Boat People

[noco]

This is an irony which has occurred to me too. Why should young Australians be fighting for a decent existence for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, when their own apparently healthy young men can't do likewise?

One answer I've come up with is that Australia as part of the so called Coalition of the Willing, engaged in destroying much of these countries on a poorly thought out and illogical pretext, so perhaps we owe them something.
I don't know. There are many ways of considering the many aspects of this whole miserable situation.

Julia, I reckon we should train them here and send them back to fight their their own battles in their own country.

 

[doctorj]

Hey Doc, why attack the messenger?

You misunderstand.

The point is, it's very easy to call people that flee their country for a better life cowards, but the reality a long way from the romantic notion of overcoming all odds and fighting for your freedom.

It's also very good work invoking WW2. But as long as we're talking about battles our relatives fought, it's fair to point out that the Afghans essentially defeated the Russians. But I'm not sure how any of it's relevant.

 

[Nyden]

Julia, I reckon we should train them here and send them back to fight their their own battles in their own country.

Sounds good to me.

How will these countries ever become stable, and strong if their people never fight for it? I realise that it's easy for me to say, having been born in a country that already did this long before I ever existed, but too bad! I shouldn't be made to feel guilty simply because I won the genetic lottery, and I won't be.

 

[mellifuous]

You misunderstand.

The point is, it's very easy to call people that flee their country for a better life cowards, but the reality a long way from the romantic notion of overcoming all odds and fighting for your freedom.

It's also very good work invoking WW2. But as long as we're talking about battles our relatives fought, it's fair to point out that the Afghans essentially defeated the Russians. But I'm not sure how any of it's relevant.

With respect, it's you who missed the point.

Have a nice day.

 

[doctorj]

With respect, it's you who missed the point.

Have a nice day.

I'll check back tomorrow morning to see if your point has become any clearer with the benefit of additional time.

For the record, I wasn't attacking the messenger at all (but if Chris45 feels aggrieved, I'm certain he's capable of fighting his own battles), but rather pointing out that it's very easy to say that individuals should be leading some sort of battle against terrorism or oppression in their country of origin having never experienced anything similar.

 

[derty]

How will these countries ever become stable, and strong if their people never fight for it?

Well, the Tamil's did and they lost. Hence their exodous.

 

[nomore4s]

Senator David Johnston, Opposition Defense Spokesman, made a valid point in parliament yesterday (reported on Lateline last night) when he said,

These "asylum seekers" say they come here looking for freedom, so it's about time we sent them back to their countries to fight for their freedom instead of allowing them to run away like cowards.

Australians are kidding themselves if they think people wouldn't be leaving this country in droves and seeking better lives elsewhere if we had to live under the same conditions as some of the asylum seekers are fleeing from.

While it is all well and good to say they should be staying to fight for their freedom I can assure you the reality of actually doing that is nowhere near as romantic as what the movies make it out to be. And unlike the movies the good guys don't always win.

 

[$20shoes]

I dont understand why everyone gets hung up on boat people. If we are talking illegal immigrants, then most of the estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia are not asylum seekers hoping to be judged as refugees. Most illegal immigrants arrive by air and overstay their visas. They are generally tourists, students or people granted temporary-residence permits. They do not get much media attention and the Government does not appear to consider them a serious threat.

Maybe we should be worrying more about the tourists than the boat people.

Salient point...Australia processes 500 migrants per day. Of those, only 30% ever gain approval to stay. At any one time we have approximately 40,000-70,000 illegal migrants in Australia.

90% of boat people - who make up an small number of our illegal migrants - end up being genuine refugees.

If you wear a collared shirt and arrive by plane, it seems we won't hound you. If you are desperately poor, displaced and have no where to go, we'll give you a bloody hard time for not arriving by plane and overstaying your visa like a good little migrant should.

 

[overit]

Re: Border Security Rudd Weak

Some nice journo come up with these stats.

Asylum-seekers arrive by plane, not boat

October 25, 2009 08:15am

EVERY day, at least 13 asylum-seekers enter Australia through airports, representing 30 times the number of boat people that are supposedly "flooding" across our maritime borders.

A total of 4768 "plane people" - more than 96 per cent of applicants for refugee status - arrived by aircraft in 2008 on legitimate tourist, business and other visas compared with 161 who arrived by boat during the same period, the Sunday Telegraph reports.

And plane people are much less likely than boat people to be genuine refugees, with only about 40-60 per cent granted protection visas, compared with 85-90 per cent of boat people who are found to be genuine refugees.

In 2007-08, 3987 claims were received and 1930 of these were approved.

But whereas boat people are detained on Christmas Island while their claims are processed, plane people live in the community and they are allowed to work under policy changes introduced by the Rudd government.
Experts say few Australians understand that the boat people represent just a small fraction of our refugee intake - and these asylum-seekers are unfairly vilified by "expedient" politicians.

Exact plane-people figures for 2009 are not yet available, but an Immigration Department spokesman said the figure was likely to have increased at a similar rate to that of boat arrivals, which grew from 161 to 1799 since last year, in response to increased pressures within the region, including the end of civil war in Sri Lanka, which has seen many ethnic Tamils fleeing persecution.

An analysis by The Sunday Telegraph of immigration records shows that Sri Lankans represented more than 28 per cent of "plane people" who successfully applied for protection visas in 2007-08, followed by Chinese (26 per cent), Iraqis (14 per cent) and Pakistanis (7.6 per cent). Of the plane people found to be non-genuine refugees, many are Indonesian, Malaysian, Indian and Chinese.

Chinese represent 30 per cent of plane people who apply for refuge, followed by Sri Lankans (8 per cent), Malaysians, Indonesians, Iraqis and then Indians.

Australia will take 13,750 refugees through its humanitarian program in 2009-10, an increase of 250 on last year.

It is expected that Sri Lankans will represent an increased proportion of that intake, which in previous years has been dominated by Burmese, Iraqis, Afghans, Sudanese, Liberians, Congolese and Burundians.

Politicians' "expedient obsession" with boat people is clouding the truth about Australia's refugee flows, according to migration law expert Professor Mary Crock, of Sydney University Law School.

"It's a great mystery why people get upset about boats -- and it's disappointing that our Prime Minister is playing to the old politics," Professor Crock said.

"We have a small number of arrivals and the ones who arrive by boat are nearly always genuine refugees."

 

[pilots]

What I find strange is that what the boat people pay to come here, would be moor than enough money to go to India, and buy a house and a business.

 

[derty]

Thanks for the article overit. Good to see the numbers in perspective.

It really does show that a lot of it is a media and political beatup. The media knows it is a contentious issue that will sell papers and get viewers. The politicians know they can continuously get good political mileage from the issue. All the time they are playing to the more fearful and insecure and increasing their anxieties. You can see the results both in everyday conversation and the posts here.

 

[boofhead]

Many of the boat people that pay for the trip borrow the money from questionable people.

It is interesting to watch well researched documentaries on the issue like those often shown on SBS and ABC when compared to primetime rubbish of 7 and 9. 7 and 9 are good at throwing numbers are people without suitable context and often the figures themselves cannot be reconciled.

All the rubbish figures thrown around by media organisations without valid and clear reputable sources should result in fines. They make money from the sales so they should suffer consequences of peddling incorrect information that can be very emotive.

 

[mellifuous]

Many of the boat people that pay for the trip borrow the money from questionable people.

It is interesting to watch well researched documentaries on the issue like those often shown on SBS and ABC when compared to primetime rubbish of 7 and 9. 7 and 9 are good at throwing numbers are people without suitable context and often the figures themselves cannot be reconciled.

All the rubbish figures thrown around by media organisations without valid and clear reputable sources should result in fines. They make money from the sales so they should suffer consequences of peddling incorrect information that can be very emotive.

It doesn't matter what the figures are - we end up paying for them.

I wouldn't say that SBS and the ABC are without bias.

If anyone thinks for a moment that the media isn't out to knead our malleable neural connexions in order to form a particular pretext, then they're in la-la land.

Clearly they get your support, but not mine.

Such is a democracy - bring back the Libs.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The question is ... if it wasn't in the media would it affect anyone? I propose not as it is under control and no, repeat no, threat to any Australian residents existence. Now if there were thousands lining up daily off the coast there would be a problem.
Look at the matter from it's severity and impact on Australia rather than an alarmist, emotive, attention seeking or boring life context.

 

[Nyden]

The question is ... if it wasn't in the media would it affect anyone? I propose not as it is under control and no, repeat no, threat to any Australian residents existence. Now if there were thousands lining up daily off the coast there would be a problem.
Look at the matter from it's severity and impact on Australia rather than an alarmist, emotive, attention seeking or boring life context.

The issue is not the people that are currently coming now; but the possible future. If Australia is seen as a 'welcome with open arms' country, these numbers will certainly begin to climb.

My key issue is infrastructure. We hardly have enough of it to support our own domestic growth, and legal immigration - let alone illegal immigration if it starts to pick up.

Unfortunately, there is no solution to asylum seekers. They're there, and few (if any) countries actually want them. And, of course less people care about 'plane people' - because these individuals probably have more money, and more of an education. They can actually bring something of value from the get go, as opposed to the others; who I would postulate have a greater probability of being a financial burden.

It's always numbers. Always comes down to numbers, and money. That's just the way it is. The human cost is there, but that tends to get thrown out with the bitterness associated with the idea of jobs, homes, and infrastructure becoming less available due to immigration.

Note, I do say idea. Obviously immigration plays a fairly small role in these factors, but the public need someone to blame.

 

[Calliope]

The Oceanic Viking may become the new Flying Dutchman and may have to cruise the Seven Seas forever. Indonesia does not want it's cargo of Ski Lankans and Mr Rudd has ruled out bringing them to Christmas Island. This would involve loss of face.

Mr Rudd is used to buying popularity by dispensing money and spin. Apparently this recipe is not working with the Indonesians.

 

[Happy]

...
Mr Rudd is used to buying popularity by dispensing money and spin. Apparently this recipe is not working with the Indonesians.

I think it works well over there, but he underestimated his position and that they consider to up the stakes.

 

[Chris45]

Surely there's a material difference between a trained, equipped and organised force and a group of individuals with no particular skills, training, equipment or leadership?

I would have thought that it would be obvious that I meant that they should be sent back to join their Afghan National Army to fight!

When's the last time you fought for your freedom?

You have obviously never faced the prospect of having to fight for yours!

During the ‘60s, the US convinced many of us that communism was taking over South East Asia (Domino Theory) and that we would come under attack. Many young Australians were conscripted into the army and sent to Vietnam to fight for our freedom, as well as the freedom of the region, and many paid the ultimate price - or have you forgotten that? As it turned out they were seriously misled by the government, but the absolutely shameful treatment that was dished out to those who returned home believing that they had done the right thing for their country is something that still angers and disgusts me to this day.

Most nations these days rely on a volunteer or professional military rather than maintaining conscription, although many of these countries still reserve the possibility of conscription for wartime and during times of crises. Given that Afghanistan and Iraq are in a state of turmoil, I think that conscription in those countries would be appropriate to bring stability to the region. People do not really appreciate freedom and democracy unless they have fought for it, or have faced the prospect of fighting for it.

Perhaps our recalcitrant GenYs would appreciate this country more if they had to do a period of some sort of national service.

 

[Chris45]

This is an irony which has occurred to me too. Why should young Australians be fighting for a decent existence for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, when their own apparently healthy young men can't do likewise?

One answer I've come up with is that Australia as part of the so called Coalition of the Willing, engaged in destroying much of these countries on a poorly thought out and illogical pretext, so perhaps we owe them something.
I don't know. There are many ways of considering the many aspects of this whole miserable situation.

Yes Julia, I think you have a valid point there. During the ‘70s, after we lost the Vietnam war, I think we felt obliged to accept the Vietnamese refugees fleeing from their now Communist-controlled country and that set a bit of a precedent.

In the middle-east there seems to be one group of people on a mission from God to take over the world, and another group who just want a better life. Unless the latter group are prepared to fight for the better life they seek then the former group of 'godbotherers' will win. There’s an argument for giving refugees who can’t fight, (mothers and children, elderly, etc) temporary shelter until their countries are stabilized, but those who can fight should be encouraged to go back home and do so.

 

[Mr J]

Perhaps our recalcitrant GenYs would appreciate this country more if they had to do a period of some sort of national service.

And perhaps governments would have more appreciation for their people. Many Gen Ys are providing for the country, and will over time become the primary providers. Where is the appreciation? There won't be any, because it will be expected, just as now Gen Ys and most others have expectations when living in Australia. It works both ways.