Thread: Waking up Australia to compassion.

Interesting discussion. A global problem with no easy solutions. Polarises perhaps those that think with their heart, versus those that think with their head, but as long as all views get respected the debate I trust can continue.

Two big issues I see. First is that as a remote but highly desirable destination, which accepts a relatively small number of refugees, Australia should be in a position to choose those who are most likely to make a success of what immigration into Australia offers - a win-win scenario for Australians both new and old. Instead we have people smugglers deciding who comes to the country, resulting in huge processing costs for people who conceal their true origins, and many refugees with little to offer to their new country. I simply cannot see many of the current refugees coming into Australia developing to become valued contributors to our society within my lifetime. There are huge barriers in language, race, religion, culture, morality and values - virtually every element that defines a people. Imagine for example the situation was reversed, and you arrived empty handed in Afghanistan. Can you think of a more unlikely place in the world to try and successfully start a new life and become a valued member of society? Certainly if we were able to choose those that arrived, the likelihood of success would be greatly increased - but not with the current situation of simply accepting those that wash up on out shores.

The other issue is the cost of these refugees to Australia. A refugee who cannot speak English, understand the local culture, or have any likelihood of gaining employment, is nonetheless provided with ongoing housing, education, health care and other significant welfare support. Additionally, when the situation improves in their country of origin few will choose to head back home. Accepting a single refugee is a major and ongoing commitment for the Australian taxpayer. Compare this to the millions that have crossed the border from Zimbabwe and Mozambique into South Africa. There they set up basic shelters in shanty towns outside large cities, find jobs because they work harder and are better educated than the locals, and send money back across the border to support family at home - all at little or no cost to the South African taxpayer. Taxpayers in Australia, who themselves often struggle with the cost of living, foot the bill for our generous asylum seeker policies - is it surprising therefore that they resent being lectured to by the comfortably well off intelligentsia who accuse them of lacking compassion?

So we have the double-whammy of being unable to chose those individuals who come to the country as asylum seekers, but the obligation then to accept and keep them in a manner which we as wealthy Australians consider to be acceptable, but which many around the world would see as extravagant. So one of two options - either regain control over who comes into the country (check out how many refugees Japan accepts), or cut-off support for those that come uninvited (as many other countries now do).

As I said - no easy solutions.

Originally Posted by bob10

That is so not fair , Eh, but, I know about the Colombo plan, but If you want to make a point, don't disguise it with humour, man up, put your point up front. Bob

I am an observer - many contributors here probably don't even understand why Sri Lankans would want to come here. A couple of generations of that countries most talented citizens may have studied here so others are well aware of what we may be able to offer them if they can get here - one way or the other.

As for Iranians - when the Shah was toppled and the country was called Persia many of the Shah's army became refugees. An ex-army mechanic later became very highly respected local manufacturer. At one stage he employed over 30 people before Keating's "Level Playing Field" ruined his business by allowing imported cloned copies of his products. He still refers to himself as a Persian. Maybe Australia beckons people from Iran if they hear of a community in Australia - I don't know what drives them.

After my little joke I Googled the Colombo Plan - thought it had been defunct for years and read all about the "New" one.

I do think, however, that even persons who have Australian Citizenship should be aware that they may be deported if they commit serious crimes.
But let's not make more errors like the appalling cases of the depressed Scottish deportee who had been in Australia thirty years yet died within two days of his dumping in London; the mentally ill women to the Philippines or the Serbian drug offender brought up in Australia since two years old. I have not identified these people but rest assured "they fell through the cracks" - whatever these peoples failings may have been.

Bob

Hi

A quick read through this thread puts paid to the Aussie myths of "Support for the underdog" and "A fair go for all", although it has probably been true for a fair few years. One of the richest countries in the world is also now one of the most selfish it seems.

There is so much false information about, and the situation has been exacerbated by the kind of secrecy any Fascist state would be proud to implement, that it is almost impossible to have an informed discussion on the topic.

Kudos to wrinklearthur for posting some first hand facts, rather than the regurgitated second hand whispers which seem to be the basis of many posts.

There is some hope however, the latest Neilsen poll indicates that around 57% are unhappy with our attitude to Refugees.

There are also people like Thomas Keneally raising their voices, after all Schindler was a people smuggler so Tom has some knowledge in that area.

When I hear stuff like "these are not the kind of people we want" it reminds me that a couple of hundred years ago these same words were being used to describe people who were desperate enough to steal a loaf of bread so their family could eat, and we all know what happened to them... boat people indeed.

Steve

Originally Posted by SteveFarmer

Hi

A quick read through this thread puts paid to the Aussie myths of "Support for the underdog" and "A fair go for all", although it has probably been true for a fair few years. One of the richest countries in the world is also now one of the most selfish it seems.

There is so much false information about, and the situation has been exacerbated by the kind of secrecy any Fascist state would be proud to implement, that it is almost impossible to have an informed discussion on the topic.

Kudos to wrinklearthur for posting some first hand facts, rather than the regurgitated second hand whispers which seem to be the basis of many posts.

There is some hope however, the latest Neilsen poll indicates that around 57% are unhappy with our attitude to Refugees.

There are also people like Thomas Keneally raising their voices, after all Schindler was a people smuggler so Tom has some knowledge in that area.

When I hear stuff like "these are not the kind of people we want" it reminds me that a couple of hundred years ago these same words were being used to describe people who were desperate enough to steal a loaf of bread so their family could eat, and we all know what happened to them... boat people indeed.

Steve

Steve, which thread are you reading? Certainly not this one.
"Fair go to all" indeed.
Steve, let me ask you, is it fair to let an economic migrant take the place of a person seeking asylum? Is it fair to let an economic migrant take the place of a person who is a genuine refugee in need of assistance? To me, that is not fair. Obviously to you think this is fair.
Oh, and it's hardly like the situation a couple of hundred years ago. They didn't sell up the family business to buy passage to Australia. They were sent against their will.
Or, maybe, this is what you think we should do with these boat people. After all, the boat people from two hundred years ago were sent off shore to be imprisoned for the term of their natural life on an island half a world away. Just for stealing a loaf of bread!

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Steve, which thread are you reading? Certainly not this one.
"Fair go to all" indeed.
Steve, let me ask you, is it fair to let an economic migrant take the place of a person seeking asylum? Is it fair to let an economic migrant take the place of a person who is a genuine refugee in need of assistance? To me, that is not fair. Obviously to you think this is fair.
Oh, and it's hardly like the situation a couple of hundred years ago. They didn't sell up the family business to buy passage to Australia. They were sent against their will.
Or, maybe, this is what you think we should do with these boat people. After all, the boat people from two hundred years ago were sent off shore to be imprisoned for the term of their natural life on an island half a world away. Just for stealing a loaf of bread!

Hi

I certainly am reading this thread and your post illustrates my point perfectly "a fair go for all except if you are [insert what you like here]"

It is my feeling that the economic migrants are a small minority, but of course there is no way we can verify this. Can you provide any evidence reading the numbers of "economic migrants", a rough percentage perhaps?

A few standard gems came up in this discussion such as "send them back where they came or to the nearest refugee camp". Like the afghan who was sent back to Afghanistan and and killed by the Taliban. This was a documented case but we can be sure there are many more cases we don't know about. Fair go? Not in my view.

Or separating a mother from her newborn baby, how is that a fair go?

Locking people like cattle up in circumstances where large numbers of them are driven to self harm and attempt suicide, how is that a fair go?

Sending women and children to a country with one of the highest rates of rape and violence against women.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

I was drawing a parallel with convicts because in many ways the situation is the same. Desperate people do things even though they know the potential penalties, such as transportation. The vast majority of convicts knew what would happen to them if they were caught, but they committed the crime anyway, out of desperation.

Oh and by the way, no one got transportation for life for stealing a loaf of bread, seven years was the standard sentence for that level of crime.

Steve

Originally Posted by SteveFarmer

Hi

I certainly am reading this thread and your post illustrates my point perfectly "a fair go for all except if you are [insert what you like here]"

It is my feeling that the economic migrants are a small minority, but of course there is no way we can verify this. Can you provide any evidence reading the numbers of "economic migrants", a rough percentage perhaps?

A few standard gems came up in this discussion such as "send them back where they came or to the nearest refugee camp". Like the afghan who was sent back to Afghanistan and and killed by the Taliban. This was a documented case but we can be sure there are many more cases we don't know about. Fair go? Not in my view.

Or separating a mother from her newborn baby, how is that a fair go?

Locking people like cattle up in circumstances where large numbers of them are driven to self harm and attempt suicide, how is that a fair go?

Sending women and children to a country with one of the highest rates of rape and violence against women.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

I was drawing a parallel with convicts because in many ways the situation is the same. Desperate people do things even though they know the potential penalties, such as transportation. The vast majority of convicts knew what would happen to them if they were caught, but they committed the crime anyway, out of desperation.

Oh and by the way, no one got transportation for life for stealing a loaf of bread, seven years was the standard sentence for that level of crime.

Steve

Steve,
You need to read up a bit more on Australian history especially that around the first fleet and subsequent transport of convicts to the new colony. As transport to the Americas was no longer viable, it was decided to set up a penal colony in Australia in what was to become Sydney, then Norfolk Island, followed by Tasmania (to stop Tasmania or Van Diemens land as what it was known from being settled by the French). Many many of these convicts were transported for what we would call a very minor offence. Many of these were sent out for stealing food and it is widely documented a lot of these were for stealing bread others for meat, rabbits, clothing, buttons, disobedience to their land holder or many other serious crimes as well. You should read up a bit. The sentence may not have been life but once transported to either the Americas or to New South Wales or Van Diemens land was effectively a life sentence as they would have no way of returning to Britain. Very few infact were able to return. Then on top of that a fairly large percentage either died due to harsh conditions in Australia, in ship wreck or with the exception of the first fleet (which had a small mortality rate) the following fleets could have up to a 50% mortality rate during transport. So effectively a lot of these people received a death sentence for minor offences. Then there was the sexual abuse of female prisoners on board the ships. So dont try to say 7 years was a fair sentence for stealing a loaf of bread.

As for quoting a Nielsen poll, what a joke. These polls are only ever eastern sea board capital city based and the people conducting these will target specific demographics so to pull out figures as in all surveys generally a joke unless it encompasses a wide demographic which they usually do not. Often these surveys are limited to less than 1000 people and more often it is only people that have an agenda that take these surveys as generally if they ring up it is at dinner time. Statistics are a wonderful thing and can be slanted and massaged to represent any view. Unless their is a fairly large survey the results are irrelevent.

You start talking misinformation, talk candidly to people that are involved in this area and you will get some different information as they generally cannot talk publicly due to secrecy components of their contracts.
As I have said it is generally not about these people proving refugee status it is more that no one can prove any different as there is no way of determining who these people are as they deliberately dispose of all identification papers after leaving Indonesia and this is well documented. Anyone can just say "If I return home I will be killed as will my family" etc etc. Trying to verify or refute this is often impossible. If they were true refugees they would keep and present their identification papers to prove their status. On the occasion boats have been found with people with ID papers a big % of these were proven not to be true refugees and returned, hence why they destroy them.

As I have repeatedly said I do not believe the majority of these people currently coming in by boat are true refugees under the real definition.
And again I have no problem taking real refugees, not these people that take a short cut that they can afford, where as a real refugee cannot.

Any of you like to comment on the Business Migration Schemes?

Been rorted for years and infinitely more scope for graft, corruption, incompetence. Would you call them "fly-in" economic refugees - many of whom have become invisible once here and without doubt are involved in crime. How much cane furniture for example can Australia consume?

The difference is they have $500,000 (later increased to $800,000) or buy a business here, even get State Government help. I know there are many rules, checks and balances but why are there so many "helpers" in this sector.

Bob

my brother is currently working in Naru on the new/old detention centre, they built it once then the "refugees" burnt it down so now he is there building another one but this time most of the male refugees are being sent to a tent style camp in the middle of the island where it is stinking hot and the new building will house the workers that look after the camps. all at our governments expense i.e our tax dollars i.e our money, in the months to come those same ppl that burnt down the camps will be ,being processed to come here, as bad as they had it where they came from why would they burn down something provided for them,,,, no respect, so how can we expect them to come here and change thier ways they won't respect our country as we do. the other half of it is these ppl have tried to come here illegally sometimes costing them far beyond what it would cost them to come here legally, there is a reason they couldn't come legally in some cases possible criminal charges or religious affiliations, I am all for imigration but through the right channels not via these so called refugee camps