Boat People

bigdog · 18 October 2009

I would imagine that the granting of visas for boat people costs Australian taxpayers from payment of benefits.

I assume that they will have very little when that arrive and the Australian taxpayers are requried to support them for considerable time!

What are the benefits paid for and the amounts paid to individual families.

Calliope · 18 October 2009

John Howard was rubbished when he said that we will decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances under which they came.

Now of course it is the people smugglers who decide these matters and it is making Kevin Rudd look very weak. Mouthing off abuse at the people smugglers didn't work, and now he has to start sounding like Howard, making "no apologies" for a hard line.

And he has to do this in the face of orchestrated footage of the pleadings of the Sri Lankans, on their boat in Jakarta, who have paid the people smugglers big money to get them to Australian waters.

The situation is getting interesting.

pilots · 18 October 2009

Calliope said:
John Howard was rubbished when he said that we will decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances under which they came.

Now of course it is the people smugglers who decide these matters and it is making Kevin Rudd look very weak. Mouthing off abuse at the people smugglers didn't work, and now he has to start sounding like Howard, making "no apologies" for a hard line.

And he has to do this in the face of orchestrated footage of the pleadings of the Sri Lankans, on their boat in Jakarta, who have paid the people smugglers big money to get them to Australian waters.

The situation is getting interesting.

Lock them up in Indonesia for about ten years, then see how many still want to come here. Little John had it all under control.

chode84 · 18 October 2009

What I find funny is that they say the conditions are intolerable in Sri Lanka, which they very well may be, but they said that Indonesia is not safe enough because of Tsunami's and Australia is the only option.

If they really were legit refugees then surely Indonesia would be good enough for them. Beggars can't be choosers and to me its a tell tale sign that they are indeed not legit refugees.

pilots · 18 October 2009

chode84 said:
What I find funny is that they say the conditions are intolerable in Sri Lanka, which they very well may be, but they said that Indonesia is not safe enough because of Tsunami's and Australia is the only option.

If they really were legit refugees then surely Indonesia would be good enough for them. Beggars can't be choosers and to me its a tell tale sign that they are indeed not legit refugees.

Do you think that Indonesia has no welfare, now free housing, no free medical has any thing to do with it???

pacestick · 18 October 2009

If they were genuine refugees i.e. tamils on the run from the sri lankan govt following the civil war they wpuld only have to go to India be welcomed as heroes , Indiia supported the tamils, and apply to UNHCR for genuine refugee status and resettlement in a country that takes UNHCR refuggess which includes Australia

chode84 · 18 October 2009

pilots said:
Do you think that Indonesia has no welfare, now free
housing, no free medical has any thing to do with it???

Thats kinda my point! They're obviously not real refugees if they have the luxury of turning down "refuge", even if it is Indonesia. Its still a refuge from the war they are escaping.

pilots · 18 October 2009

chode84 said:
Thats kinda my point! They're obviously not real refugees if they have the luxury of turning down "refuge", even if it is Indonesia. Its still a refuge from the war they are escaping.

So true, Australia is a soft touch. It is time to say now more.

Riddick · 18 October 2009

Ok :

Point 1.
The UN definition of a refugee decrees that a refugee is only a refugee if they leave their home nation and seek refuge at the closet friendly port. What this means to australia is that basically very few foreign nationals can claim refugee status. If you pass through indonesia to get to australia, you are by definition not a refugee, you are an illegal immigrant.

Point 2.
There is no room for emotional opinions in logical and pre defined debate. that is, if you are debating refugees, you are obliged to adopt the UN definition (even if you don't like the UN you are not in a position to make a value judgement, just accept the fact that this is the internationally accepted standard defintion for refugee)

Point 3.
sovereign nations can create criteria for whoever they want in their own nation, regardless of how seemingly arbitary and discriminatory those criteria may be.

Point 4.
on the fundamental level, governments have a primary responsibility to care for the needs of their own populace, sometimes to the exclusion and detriment of other peoples and other nations. you might not like this because you feel like we should be nice to people. It doesn't matter what you feel. see point two.

Point 5.
Not everyone is even, not every nation is even, nor will everyone ever be even. some have more than others. Get used to it. it's the way it is. you might not like it or not hink it's fair. too bad, see point 2.

so:
keeping the previous points in mind Australia should.

1. do whatever it needs to deter possible arrivals. asylum seekers are not refugees.
2. Create a media environment that at least promotes an even debate. that is, not allowing the debate to become clouded in emotion or hijacked by the humanitarian right.
3. Legislate to keep arrivals out of the legal system. that is: if you are not an australian citizen, should you be allowed protection under australian law. Logic dictates no.
4. keep religion out of any refugee arguements.

robots · 18 October 2009

hello,

let them in

thankyou
Dr Robots

Riddick · 18 October 2009

robots said:
hello,

let them in

thankyou
Dr Robots

ok, 2 questions:

1. can we let "them" in to live next to you?

2. why?

at least i gave reasons.

thanks

Garpal Gumnut · 18 October 2009

I find the problem of "Boat People" to be a very difficult one for me. I have a mate who was a Vietnamese refugee as an 11 year old, who came to Australia via Malaysia in a boat. His story of leaving "home" and taking off , being ripped off, his family and friends being assaulted and preyed upon on the journey is heart rendering.

On the other hand I see that Australia to maintain its vital character cannot be a dumping ground for every man jack who decides to let the current take him or her here.

I am in a genuine quandry, and would always take a homeless person's side over a government's political decisions.

However , many of the recent boat people have not been fleeing persecution but rather using our slack laws since Kev07 came in, as a means to increase their economic chances in the world. I do not see how we can justify allowing them to queue jump.

Its a very difficult topic and I'd never get on a soap box about it.

gg

namrog · 18 October 2009

Fair comment GG, appart from that, same old, same old arguements.

I'm sure the original inhabitants of this land would have preffered if all boat people had stayed away.................

noco · 18 October 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
I find the problem of "Boat People" to be a very difficult one for me. I have a mate who was a Vietnamese refugee as an 11 year old, who came to Australia via Malaysia in a boat. His story of leaving "home" and taking off , being ripped off, his family and friends being assaulted and preyed upon on the journey is heart rendering.

On the other hand I see that Australia to maintain its vital character cannot be a dumping ground for every man jack who decides to let the current take him or her here.

I am in a genuine quandry, and would always take a homeless person's side over a government's political decisions.

However , many of the recent boat people have not been fleeing persecution but rather using our slack laws since Kev07 came in, as a means to increase their economic chances in the world. I do not see how we can justify allowing them to queue jump.

Its a very difficult topic and I'd never get on a soap box about it.

gg

GG the 255 Tamils stuck in Indonesia say they will be persecuted if they return to their home land. The Sri Lankin Government has gauranteed these people safety on their return. Too bad if they can't accept the Sri Lankin Governments word.

Garpal Gumnut · 18 October 2009

namrog said:
Fair comment GG, appart from that, same old, same old arguements.

I'm sure the original inhabitants of this land would have preffered if all boat people had stayed away.................

I would agree totally mate.

gg

noco said:
GG the 255 Tamils stuck in Indonesia say they will be persecuted if they return to their home land. The Sri Lankin Government has gauranteed these people safety on their return. Too bad if they can't accept the Sri Lankin Governments word.

That, as I've said above is why I find it very difficult to buy into this argument on the yea or nay side.

If a person is homeless and you can help them, then it is your responsibility as a fellow member of the human race to do so, however if a person pretends to be homeless to gain an economic advantage, or places themselves in that position when where they came from gave them political and economic security , then its more difficult.

I really don't want to be in this space so please direct your answers to others.

Its all too complicated for me.

gg

Dowdy · 18 October 2009

Riddick said:
ok, 2 questions:

1. can we let "them" in to live next to you?

2. why?

at least i gave reasons.

thanks

you'll find there not much substance in his post, just like between his ears.

We shouldn't let them in because we can hardly sustain ourselves - traffic, water, power.

Fix up our problems before we can sustain more people in the country

Julia · 18 October 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
I find the problem of "Boat People" to be a very difficult one for me. I have a mate who was a Vietnamese refugee as an 11 year old, who came to Australia via Malaysia in a boat. His story of leaving "home" and taking off , being ripped off, his family and friends being assaulted and preyed upon on the journey is heart rendering.

On the other hand I see that Australia to maintain its vital character cannot be a dumping ground for every man jack who decides to let the current take him or her here.

I am in a genuine quandry, and would always take a homeless person's side over a government's political decisions.

However , many of the recent boat people have not been fleeing persecution but rather using our slack laws since Kev07 came in, as a means to increase their economic chances in the world. I do not see how we can justify allowing them to queue jump.

Its a very difficult topic and I'd never get on a soap box about it.

gg

Dowdy said:
We shouldn't let them in because we can hardly sustain ourselves - traffic, water, power.

Fix up our problems before we can sustain more people in the country

gg, I feel similarly to yourself, but then I agree with Dowdy's comments also.
As long as we have Australians who are homeless, and people dying in hospital corridors, there's a difficulty in my mind in accepting people who have come through various other countries to get to Australia. Especially when they attempt to blackmail and coerce Australian authorities with threats of blowing up their boat, going on a hunger strike etc.

cuttlefish · 19 October 2009

Julia said:
gg, I feel similarly to yourself, but then I agree with Dowdy's comments also.
As long as we have Australians who are homeless, and people dying in hospital corridors, there's a difficulty in my mind in accepting people who have come through various other countries to get to Australia. Especially when they attempt to blackmail and coerce Australian authorities with threats of blowing up their boat, going on a hunger strike etc.

Why is there always an assumption that boat people will not contribute productively to Australian society?

Tink · 19 October 2009

Its not just Australia that is getting an influx of boat people, its happening to all the other countries as well.

We are complaining about 1,000, Europe is getting 35,000

I do feel for them as where are they to go?

robots · 19 October 2009

Dowdy said:
you'll find there not much substance in his post, just like between his ears.

We shouldn't let them in because we can hardly sustain ourselves - traffic, water, power.

Fix up our problems before we can sustain more people in the country

hello,

just like your wallet Dowdy, nothing in it so you jealous of someone who has a couple of titles

check out the "living large" survey, aussie's are loving life and we have no problems in this country

yes i would have them next to me any day as better than most typical aussie families

thankyou
Dr Robots

Boat People

bigdog

Retired many years ago

Calliope

pilots

chode84

pilots

pacestick

chode84

pilots

Riddick

robots

hello

Riddick

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

namrog

noco

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Dowdy

Julia

In Memoriam

cuttlefish

Tink

robots

hello

Similar threads

Boat People

Retired many years ago

hello

Ross Island Hotel

Ross Island Hotel

In Memoriam

hello

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency