In this hypothetical situation we are redirecting the $1 billion spent on border patrol to programs to turn genuine refugees into genuine Australians (whatever that means). I doubt there are a million people in the world willing to sell their worldly belongings and risk their lives to get to a country so far from their home.

i agree with your sentiments dan, and the money is in essence "wasted" on keeping people out that could be awesome citizens...but you should know that $1000 per refugee falls miserably short of what is required. a lot short.....

plus you need to think of the infrastructure required to support a transient people. people that have a high likelyhood of returning home after things in their wartorn country calm down. i think that we can support far greater refugees than we do, but 1,000,000 every year causes me to see some problems. not saying it couldn't be done...but that it would require some serious investment, otherwise 80% of them would be without jobs, without homes, and putting additional pressure on already overcrowded cities.
expansion of regional centres is a great idea....but at a slow pace...pulling in hundreds of thousaands ofrefugees to work in regional centres in a short space of time raises massive complications like ive said.

it really is a terrible situation.

heals wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

stunet wrote:

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.

I totally believe that, present and even past policy ensures that we generally only see people from the mid to high class those people do not want to sit in camps, they have money to by pass camps and in any country those of higher class generally have better education levels and in many non speaking english countries, english is an important language to learn, however if we changed policy and encouraged more refugees to arrive and people smuggling was basically allowed to be, then the prices would fall and the guarantee of being settled would see us crack into the much larger lower to mid class demographic where we would see much more refugees with little to no english skills or other skills/qualifications.

I don't know the % of english speakers in those countries compared to Sri Lanka it may not even be that much different? it could just be Sri Lanka is closer to us, hence to get here is more affordable hence we already possibly see refugees from Sri Lanka that are mid to low class without english skills.

You seem to be shifting your position. Last post you said no migrants speak english or have skills, this post you say we generally see better people educated and wealthier people. Which is it?

Im not shifting my position at all, re read my last post it was in response to Stunet implying all immigrants are good for the future of the country, i was pointing out that this is not the case and that some refugees become an asset and pay tax and others become a burden for an unknown period of time.

Currently and in the past our border control policies have ensured we generally get the middle to upper class refugees, whom are more educated and have more chance of english skills.

However refugees are made up of all classes of people from dirt poor too rich, when you change policy that gives a green light and encourage people to come and the people smuggling model prices drops you will start dipping into the mid to lower class refugee, whom do not have skills or speak english.

Personally for me this i have a moral dilemma, on one hand i understand its best we generally accept refugees who have skills including english and will pay tax quickly, but on the flip side if you forget economics or what best for Australia's future the most fair system would be to take our whole refugee intake from refugee camps and take those that have been wating the longest some of these refugees have been in these camps for 15-20 years, is it really fair that someone who became a refugee last year gets settled in a new country before them?

dandandan wrote:

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?

I don't have a number. But I have feelings about the rest of the comment.

I feel that given the support and resources of the government of the day, people working for immigration can differentiate between genuine refugees and otherwise. So I don't believe in a 'if you get you can stay here' policy, because not all who can get here are genuine. I trust (foolishly under this current government) immigration officials to make the call on that one.

I also don't believe that most people in these regions want to come here. Most people would rather stay home, or close to home, and most would prefer to be able to go back sooner rather than later. So when we hear the number of refugees around the world, it would be wrong (and arrogant) to think that they all have their eyes on Australia.

I also feel that if the $1billion + (literally) that is spent on sending people to island nations was spent on other things, like training and education, then the fears that we will be swamped with skill-less non-English speakers could be calmed. I've taught English to new migrants before and, like Stu said, I've always found them to be incredibly enthusiastic about learning to fit in to their new country (much more so than the immigrants we are used to bumping into across Nusantara, that's for sure).

If I was forced to play in to the hypothetical, I'd say one million. In this hypothetical situation we are redirecting the $1 billion spent on border patrol to programs to turn genuine refugees into genuine Australians (whatever that means). I doubt there are a million people in the world willing to sell their worldly belongings and risk their lives to get to a country so far from their home.

I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that immigration can differentiate between genuine refugees and otherwise, and even if they can, they will always need to er on the side of caution that they are not making a mistake as nobody want to send true refugees back into danger, you can absolutely guarantee that many that have been settled in the past are pure economic refugees.

Hmmm i don't know about you but even in Indo if i had ten dollars for every Indonesian that has asked me how they can come to Australia and work id be able to at least buy a new board.

I don't think its arrogant at all to think we are a prime destination, in the Southern hemisphere we would be the number one on the list, and on a world scale we would be in the top ten, possibly top 5, because we are a developed country with a very high average wage.

1 million per year?…OMG that would be an absolute disaster, imagine the environmental impact of that, housing, water, food not to mention the social problems.

this seems to be how many australia will take in as part of humanitarian intake this year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/fact-check-syria-largest-refugee-i...

25k. is that pitiful in relation to other countries?

happyasS wrote:

this seems to be how many australia will take in as part of humanitarian intake this year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/fact-check-syria-largest-refugee-i...

25k. is that pitiful in relation to other countries?

Id like to see it doubled to 50K a year, but at the same time the government saying we are breaking our agreement with the refugee convention, and make a promise never again to accept one person who enters Australia in an uncontrolled manner (if its not technically illegal now make it illegal) do what Indonesia does with illegal fishing boats, transport the people back to Indonesia then blow up and sink the boat the smugglers use.

No people entering Australia in this way means we can close down all offshore detention centres keeping everyone happy, and only use detention centres in Australia for other matters like overstaying visa etc.

Refugee intake will depend on many factors. To put a number on how many is flawed as it's imperative to have suitable housing, jobs for large numbers as in the case of a war situation.
Bear in mind several European nations are planning to return refugees - whether they like it or not. That would create problems especially for Aus. As we know we have done this in the past, assume it can be done again without too much problems. It seems to be more useful to help resolve the Syrian conflict.

I too am speechless.

This issue is a perfect example why we are all doomed. If the world continues the way it is there will be refugees fleeing droughts, floods, famine, sea rise, war on a scale we can't even imagine now and yet many here in Australia are happy to see a handful of refugees rot in tropical hellholes coz we need to send these evil people a lesson.

How much are these Australian concentration camps costing a year? Over a Billion $AUD a year?

How much is it costing to have our troops overseas fighting this ideological war against the latest "ism"? Another billion $AUD a year?

$2 Billion AUD would go along way to properly funding refugee camps in the regions where these conflicts are and even in our own region so there could be a queue and orderly processing and defended boarders .... no no better to demonise the weak and fearful and those rotting in our concentration camps, more votes in that from the ignorant voters worried that a family wearing different clothes and speaking a different language may move next door to their squeaky clean house with a hissing summer lawn.

Indo your jump in logic about illegal economic migrants coming through our customs is somehow ok while people by boat is somehow wrong is breathtaking.

the way i see it floyd is the government does a "balance sheet" on the cheapest way to provide a soln of sorts. they probably see it as cheaper to spend 1 billion processing people overseas and have the border protection program that the alternatives that you describe. its what i refer to as the "the low risk solution" because it avoids the question "what the hell do we do with the people that come here". i agree its a mistake to just mindlessly bring people in, but the lack of action by the government to try and find solutions is not exactly inspiring. we definetely could do more, but its gonna cost money and thats what the government is afraid of.

[edit] i also do think its unrealistic to say that australia shouldn't participate in military action overseas.

anyhow, we are a very lucky country...we can certainly afford to give up a little more in our taxes to help solve the problem.

i didnt at all blase say "participate in .......overseas". where did you make that up from?

heals wrote:

southey wrote:

stunet wrote:

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?

I'm not excusing " others " actions ... This region was and still is very Tribal . Good luck with your egalitarianism there !

"Others" = Australia, champ. My reason for accepting migrants is based more in humanitarianism but the recent wars can't be ignored. The argument that we're somehow absolved because they were always tribal is borderline pathetic and it simply doesn't pass the stats test. Check when the boats started coming. Yes, just after we bombed the bejezus out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think you need to do your homework , the first boat people were Cambodian and Vietnamese . And if your of the original inhabitants descent , then add the British and maybe Portuguese ..... My point is that the region is a hotbed of conflict , religion etc ....

dandandan wrote:

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.

Again can we stick to facts . Yes it seemed as if there was peace in that time . But far from the truth . In the NE they were fighting the Kurds , and the Kurds were fighting the Turkish over the boarder . The Syrians were having issues with the Lebanese and they all had issues with Israel . They were also having /healing issues with Iraq , but had previously aided Iran against them . It's a cluster fuck .
" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703995 "

SD...my comment was in relation to floyds remarks about how we could save the 1B by not sending troops and putting it to other use. im not denying that we should appropriate more money to housing refugees but i also think its too simple to just suggest that we could save money by not "participating in military action overseas". we need to pick our battles no doubt.

the overall point i was making is that the monies gotta come from somewhere. this nor any govt is ever gonna accept taking 1 million refugees in. everyone agrees with the humanitarian side of it....but then reality sets in.

EDIT: ok i get what your on about....you dont like my use of the term 'participate'....which words would you prefer i use? "blow the fuck out of innocent people". i dont like it either but i want isis fucking wiped out and i expect that our country should do something about it.

southey wrote:

heals wrote:

southey wrote:

stunet wrote:

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?

I'm not excusing " others " actions ... This region was and still is very Tribal . Good luck with your egalitarianism there !

"Others" = Australia, champ. My reason for accepting migrants is based more in humanitarianism but the recent wars can't be ignored. The argument that we're somehow absolved because they were always tribal is borderline pathetic and it simply doesn't pass the stats test. Check when the boats started coming. Yes, just after we bombed the bejezus out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think you need to do your homework , the first boat people were Cambodian and Vietnamese . And if your of the original inhabitants descent , then add the British and maybe Portuguese ..... My point is that the region is a hotbed of conflict , religion etc ....

Of course I know that, it's modern Australian history, but you said "Middle East" and anyway it's been 40 years since the Cambodian and Vietnamese boat people came (who coincidentally were fine at home till the US started bombing them). We're obviously talking about the recent waves of boat people.

southey wrote:

dandandan wrote:

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.

Again can we stick to facts . Yes it seemed as if there was peace in that time . But far from the truth . In the NE they were fighting the Kurds , and the Kurds were fighting the Turkish over the boarder . The Syrians were having issues with the Lebanese and they all had issues with Israel . They were also having /healing issues with Iraq , but had previously aided Iran against them . It's a cluster fuck .
" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703995 "

Mate is this how you debate all the time? Just overlook important facts when convenient and raise irrelevant issues (such as Vietnamese boat people from 1975 in your last post). Are you being deliberately obtuse? Clearly what Dandan was saying is that there wasn't severe civil strife in Syria in 2008 (girlfriend could walk around safely) so no-one was leaving Syria on boats. I don't mean to insult you but that's just freaking obvious. It may have been "tribal" a "hotbed" or whateve but the essence of the argument is people getting on boats (the recent wave - not 40 bloody years ago) and what drove them to do so. If it wasn't for our bombs they'd have stayed put in their tribal hotbed and not got into boats heading to Australia - - as stats bear out and as Dan dan was trying to say.

floyd wrote:

I too am speechless.

This issue is a perfect example why we are all doomed. If the world continues the way it is there will be refugees fleeing droughts, floods, famine, sea rise, war on a scale we can't even imagine now and yet many here in Australia are happy to see a handful of refugees rot in tropical hellholes coz we need to send these evil people a lesson.

How much are these Australian concentration camps costing a year? Over a Billion $AUD a year?

How much is it costing to have our troops overseas fighting this ideological war against the latest "ism"? Another billion $AUD a year?

$2 Billion AUD would go along way to properly funding refugee camps in the regions where these conflicts are and even in our own region so there could be a queue and orderly processing and defended boarders .... no no better to demonise the weak and fearful and those rotting in our concentration camps, more votes in that from the ignorant voters worried that a family wearing different clothes and speaking a different language may move next door to their squeaky clean house with a hissing summer lawn.

Indo your jump in logic about illegal economic migrants coming through our customs is somehow ok while people by boat is somehow wrong is breathtaking.

Can you please point out where i said i think it's okay we allow illegal economic migrants to come through customs?

I never said that.

BTW. to be honest i don't really like the word economic refugees, all refugees are economic to a certain degree, like I've said before its only natural when people are seeking a new country to live they choose the best one for their own future and families future, many factors come into play for that but given the choice most people would choose a developed country with a healthy economy etc over a developing one unless there was some other advantage.

Like I've said many many times, the refugees in themselves are not to blame, but we do need to be realistic to the fact we can't let people just turn up on our shores the risk and problems associated with doing so are way to huge (See my first post) hence need to take the stance we are.

Seeing you use the word concentration camps which is absolutely crazy and in insult to those that really have been held in concentration camps, you obviously feel strongly about closing offshore detention centres…

Well guess what the best way to do this is ensure they are not needed by supporting policy like the tun back boat scheme.

BTW. please don't think I'm a liberal voter, because I'm not look back through the political discussions threads, i honestly thought Tony would absolutely fuck things up like he has with many other issues, remember this is the guy that wanted to buy back leaky Indo fishing boats.

But credit where credit is due, on this issue (no comment on others) Liberals have done an amazing job, the turn back boat scheme has been a success, and we now have less people in detention than previously.

And before anyone even suggest, how do we know there is less boats blah blah blah…

Please don't insult the intelligence of refugees, once a boat is turned back where do you think it goes?..yep back to where it departed (most likely West Java, or South Sumatra in the strait) and guess what happens, well the refugees are not going to get a refund after the people smugglers have put in all the effort and risk and cost of fuel.

Then the refugees go back to where they are staying out of pocket and talk to the other refugees..do you really think they or others are going to then waste their money and and do it again?…

Off course not, they are going to wait, wait for a change of policy or a sign of change like a new government or news refugees in detention are being resettled in Aust.

Offcourse there is exceptions to this the odd boat will still have a go or from another area but i think it fair to say numbers departing Indo are tiny compared to in the past.

Concentration camp is the most accurate word to describe the camps Australia uses for the imprisonment of children, elderly and other innocent civilians.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration-camp

Caging innocent people in concentration camps is never a good outcome regardless of how many boats have been turned back or how numbers have dropped.

The lib/lab coalition has done nothing to present a reasonable solution, children and families have been locked up without hearings in the camps for years while both parties play the issue for political mileage. People, innocent people, children.... are being jailed without due process while politicians beam about how the boats have stopped, how is that even an outcome.

"The wisdom of such executive power, one used to sanction the indefinite detention of asylum seekers and refugees offshore by other governments, was never questioned, shielded as it was by the law."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/legalising-cruelties-the-australian-high-co...

indo-dreaming wrote:

BTW. please don't think I'm a liberal voter, because I'm not look back through the political discussions threads, i honestly thought Tony would absolutely fuck things up like he has with many other issues, remember this is the guy that wanted to buy back leaky Indo fishing boats. But credit where credit is due, on this issue (no comment on others) Liberals have done an amazing job, the turn back boat scheme has been a success.

That's not correct ID. The theory was debunked a while ago by diplomat and public servant John Menadue. In short (apologies, in a hurry): "Immigration Department chief John Menadue and Australian National University migration expert Peter Hughes, shows the drop-off began immediately after former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced in mid 2013 that asylum seekers who arrived on unauthorised boats would never be resettled in Australia."

The Libs appear to have inherited the result of Labors hard-arse measures.

In fact the Liberals had documents exposed by WikilLeaks showing they actually wanted more and more boats to come during Labor's tenure: "...a key Liberal Party strategist in 2009 told the US embassy that “the more boats that come the better”.

Humanitarians or cynical politicians?

here here foily , or is that foiley ?

how many billions of $'s has Australia spent in Vietnam , the ME , East Timor , there is no economic argument not to have refugees .
Refugees do not look at countries from an economic poit of view , its a safety /Quality of life , just so happens that the west offers both , but somehow a lot of these Australians , who have been here for 5 mins ( relative to the indigenous people) and now are fearful that refugees pose an imminent threat to their lifestyle , being fed Bullshit from the far right about terrorists and the possibility of decrease in lifestyle .

when we first started resettling Vietnamese refugees , the hysteria was about letting in potential commies ...mac cartharism anyone??

yes political mileage crap does and has happened but I honestly believe that both parties are more so stumped about how to solve it with more humanity in mind. the concerns about terrorist activity is real even though some play it down, the economic concerns are real, and the social integration concerns are real. all can be addressed and still bring more people in but im sick of hearing people just wash all that away talking about it as all bullshit. its not and the reason we are as lucky country as we are is because our government has managed these issues in balance very well. no one is jailing children mindlessly....the government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. germany is fast tracking its way there under merkel and the people are pissed off. humanitarianism without proper soln's in mind is just naive.

The points raised indicate the emotion involved in this. What is essential is to understand the key points. The difference between asylum and refugee for example. The placement of refugees, the impact to local communities and resources, etc. We know how to do it - we have have done it and well in the past.
It is essential to avoid the German cologne attacks this new year. The return of refugees as what Sweden and others doing would be disastrous.
Firstly, you have to manage this. Regardless of which political flavour you are, stopping the boats is the correct process - it simply saves lives.

"no one is jailing children mindlessly", happy can you please provide a reasoned argument for indefinite incarceration of children.

stunet wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

BTW. please don't think I'm a liberal voter, because I'm not look back through the political discussions threads, i honestly thought Tony would absolutely fuck things up like he has with many other issues, remember this is the guy that wanted to buy back leaky Indo fishing boats. But credit where credit is due, on this issue (no comment on others) Liberals have done an amazing job, the turn back boat scheme has been a success.

That's not correct ID. The theory was debunked a while ago by diplomat and public servant John Menadue. In short (apologies, in a hurry): "Immigration Department chief John Menadue and Australian National University migration expert Peter Hughes, shows the drop-off began immediately after former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced in mid 2013 that asylum seekers who arrived on unauthorised boats would never be resettled in Australia."

The Libs appear to have inherited the result of Labors hard-arse measures.

In fact the Liberals had documents exposed by WikilLeaks showing they actually wanted more and more boats to come during Labor's tenure: "...a key Liberal Party strategist in 2009 told the US embassy that “the more boats that come the better”.

Humanitarians or cynical politicians?

Im very sceptical have you got a link?.. It's possibly the stance reduced boat numbers, but the fact remains and i don't deny there will alway be a small number of boats who will have a go at trying to make the journey and if you don't turn them back you need to detain them, i think we all agree if possible we should avoid this.

Yeah about liberals, that sucks, it also really sucks they got in the way of the labour Malaysia idea, i would have liked to seen how that had gone it was an interesting idea that may have also worked to a degree.

Id be very surprised though if labour got in that didn't continue the boat turn back scheme.

sharkman wrote:

here here foily , or is that foiley ?

how many billions of $'s has Australia spent in Vietnam , the ME , East Timor , there is no economic argument not to have refugees .
Refugees do not look at countries from an economic poit of view , its a safety /Quality of life , just so happens that the west offers both , but somehow a lot of these Australians , who have been here for 5 mins ( relative to the indigenous people) and now are fearful that refugees pose an imminent threat to their lifestyle , being fed Bullshit from the far right about terrorists and the possibility of decrease in lifestyle .

when we first started resettling Vietnamese refugees , the hysteria was about letting in potential commies ...mac cartharism anyone??

You say that refugee's don't look at countries from an economic point of view but then say its quality of life they are after???…isn't that a contradiction?

When we say economic, we are not talking about the stock market or how great the economy is going, we are talking about the fact that people will generally choose to live in a developed country like Australia where our wages are higher, low employment and our government helps us especially those in need with things like free/cheap medical care, social security etc over a country that may be safe but be a developing country where wages are low, employment higher, and the government doesn't give much or any help.

Comparing the situation of vietnam refugees to today is also crazy that was about 40 years ago, the world and Australia has changed drastically in that time.

There are some interesting stats here - http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliam...
Also, agree ID, Labor did get it wrong on many fronts. What is disturbing, is the lack of compassion with the loss of life from using boats. There are more refugees coming via air, so why the boats.

tim foilat wrote:

"no one is jailing children mindlessly", happy can you please provide a reasoned argument for indefinite incarceration of children.

I believe all refugees are free to go home at any time as some have and can be requested to be settled in PNG or Cambodia, I have also read that many refugees in Naru are free to go and come as they please from the centre.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-03/nauru-to-grant-asylum-seekers-full...

If you google the topic it did and is happening, some people have a very funny idea of a concentration camp.

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"no one is jailing children mindlessly", happy can you please provide a reasoned argument for indefinite incarceration of children.

I believe all refugees are free to go home at any time as some have and can be requested to be settled in PNG or Cambodia, I have also read that many refugees in Naru are free to go and come as they please from the centre.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-03/nauru-to-grant-asylum-seekers-full...

If you google the topic it did and is happening, some people have a very funny idea of a concentration camp.

Dictionary definitions of concentration camps may be funny and freedom to roam the island could be described as freedom but my doubts are that the people enjoying the island life possibly see it differently. Perhaps the reality is that they are contained indefinitely on an island with zero viable options for resettlement. As a child or the mother or father of a family that must be a difficult thing to face day to day.

indo-dreaming wrote:

sharkman wrote:

here here foily , or is that foiley ?

how many billions of $'s has Australia spent in Vietnam , the ME , East Timor , there is no economic argument not to have refugees .
Refugees do not look at countries from an economic poit of view , its a safety /Quality of life , just so happens that the west offers both , but somehow a lot of these Australians , who have been here for 5 mins ( relative to the indigenous people) and now are fearful that refugees pose an imminent threat to their lifestyle , being fed Bullshit from the far right about terrorists and the possibility of decrease in lifestyle .

when we first started resettling Vietnamese refugees , the hysteria was about letting in potential commies ...mac cartharism anyone??

You say that refugee's don't look at countries from an economic point of view but then say its quality of life they are after???…isn't that a contradiction?

When we say economic, we are not talking about the stock market or how great the economy is going, we are talking about the fact that people will generally choose to live in a developed country like Australia where our wages are higher, low employment and our government helps us especially those in need with things like free/cheap medical care, social security etc over a country that may be safe but be a developing country where wages are low, employment higher, and the government doesn't give much or any help.

Comparing the situation of vietnam refugees to today is also crazy that was about 40 years ago, the world and Australia has changed drastically in that time.

people look for safety , not bombings /rapes/torture/mass killings no rule of law!

refugees from Vietnam were greeted by some parts of Australian Society ,The Rabid Right , as a commie scourge ,like the Syrians/Tamils/afghanis..Lebs ...etc...are marginalised now as are muslims !

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"no one is jailing children mindlessly", happy can you please provide a reasoned argument for indefinite incarceration of children.

I believe all refugees are free to go home at any time as some have and can be requested to be settled in PNG or Cambodia, I have also read that many refugees in Naru are free to go and come as they please from the centre.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-03/nauru-to-grant-asylum-seekers-full...

If you google the topic it did and is happening, some people have a very funny idea of a concentration camp.

Dictionary definitions of concentration camps may be funny and freedom to roam the island could be described as freedom but my doubts are that the people enjoying the island life possibly see it differently. Perhaps the reality is that they are contained indefinitely on an island with zero viable options for resettlement. As a child or the mother or father of a family that must be a difficult thing to face day to day.

Be totally honest and tell me where you would rather be?, stuck in a refuge camp in some desert often almost a stones throw from danger with tens of thousands of others living under third world conditions, or be in a detention centre run by a western country with much much better living conditions food medical care etc and a few hundred others and if your at Naru you are free to come and go during the day.

For me its a total no brainer.

Realistically its not indefinite they will have to be settled at some stage in another be it Naru, PNG, cambodia and the chances are thousands of times higher for them than a refugee in a detention camp that they could ultimately end up in Australia.

If you gave them the option to swap with people from refugee camps, i bet they wouldn't take it but i bet the majority in refugee camps would jump at the chance of a swap.

To be totally honest I would have to say that they are not the only options so why choose between those two options?

Really it is indefinite by definition, different to forever, these people are being held indefinetly, with no definite time of release, they don't know when they will get out, they don't know where they will be able to go when they get out.

If you gave settled imigrants the chance to go back to detention camps they wouldn't accept it, if detainees were given the chance to settled in a safe stable society they would take that option no doubt.

Blah blah blah .... its as complex an issue as you want it to be or it can be very very simple.

Its simple, either you want to help by finding a better way for these people (and your own thinking) or you don't. All the reasons and excuses in the world can be found why nothing should change or you can rethink it and question every assumption the media has given you and start pressing your elected officials to do better.

tim foilat wrote:

"no one is jailing children mindlessly", happy can you please provide a reasoned argument for indefinite incarceration of children.

there is no reasoned argument. but if the children/babies are arriving with parents then those processing the claims are stuck between a rock and a hard place. the parents claims still need to be assessed. the soln of course is process them quicker and i support this.

if its children arriving unaccompanied, then yes i say process them as a matter of utmost priority.

my point now is as they come into the community then we naturally accept them as australians, its as simple as that. so they need to be supported be they children, teenagers, or adults. throwing people into the community with no support network doesnt work for our society. they are better off in a clean stable camp environment...btw i am definetely not saying that our offshore detention centres meet these requirements, a lot can and should be improved. some of the stories about what happens there are atrocious.

happyasS wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"no one is jailing children mindlessly", happy can you please provide a reasoned argument for indefinite incarceration of children.

there is no reasoned argument. but if the children/babies are arriving with parents then those processing the claims are stuck between a rock and a hard place. the parents claims still need to be assessed. the soln of course is process them quicker and i support this.

if its children arriving unaccompanied, then yes i say process them as a matter of utmost priority.

my point now is as they come into the community then we naturally accept them as australians, its as simple as that. so they need to be supported be they children, teenagers, or adults. throwing people into the community with no support network doesnt work for our society. they are better off in a clean stable camp environment...btw i am definetely not saying that our offshore detention centres meet these requirements, a lot can and should be improved. some of the stories about what happens there are atrocious.

That's a good view I agree. It's not happening.

The rock and the hard place is what I disagree with, if the government of the day can't do better people will. Doctors and journos have refused to comply and people processing can. The same applies to the government, it doesn't have to remain stuck in the between the rock and the hard place, that says nothing to me but a lack of will and a lack of innovation OR alternatively it's just a useful propaganda tool.

Taking our jobs, costing our welfare/tax system, taking over our way of life and the latest and greatest, terrorism. These are the tired and defeated arguments for keeping people locked up indefinitely. More likely the outcome of allowing these people entry will be to see tax paying citizens who want to be a part of and make a life in this society. A new friend to you or your children at school, a client for your business, more kebab shops.

happyasS wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"no one is jailing children mindlessly", happy can you please provide a reasoned argument for indefinite incarceration of children.

there is no reasoned argument. but if the children/babies are arriving with parents then those processing the claims are stuck between a rock and a hard place. the parents claims still need to be assessed. the soln of course is process them quicker and i support this.

if its children arriving unaccompanied, then yes i say process them as a matter of utmost priority.

my point now is as they come into the community then we naturally accept them as australians, its as simple as that. so they need to be supported be they children, teenagers, or adults. throwing people into the community with no support network doesnt work for our society. they are better off in a clean stable camp environment...btw i am definetely not saying that our offshore detention centres meet these requirements, a lot can and should be improved. some of the stories about what happens there are atrocious.

You have to treat children exactly the same as adults.

It would obviously be crazy to separate parents from their children, I'm sure we agree on this.

Or you can give parents with children some type of priority? process them faster or in a better environment such a the community etc

Thats fine at the moment if we could guarantee we were not going to accept anyone who arrives by boat, however if we went back to a similar policy we had under labour with people arriving then its extremely dangerous thing to do.

I will tell you why….in some cases children would become pawns to be used to gain processing advantages or special treatment.

Families who could not afford the journey for all the family could send their child alone with the idea if they can not have a new life at least their child will, or even hope that once their child is their they will be allowed entry.

Families who could not afford the journey could be tempted to give or sell their child to someone that can afford the journey even good people could rationalising the decision that they are doing what is best for their ' future.

Some people who don't have children would use children to gain advantage and be willing to pay, they may be good people or they be very bad people.

Almost forgot the obvious some people will obviously have a child/baby while in detention to gain advantage.( i guess you can look at that how you like, maybe its not a negative, i guess it depends if they really want a child)

Im sure some people will roll their eyes and say no they wouldn't happen, the reality is in some countries parents do sell their children and only do it for money, some even sell their children knowing they will be abused mentally physically and sold for sex.

tim foilat wrote:

To be totally honest I would have to say that they are not the only options so why choose between those two options?

Really it is indefinite by definition, different to forever, these people are being held indefinetly, with no definite time of release, they don't know when they will get out, they don't know where they will be able to go when they get out.

If you gave settled imigrants the chance to go back to detention camps they wouldn't accept it, if detainees were given the chance to settled in a safe stable society they would take that option no doubt.

ha ha..okay i respect you for not lying.

indo-dreaming wrote:

….in some cases children would become pawns to be used to gain processing advantages or special treatment.

Families who could not afford the journey for all the family could send their child alone with the idea if they can not have a new life at least their child will, or even hope that once their child is their they will be allowed entry.

Families who could not afford the journey could be tempted to give or sell their child to someone that can afford the journey even good people could rationalising the decision that they are doing what is best for their ' future.

i dunno how often the unaccompanied child is gonna happen? does this already happen? have we got information on the ages of the children? at the end of the day, regardless of what i perceive the motive, the child still has to be processed with utmost priority. children in detention without their family support is crap.....are these kids available for general foster care in the community, or does it not work that way? if the parents come later then their story still has to be investigated....i dont support cases of just letting parents in via tick and flick just because their kids are already here.