Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[samran]

So we should kick the Vietnamese and Cambodian's out? Afterall, they didn't have a good track record in their own countries. Don't want to expose Australia to that *potential* of communism and genocide do we? I mean, they are all the same aren't they?

[David48]

Guys ... I'll leave it to you defend your opinions.

I've stated mine ... you've stated yours.

It appears on this we don't agree.

The Australian public will get a chance to voice their opinion in the General Election ... when ever that maybe.

.

[Will27]

^^ Mate, like politics, religion, ManU or Liverpool ... all things contentious by nature.

... we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

.

That very well might be the case. But no one here advociating the 'anywhere but Australia' option has bothered to show how many refugees any of these middle countries have accepted for settlement.

So why should Australia be different?

Cause thats what mature countries do. Given our relative wealth, we can look to take in our fair share of those who need help, however they arrive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We have done for years. We can continue to do so. And within a sustainable mix of skilled migration and other schemes, I'll take a refugee anyday who is hungry to build a new life.

That's all well and good samran, but what do you think is our fair share?

You have already stated that you think once people arrive, if assessed to be a refugee

that they should be allowed to remain in Australia. But do you think that the explosion

of boat arrivals is getting untenable?

It's ok having a "great, let them come" attitude but it is crippling the country financially.

The trouble is, there seems to be no middle ground. You have to stop the boats altogether like

Howard did, or open the floodgates like Rudd.

So what do you suggest?

[Will27]

Yes it really costs & I believe it's now running at A$2 billion a year. Rudd has already admitted the costs and paying for additional & updated infrasturcture in PNG will not save any money for the Australian tax payers. I would guess in the longer term costs will not increase as the numbers attempting to access Australia by sea will decrease; so long as the current PNG solution is not overturned in the Australian High Court.

The government has not identified a solution for those arriving on tourist visas by air & then declaring themselves as asylum seekers. Prior to the explosion of people coming by sea in the past year or so, more asylum seekers were arriving by air, than by sea.

Those arriving by air come with documentation and Identification and are not all called Bill Smith from London unlike those arriving by boat. The cost and time in detention to process air arrivals is reduced and they don't normally come with a list of demands and riot if they don't have their demands met swiftly. The only people who benefit from the boat arrivals are the people smugglers who are making a fortune. The Australian tax payer is the loser. When people arrive by air Australia is not seen as the evil nation because people a drowning at sea. Apparently a problem Australia has caused because it does not have a fleet of aircraft in Indonesia for these people.

Give Christmas Island to Indonesia and then Australia's mainland may be to far away for people to risk it.

Not entirely accurate. In 2011 more than 6,000 asylum seekers arrived by air. The largest group by far came from China, many with flase documentation & when applications are rejected the appeals process can go on for years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-15/chinese-fly-into-australia-to-make-27dodgy27-asylum-claims/3892416

The number of detainees actually rioting is relatively small in comparison to the overall numbers detained. It's ironic that some of those who recently rioted on Nauru were about to be advised of their status. In the meantime have a read of the following that talks to the conditions on Naura for detainees.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1658884/cruel-and-degrading-policy-to-blame-for-nauru-riots-say-salvation-army-staff/?cs=12

Regarding the conditions in this article. It speaks of rape and torture, but this is being done by the people who have applied for asylum.

But I'm sure some refugee advocate will be along shortly to try and justify such behavior.

The trouble is that AFAIK, these perpetrator's will not be held to account. They will eventually be allowed to remain in Australia

which IMO, is a national disgrace.

[simple1]

Guys ... I'll leave it to you defend your opinions.

I've stated mine ... you've stated yours.

It appears on this we don't agree.

The Australian public will get a chance to voice their opinion in the General Election ... when ever that maybe.

.

David, the voting public is not being presented with a fair and reasonable policy, just two versions of the same extreme reaction. Voting for the Greens or Wikileaks Party to attempt exerting control of general legislation & policy in Australia with their record with the Labor coalition; no thank you. So people who disagree have no options to express their dissatisfaction.

BTW Abbott has again shot himself in the foot...

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/07/11/3543738.htm

Edited July 27, 2013 by simple1

[samran]

Good question. In an ideal world what I suggest is processing in Indonesia and Malaysia. Like with the VN refugee's, processing was effectively done offshore, but at least that set up a semblance of a proper 'queue'. We spend all this money locking them up, we could spend a fraction of that setting up processing facilities there. But that won't stop the boats. I'm not convinced anything will so I don't fall for the fairytale that you can.

We are a rich country. You are going to just have to get used to the fact that people are just going to want to come here, whether for protection or seeking a better life. Whether they were the Greeks and Italians and Jews after WW2, or the Vietamese and Cambodian's later on.

I don't want people coming by boat. But I'm not of the kumbaya tree hugging variety who want people to come willy nilly. There are ways to slow boat arrivals, and breaking the smugglers business model is to offer a better product. Prohibition never works. It won't work here. But that is history talking, and I'm not running for parliament so I don't have to tell you fairy tales. And the ones to do still arrive? I'd treat them the way I'd hope to be treated if I was in a similar circumstance.

[Will27]

Good question. In an ideal world what I suggest is processing in Indonesia and Malaysia. Like with the VN refugee's, processing was effectively done offshore, but at least that set up a semblance of a proper 'queue'. We spend all this money locking them up, we could spend a fraction of that setting up processing facilities there. But that won't stop the boats. I'm not convinced anything will so I don't fall for the fairytale that you can.

We are a rich country. You are going to just have to get used to the fact that people are just going to want to come here, whether for protection or seeking a better life. Whether they were the Greeks and Italians and Jews after WW2, or the Vietamese and Cambodian's later on.

I don't want people coming by boat. But I'm not of the kumbaya tree hugging variety who want people to come willy nilly. There are ways to slow boat arrivals, and breaking the smugglers business model is to offer a better product. Prohibition never works. It won't work here. But that is history talking, and I'm not running for parliament so I don't have to tell you fairy tales. And the ones to do still arrive? I'd treat them the way I'd hope to be treated if I was in a similar circumstance.

Thanks, but you still haven't answered my question about, "what do you think is our fair

share and do you think the current situation is untenable"? Surely you don't think we should

just keep accepting them?

You say you you're "not convinced anything will stop the boats" but surely the Howard govt

achieved that.

Like I have previously said, Rudd open the gates and is now trying to close it. I think Rudd would

have at least gained some credibility if he had come out and said "we buggered up the exisiting

policy and now we're trying to fix it". But I guess politics doesn't work like that.

[samran]

@will27.

An expert commission last year full of people much smarter than me suggested an humanitarian intake of 20K or so as part of our overall immigration intake of 180,000 or permanent migrants (which doesn't include the tens and tens of thousands on 457 and working holiday visa's). So if that is their recomendation then that is the target number.

I don't like Rudd and am not voting for him. He did change the rules cause people were being bunged up in Naru and people were suffering on TPV's. You seem to forget he had a mandate to do that as by 2007 people were finding howard's policies too much. So it wasn't as if the Australian people didn't vote for it (see my previous comments on the Nats wanting the refugee's in country towns).

But also remember I don't believe prohibition works. Had we kept howards pacific solution, the smugglers would have worked out that 99percent of them were eventually resettled in OZ or NZ anyway, and they just would have made that fact public and the boats would have started again.

[simple1]

The following URL provides very interesting reading on the facts concerning refugee intake into Australia, policy and so on. It is dated 12/2011 so does not include the latest policy agreement with PNG nor the boat people surge.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/RefugeeResettlement#_Toc310921304

[samran]

Ps. And do I think the current situation is untennable? Depends where you are coming from. What I find deplorable is spending billions and billions more than we need to building camps in far off places and then staffing them with Australians who have to be flown in and out (not to mention the bribes -er sorry aid money - we give to the host countries to house them) basically just so we can pander western sydney at the next election.

So I turn the question around. Are you happy the government is pissing tax payer dollars up the wall just to please marginal seat voters is Western Sydney?

Edited July 27, 2013 by samran

[jamhar]

So we should kick the Vietnamese and Cambodian's out? Afterall, they didn't have a good track record in their own countries. Don't want to expose Australia to that *potential* of communism and genocide do we? I mean, they are all the same aren't they?

Other people can speak for their countries, but the Vietnamese in the US are great immigrants. Hard working, industrious, entrepreneurial attitude. This is true for all levels of work force from executives (mine) to hourly workers (again, mine). And little Saigon in LA is a favorite destination spot for dining, shopping, and just hanging out.

And the Cambodians I've met in TV seem to be hardworking immigrants here in Thailand.

Not sure what your point was, but Cambodians and Vietnamese seem to be welcomed in the places where they are.

[samran]

So we should kick the Vietnamese and Cambodian's out? Afterall, they didn't have a good track record in their own countries. Don't want to expose Australia to that *potential* of communism and genocide do we? I mean, they are all the same aren't they?

Other people can speak for their countries, but the Vietnamese in the US are great immigrants. Hard working, industrious, entrepreneurial attitude. This is true for all levels of work force from executives (mine) to hourly workers (again, mine). And little Saigon in LA is a favorite destination spot for dining, shopping, and just hanging out.

And the Cambodians I've met in TV seem to be hardworking immigrants here in Thailand.

Not sure what your point was, but Cambodians and Vietnamese seem to be welcomed in the places where they are.

Point was these were the ridiculous statements being made about Cambodian and Vietnamese boat people back in the day. They wont fit in, they bring a different way of life, they'll live in ghettos and they'll bring crime with them. But as you say, the have worked hard and prospered. Now we are getting the same sort comments made about a new wave of boat people, with the same old underlying bigotry.

Ed..a little story from a few years back highlights the absurdity of spending money on locking people up when they could be a great additions to the community. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s795214.htm

Edited July 27, 2013 by samran

[samran]

Guys ... I'll leave it to you defend your opinions.

I've stated mine ... you've stated yours.

It appears on this we don't agree.

The Australian public will get a chance to voice their opinion in the General Election ... when ever that maybe.

.

Problem is there will be no choice. On one side is the three word slogan expert. The other is a media savvy egomaniac.

Both are pedalling fibs to the Australian public, but those fibs work because they are easy to digest for the hard to please masses. Neither option will stop people jumping on boats in the long run a d all we will do is spend lots of money in the meantime to pretend we are doing something about it. We've had 230 odd years of experience in that.

Edited July 27, 2013 by samran

[F430murci]

Guys ... I'll leave it to you defend your opinions.

I've stated mine ... you've stated yours.

It appears on this we don't agree.

The Australian public will get a chance to voice their opinion in the General Election ... when ever that maybe.

.

David, the voting public is not being presented with a fair and reasonable policy, just two versions of the same extreme reaction. Voting for the Greens or Wikileaks Party to attempt exerting control of general legislation & policy in Australia with their record with the Labor coalition; no thank you. So people who disagree have no options to express their dissatisfaction.

BTW Abbott has again shot himself in the foot...

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/07/11/3543738.htm

You refuse to see or acknowledge the forest and focus on a tree that is a bit distorted perhaps because people have to use politically correct double talk to delicately tip toe around the gravamen of the problem to avoid being labeled racist by people suffering from reverse racism.

I imagine many intake or refugee policies in many countries are being rethought and reshaped. Fool us once, fool us twice comes to mind.

[F430murci]

Look, I am sympathetic to Australians over this because we in the US have a huge problem supporting both illegal and legal immigrants that cannot take care of themselves. Boston bomber boys were even getting money from government and look how that worked out for us.

The US problem is not Muslim, Hispanic. Asian or whatever. It is not a racial issue. The problem is the drain on our already overburdened tax base and financial resource system to take care of people from other countries when we don't have money to take care of our own citizens.

I doubt Australians want to end up in same situation or experience similar problems as other countries that have proceeded down this path.

[Scott]

A series of off-topic, inflammatory and baiting posts has been removed. Please stay on the topic.

[David48]

Maybe some humour may lighten the subject ...

Here

Here

Sadly, I could not post directly from the web.

How the Australian Cartoonists saw this week in Images

I'll try my best to find an equal number, but the focus is always with the government.

[David48]

.

SMH

.

[David48]

.

Canberra Times

.

[David48]

.

Here

.

[David48]

.

The Age

.

[jamhar]

This people want a new life in a new country so what is the problem with them being settled in PNG, They have got what they wished for a new life in a better place. Australia doesn't have an endless pot of gold to take care of everyone who wants a sea change.

How many is enough 100K per year 1 million or do we just let everyone (unlimited) arrive and turn up at centrlink. Many who support the people smugglers and the boats have no answers where all the money is going to come from. It will be from the average man in the street who is battling to support his/her own family with rising living costs. Does he sorry darling you can't continue your education because we have more boats arriving and these people have priority over our health, housing and education systems.

How many homes would 2 billion spent on boat people build for the impoverished homeless people living on Australian streets and in cars. These people can only dream of a life of the boat people. The housing burnt down by asylum seekers could be used for the homeless. They have nowhere to seek refugee status because no country will take them.

I have no problem with refugees being settle in Australia but I do have a problem with those who come by boat. There are enough already be processed abroad and being legally moved to Australia and welcomed.

Please provide proof that Centrelink welfare funding for Australians & the homeless has been reduced due to the current asylum/refugee crisis. I believe you will find that there is no evidence whatsover. In actual fact welfare has been increased by the Government as it has committed $14.3 billion in new money to fund the national insurance scheme DisabilityCare.

If you're going to ask for proof, you should provide it when you post,

esp if you do it in the same paragraph.

fair is fair.

It was extensively covered by Australian media. Given your concerns, it is disingenuous to suggest you are unaware of the additional funding.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-15/welfare-groups-have-mixed-budget-reaction/4691620

Thank you for the post but

Dude, I'm an American. I dont always follow the Australian media.

I find it... distasteful that you would take this to a personal level when i only asked for same information you requested from others

PS, Not everyone here is from Oz

Or know everything about Oz

Thats why I ask questions.... to learn.

Altho i really would like to visit Oz someday.

[harrry]

Thank you for the post but

Dude, I'm an American. I dont always follow the Australian media.

I find it... distasteful that you would take this to a personal level when i only asked for same information you requested from others

PS, Not everyone here is from Oz

Or know everything about Oz

Thats why I ask questions.... to learn.

Altho i really would like to visit Oz someday.

You are welcome to jamhar as are most people. Just be sure to get your visa first, especially if you come by boat.

[BookMan]

Thank you for the post but

Dude, I'm an American. I dont always follow the Australian media.

I find it... distasteful that you would take this to a personal level when i only asked for same information you requested from others

PS, Not everyone here is from Oz

Or know everything about Oz

Thats why I ask questions.... to learn.

Altho i really would like to visit Oz someday.

You are welcome to jamhar as are most people. Just be sure to get your visa first, especially if you come by boat.

Do Americans get a visa on arrival or some such thing?

[harrry]

Thank you for the post but

Dude, I'm an American. I dont always follow the Australian media.

I find it... distasteful that you would take this to a personal level when i only asked for same information you requested from others

PS, Not everyone here is from Oz

Or know everything about Oz

Thats why I ask questions.... to learn.

Altho i really would like to visit Oz someday.

You are welcome to jamhar as are most people. Just be sure to get your visa first, especially if you come by boat.

Do Americans get a visa on arrival or some such thing?

Yes but they can get an ETA on line. If they arrive by boat without a visa they will be sent home.

Edited July 28, 2013 by harrry

[simple1]

Please provide proof that Centrelink welfare funding for Australians & the homeless has been reduced due to the current asylum/refugee crisis. I believe you will find that there is no evidence whatsover. In actual fact welfare has been increased by the Government as it has committed $14.3 billion in new money to fund the national insurance scheme DisabilityCare.

If you're going to ask for proof, you should provide it when you post,

esp if you do it in the same paragraph.

fair is fair.

It was extensively covered by Australian media. Given your concerns, it is disingenuous to suggest you are unaware of the additional funding.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-15/welfare-groups-have-mixed-budget-reaction/4691620

Thank you for the post but

Dude, I'm an American. I dont always follow the Australian media.

I find it... distasteful that you would take this to a personal level when i only asked for same information you requested from others

PS, Not everyone here is from Oz

Or know everything about Oz

Thats why I ask questions.... to learn.

Altho i really would like to visit Oz someday.

My apologies thought you were trying to be "clever". If you are interested in events in Australia a quick Google search would have provided the answer to your question and the T&C's for the funding etc.

Hope you can eventually make it to Australia.

[canman]

Obviously facts are lost in this thread.

Could be RNS.

But Oz is not the closest country to the originating points for a lot of the refugees. One has to ask why Oz when there are other countries closer?

And from the Aussie's position, I would ask some of the countries in the EU and see how their refugee situation turned out. I wonder how many of them would like to rethink their refugee decision 20 or 10 years ago.

show me a country between Iran/Afghanistan and OZ where there is a country which is a sigatory to the refugee convention.

PNG & Timor-Leste, Also dozens of countries much closer to Iran / Afghanistan which are signatories to the UNHCR

[Scott]

Being a signatory to the UN conventions on refugees does not guarantee that a country can be considered a country of first asylum. They should, but very often they do not. This is especially true if is a neighboring country where border crossing is not viewed as a refugee situation.

That said, Australia is a very long way to travel for first asylum.

[simple1]

Being a signatory to the UN conventions on refugees does not guarantee that a country can be considered a country of first asylum. They should, but very often they do not. This is especially true if is a neighboring country where border crossing is not viewed as a refugee situation.

That said, Australia is a very long way to travel for first asylum.

I doubt that people smuglers provide their customers with to many options for the destination country & would encourage them to take the most profitable route for the smugglers. It is estimated that worldwide the revenue for people smugglers is up to US$10 billion a year. Overview of the arrest of an organised crime (people smugglers) gang in Europe trafficking people from Muslim majority countries

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/europeans-dismantle-people-smuggling-ring/?_r=0

[Ulysses G.]

One has to ask why Oz when there are other countries closer?

If I was going to switch countries, Australia would be my first choice - not that they would want me.