Jump to content

Australia, PNG to discuss future of controversial asylum seeker camp


webfact

Recommended Posts

Australia, PNG to discuss future of controversial asylum seeker camp

By Colin Packham

REUTERS

 

r11.jpg

FILE PHOTO: Refugee advocates react as they hold placards and yell slogans during a protest in central Sydney, Australia, October 5, 2016 calling for the closure of the Australian detention centres located in Nauru and Manus Island. REUTERS/David Gray

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - The future of an Australia's controversial asylum-seeker detention centre in Papua New Guinea will be discussed during a two-day visit by Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to the Pacific island nation starting Friday.

 

Australia is under pressure from human rights groups and the United Nations to close its two Pacific island detention centres, which have been widely criticised for cramped conditions, inadequate medical care and violence.

 

The Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled last year that the country's Manus island detention centre should close, forcing Australia and its Pacific island ally to confirm it would close the camp during 2017.

 

"The primary reason for Turnbull's visit is to discuss economic prospects but the topic of Manus island will be addressed too," a source familiar with the visit told Reuters on Thursday.

 

Turnbull's trip to Papua New Guinea comes a day after he met with Baron Waqa, the president of Nauru, and thanked him for hosting Australia's second detention centre in the Pacific.

 

Australia has a strict policy of not allowing anyone who tries to reach the country by boat to settle there, instead detaining them in the Pacific camps, where asylum claims processing can take years, and even if they are found to be genuine refugees they are still barred from Australia.

 

Australia agreed with former U.S. President Barack Obama late last year for the United States to resettle up to 1,250 asylum seekers held in the Australian-funded camps. In return, Australia would resettle refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

 

Turnbull's visit to Papua New Guinea will overlap that of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which begun collecting biometric information of some of the near 900 men held on Manus Island earlier this week.

 

U.S. officials collected similar information from asylum seekers on Nauru late last month, a move that reassured observers that despite U.S. President Trump describing the asylum seeker deal with Australia as "dumb", the deal was at this stage proceeding.

 

After leaving Papua New Guinea, Turnbull will travel to India where he will seek to advance trade between the two countries. Trade between Australia and India was worth nearly A$20 billion ($15.08 billion) last year and both nations hope to accelerate it with a free trade agreement.

 

($1 = 1.3266 Australian dollars)

 

(Reporting by Colin Packham; Editing by Michael Perry)

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There will be no "easy street" that they were expecting in Australia. I don't imagine Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras will be offering the free housing, medical and a very generous welfare system that Australia does. Be interesting to know how many "refugees" opt to be returned to their home countries.

Edited by giddyup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

There will be no "easy street" that they were expecting in Australia. I don't imagine Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras will be offering the free housing, medical and a very generous welfare system that Australia does. Be interesting to know how many "refugees" opt to be returned to their home countries.

They are going to the US which will be worse.The "generous"welfare system for unemployed is well below the poverty line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, louse1953 said:

They are going to the US which will be worse.The "generous"welfare system for unemployed is well below the poverty line.

My bad, I misread where they were being located.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia...you are not welcome. It's not the boat people taking huge risks and then being put into these facilities but the human traffickers themselves that need to be stopped. Hard call.

 

What about other refugees that the tax payer has to fund? I'm against all these free rides and all the human rights mob can go away as well. You want to go to Oz then do it legally or do it without leaching on the system. Yes it is a human tragedy but so is the Aussie who has paid taxes all his/her life living on the poverty line whilst the gaggle of Islamic refugees or the gaggle of other refugees have free hospital, free accommodation, free everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Minnie the Minx said:

Australia...you are not welcome. It's not the boat people taking huge risks and then being put into these facilities but the human traffickers themselves that need to be stopped. Hard call.

 

What about other refugees that the tax payer has to fund? I'm against all these free rides and all the human rights mob can go away as well. You want to go to Oz then do it legally or do it without leaching on the system. Yes it is a human tragedy but so is the Aussie who has paid taxes all his/her life living on the poverty line whilst the gaggle of Islamic refugees or the gaggle of other refugees have free hospital, free accommodation, free everything.

Agree

& the legal ones have a lot of money

They know their in a land where they can have 6 kids & get paid for it & ect

The Aussie citz is the only one losing

They have to beg for all & hopefully get a pension when they retire 

Then you have the rest who can just come to auss Non trade Qualified & take their jobs along with a top up pension when they retire back home (while the Aussie takes a reaming)

 

Thats why i am here at the moment to work in Auss if i can get a job as a citizen & live here 

 

Oh & by the way why dont they just pay 10,000,000 a refugee like they did in Cambodia i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been called everything from a feminazi, to a troll to a nasty piece of goods over my views on this.

 

I am not. If you see for yourselves the real struggling people in Australia, I have a house in Manly and they built an entire estate tax payer funded a few suburbs away to house the 'poor immigrants'. What is up with with that I ask. My neighbours and some are elderly can't get Meals on Wells and these folks get their halal food delivered daily.

 

The thing is after so many years, they don't make one effort to integrate, to learn the language, to try to get any kind of employment even as shelf stackers at Woolies or Kmart because oh wait....their religion they can't work on a Friday.

 

You read these stories a lot about maltreatment and how human rights are being abused.

 

I say look into the backyard of the folks first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time that refugees are allowed to resettle in close proximity to one another, you will end up with problems with integration.   It's a form of ghettoization.  

 

I am pro-refugees and I believe they need full, legal protection, but countries must be able to settle them in an organized, systematic manner.   Many of the refugees I have assisted in resettling went to the US.   They were spread out over many, many different states.   Within the states, they were provided housing, but were placed in apartments all over the city.  

 

They were provided with jobs -- that's a part of the resettlement assistance.  Many bought their own homes, again, all over the city.  

 

Australia was faced with a huge problem simply with the numbers and also with the fact that a fair proportion were not genuine refugees.  

 

Don't build a ghetto for people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...clearly is is not building a ghetto for people but building a prison.

 

Systematically allowing and enabling refugees to enter and 'settle' at the detriment of the general population is essentially Russian Roulette when you think of a nation of 22 million people.

 

I am not against immigration, I am against refugees. Many years ago I worked for an umbrella Oz gov agency supporting ethnic communities. Back then there were the Filipina brides who ended up in Australia, the 'ladies' who then brought out their whole tribe from home. A practice since stamped out but they live on, refusing to integrate, thinking that Oz is the 'promised land'. Twenty years later.

 

I am definitely against professional victim type refugees. The camps set up are deplorable but stopping the human traffickers here is the main. Australia is not the promised land of milk and honey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pivotal factor in immigration, including refugee resettlement, is the prevailing attitude of the community.   It would appear that in Australia many people are not in favor of immigrants or refugees.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that.

 

In a city of six million people, in Sydney at least one million more are Chinese or of Asian descent. Do not forget that Australia in essence is a nation or immigrants, refugees, convicts and other undesirables.

 

What people do not like or accept is freeloaders. I appreciate your efforts in America though. You are a good man and your heart is big as is mine, but each look to their own in terms of viability. Going back to the OP when confronted with a gazillion of boat people what to do? The question still stands today as it did say twenty years ago or even going back longer to when my parents were alive. 

 

Passing the buck or merely demonstrating that Oz is just not capable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott said:

A pivotal factor in immigration, including refugee resettlement, is the prevailing attitude of the community.   It would appear that in Australia many people are not in favor of immigrants or refugees.  

What is not recognised by many posters on this forum is the majority of asylum seekers actually arrive in Australia by air, though 'boat people' dominate the discussion. The vast majority of the remaining 'boat people' detained offshore have been positive vetted as genuine refugees. 

 

Various polls have indicated many Australians are anti Muslim immigration / refugee intake, with some politicians pro-actively playing to the sentiment, in a few cases with nasty rhetoric which IMO is self defeating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scott said:

Any time that refugees are allowed to resettle in close proximity to one another, you will end up with problems with integration.   It's a form of ghettoization.  

 

I am pro-refugees and I believe they need full, legal protection, but countries must be able to settle them in an organized, systematic manner.   Many of the refugees I have assisted in resettling went to the US.   They were spread out over many, many different states.   Within the states, they were provided housing, but were placed in apartments all over the city.  

 

They were provided with jobs -- that's a part of the resettlement assistance.  Many bought their own homes, again, all over the city.  

 

Australia was faced with a huge problem simply with the numbers and also with the fact that a fair proportion were not genuine refugees.  

 

Don't build a ghetto for people.  

How does the US justify providing accomodation and jobs for refugees when many US citizens are unemployed and homeless, and even more scandalous, many homeless are veterans. I'm not saying put the refugees on the street, but homes should be provided for the homeless as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

What is not recognised by many posters on this forum is the majority of asylum seekers actually arrive in Australia by air, though 'boat people' dominate the discussion. The vast majority of the remaining 'boat people' detained offshore have been positive vetted as genuine refugees. 

 

Various polls have indicated many Australians are anti Muslim immigration / refugee intake, with some politicians pro-actively playing to the sentiment, in a few cases with nasty rhetoric which IMO is self defeating. 

I believe it is because no refugee dies while in the air, while many died on the sea, because they were put on defective vessels by the criminal traffickers.

The ban was imposed to save lives, not keep them out of Australia per se. So far it has saved many lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Minnie the Minx said:

I disagree with that.

 

In a city of six million people, in Sydney at least one million more are Chinese or of Asian descent. Do not forget that Australia in essence is a nation or immigrants, refugees, convicts and other undesirables.

 

What people do not like or accept is freeloaders. I appreciate your efforts in America though. You are a good man and your heart is big as is mine, but each look to their own in terms of viability. Going back to the OP when confronted with a gazillion of boat people what to do? The question still stands today as it did say twenty years ago or even going back longer to when my parents were alive. 

 

Passing the buck or merely demonstrating that Oz is just not capable.

Everyone is an immigrant if going back far enough.

The real problem is that there are millions and millions and millions of refugees, and it is clearly impossible to let them all move to the country of their choice. Especially given that they "choose" countries that have a good standard of living and welfare. They don't seem to "choose" countries that don't have welfare ( Saudi is very rich, but doesn't have welfare, far as I know ), and none of the refugees seem to want to travel there on leaky boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How does the US justify providing accomodation and jobs for refugees when many US citizens are unemployed and homeless, and even more scandalous, many homeless are veterans. I'm not saying put the refugees on the street, but homes should be provided for the homeless as well.

The resettlement of refugees is in line with international obligations, treaties and conventions.   The  resettlement package is very limited in scope and is short-lived.   Refugees and immigrants are expected to be working and supporting themselves in a very short period of time.  

 

There is also foreign aid given to countries. 

 

I doubt that any money that doesn't go to refugees will go to the homeless or any other group.   Taking away from one group doesn't insure that it will go to another deserving group.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia is making the right moves when it comes to refugees.  No asylum seeker who intentionally tries to enter Australia by boat will ever be resettled in Australia.

 

I say keep doing deals with other counties and lock these country shoppers up in camps. 

Word will spread that Australia is a no go and after time these camps will become empty and not needed, it might take another 2-5 years but thats what will happen and it's already starting to happen. 

Australia must continue a tough policy and keep these refugees out.   It's the do gooders that need censoring from time to time as they only cause trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Australia is making the right moves when it comes to refugees.  No asylum seeker who intentionally tries to enter Australia by boat will ever be resettled in Australia.

 

I say keep doing deals with other counties and lock these country shoppers up in camps. 

Word will spread that Australia is a no go and after time these camps will become empty and not needed, it might take another 2-5 years but thats what will happen and it's already starting to happen. 

Australia must continue a tough policy and keep these refugees out.   It's the do gooders that need censoring from time to time as they only cause trouble.

It's the do gooders that need censoring from time to time as they only cause trouble.

I wonder how many of them have offered a room to a refugee? It's always different when it's their own money etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The ban was imposed to save lives, not keep them out of Australia per se.

Incorrect.

 

"asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia",

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution

Edited by simple1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

Australia is making the right moves when it comes to refugees.  No asylum seeker who intentionally tries to enter Australia by boat will ever be resettled in Australia.

 

I say keep doing deals with other counties and lock these country shoppers up in camps. 

Word will spread that Australia is a no go and after time these camps will become empty and not needed, it might take another 2-5 years but thats what will happen and it's already starting to happen. 

Australia must continue a tough policy and keep these refugees out.   It's the do gooders that need censoring from time to time as they only cause trouble.

 

If the policy of not allowing asylum seekers arriving by boat with no visa the possibility of sanctuary in Australia is sincerely directed at stopping human traffickers, then Australia should significantly increase the numbers of asylum seekers allowed entry through proper channels.

 

I suspect the 'get tough' policy is merely a sop to the anti-immigrant bloc.

 

Quite amused how reactionaries try to make a slur out of positive words. Being a 'do-gooder', what a loser, Right? What, we should applauder the 'do-badder'?. Also quite amusing how reactionaries revert to the 'Taliban' option of controlling dissent from their views. Yes, we must censor those who want to do good.

 

Australia should continue to accept increasing numbers of immigrants to provide the opportunity for more people to benefit from the Australian life-style and to outnumber the white supremacist anti-immigrant bigots so that the influence of these parasites is diminished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

If the policy of not allowing asylum seekers arriving by boat with no visa the possibility of sanctuary in Australia is sincerely directed at stopping human traffickers, then Australia should significantly increase the numbers of asylum seekers allowed entry through proper channels.

 

I suspect the 'get tough' policy is merely a sop to the anti-immigrant bloc.

 

Quite amused how reactionaries try to make a slur out of positive words. Being a 'do-gooder', what a loser, Right? What, we should applauder the 'do-badder'?. Also quite amusing how reactionaries revert to the 'Taliban' option of controlling dissent from their views. Yes, we must censor those who want to do good.

 

Australia should continue to accept increasing numbers of immigrants to provide the opportunity for more people to benefit from the Australian life-style and to outnumber the white supremacist anti-immigrant bigots so that the influence of these parasites is diminished.

The problem is that some ethnic groups don't wish to "benefit from the Australian lifestyle" but try to impose the same barbaric customs and way of thinking onto their new homeland. They certainly wish to benefit from the generous handouts though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, giddyup said:

The problem is that some ethnic groups don't wish to "benefit from the Australian lifestyle" but try to impose the same barbaric customs and way of thinking onto their new homeland. They certainly wish to benefit from the generous handouts though.

 

Integration is not a one way process. Australian society and culture adapts to reflect the way of life of the immigrants. Asylum Seekers or Refugees are, one assumes temporary but those who become citizens have every right to expect their freedoms to be respected and their views be taken into account, just like any other citizen. The anti-immigrant bloc talking about lack of integration really mean that these immigrants do not become white. They do not have to if they do not wish to.

 

Australia is a country in Asia. It is a multi-cultural and diverse country that respects individual rights and tolerance. As a country founded on immigration and one which has a responsibility to deal with respecting the dignity and rights of its indigenous peoples, multiculturalism is the only direction that can deal with these issues. Promoting a mono-culture based on a white ethnocentrism based on excluding others perpetuates division.

 

On the issue of benefits, all studies show that immigration has a net benefit for host countries, so that is not an issue. So some immigrants get benefits front-loaded. This is a complete non issue except for the miserly misery-guts who never learned how to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Integration is not a one way process. Australian society and culture adapts to reflect the way of life of the immigrants. Asylum Seekers or Refugees are, one assumes temporary but those who become citizens have every right to expect their freedoms to be respected and their views be taken into account, just like any other citizen. The anti-immigrant bloc talking about lack of integration really mean that these immigrants do not become white. They do not have to if they do not wish to.

 

Australia is a country in Asia. It is a multi-cultural and diverse country that respects individual rights and tolerance. As a country founded on immigration and one which has a responsibility to deal with respecting the dignity and rights of its indigenous peoples, multiculturalism is the only direction that can deal with these issues. Promoting a mono-culture based on a white ethnocentrism based on excluding others perpetuates division.

 

On the issue of benefits, all studies show that immigration has a net benefit for host countries, so that is not an issue. So some immigrants get benefits front-loaded. This is a complete non issue except for the miserly misery-guts who never learned how to share.

When you emigrate to a foreign country you do so on the proviso that you will abide by their laws and adapt to their language and customs, nothing to do with "becoming white". If you are incapable of doing this then Australia isn't for you, and don't try and cherry-pick from all the generous benefits, in fact exploit them in many cases, and then say you want your own set of laws and the freedom to practice customs that are either illegal or considered barbaric by the country that opened it's doors to you, and disrespect the women of that country, as you did in your homeland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

When you emigrate to a foreign country you do so on the proviso that you will abide by their laws and adapt to their language and customs, nothing to do with "becoming white". If you are incapable of doing this then Australia isn't for you, and don't try and cherry-pick from all the generous benefits, in fact exploit them in many cases, and then say you want your own set of laws and the freedom to practice customs that are either illegal or considered barbaric by the country that opened it's doors to you, and disrespect the women of that country, as you did in your homeland.

 

Says who? You? Sorry but you have no business or authority to set international immigration policy for anyone. You just pull this out of your butt and base it on your own prejudices.

 

Here is Australia's value statement. 

 

https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Life/Aust/living-in-australia-values-statement-long

 

What are these customs that must be obeyed? You must eat meat pies at least once a week. You must go shopping at Target in your sweat pants. You must follow Aussie Rules. Obeying the laws. Obviously. Wanting to change the law - well that is the right of any citizen even a naturalized one. If they wish to affect change in society, then there are well established ways of doing so.

 

The Australian value statement says that immigrants must respect Australian customs of liberalism and tolerance. It says nothing about immigrants being required to shed their existing customs as long as they are consistent with the values statement. They can eat the food they want, wear the clothes they want, follow the religion they want, speak any language they want (while recognizing that English is a unifying national language) etc.

 

You think head coverings are barbaric? I too think they are ridiculous. So I do not wear bureaus or similar. Others want to? Up to them.

 

Immigrants want to do something that is illegal in Australia? Then let the police do their jobs in the normal way, without special profiling or reducing rights that Australians have come to believe are sacrosanct. So called 'Islamic Terrorism' is a criminal issue to be dealt with by the criminal justice system just as it has dealt with criminal activity in the past.

 

Enjoying the benefits of Australia includes allowing Australian culture to influence an immigrant's conscious and the consciousness of subsequent generations - a natural process that I have personally seen with various waves of immigrants over the years. Australian society and culture will also be influenced and changed by adapting to the culture of its immigrants, something I have also witnessed over the years to the point that Australia is a multi-cultural, tolerant and fair country. Muslims have been influencing Australian culture since the mid 19th Century when Afghans played a vital role in establishing the communications and transport networks that connected colonial Australia with the rest of the world. They are honored for this, particularly in SA and NT. Perhaps this generation of muslim immigrants will contribute also to our development. Despite the nasty name calling and fear based bigotry of the 'nationalists'.

 

I maintain my belief that Australia should increase the number if immigrants and also the number of refugees and give them a pathway to citizenship in exchange for implementing the inhuman offshore detention policy to fight human trafficking.

Edited by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this generation of muslim immigrants will contribute also to our development. Despite the nasty name calling and fear based bigotry of the 'nationalists'.

Believe it (if I live long enough) when I see it.  I said customs that were either barbaric or illegal, like clitorectomy, stoning, removal of body parts as a form of punishment, honour killings etc. You are obviously either muslim or an apologist, so no point in me discussing the matter any further with you. Perhaps you should watch a few Christopher Hitchens videos on Youtube.

Edited by giddyup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

When you emigrate to a foreign country you do so on the proviso that you will abide by their laws and adapt to their language and customs, nothing to do with "becoming white". If you are incapable of doing this then Australia isn't for you, and don't try and cherry-pick from all the generous benefits, in fact exploit them in many cases, and then say you want your own set of laws and the freedom to practice customs that are either illegal or considered barbaric by the country that opened it's doors to you, and disrespect the women of that country, as you did in your homeland.

Keep reiterating the same mime, often with zero thought as to the realities faced by vetted asylum seekers. 

 

<deleted> look at the Australians who scam the welfare system in large numbers. Look at the extremely high levels of child abuse and domestic violence in Oz by white non Muslim Australians, cowardly attacks and verbal abuse of Muslims women by white Australians in the streets by 'patriots' etc etc. You're presenting Oz as though it's populated by perfect white people and all misdeeds are carried out by Muslims, together with an apparent POV that Muslims have the same practices and cultural beliefs; false and utter nonsense - enough of your BS.

Edited by simple1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Keep reiterating the same mime, often with zero thought as to the realities faced by vetted asylum seekers. 

 

<deleted> look at the Australians who scam the welfare system in large numbers. Look at the extremely high levels of child abuse and domestic violence in Oz by white non Muslim Australians, cowardly attacks and verbal abuse of Muslims women by white Australians in the streets by 'patriots' etc etc. You're presenting Oz as though it's populated by perfect white people and all misdeeds are carried out by Muslims, together with an apparent POV that Muslims have the same attitudes and cultural beliefs; false and utter nonsense - enough of your BS.

Germany and Sweden are very good examples of what happens when you open your doors to "refugees", in most cases economic. What happens to all the muslim women, as it appears the refugees are in the majority men. Were the women just abandoned to fend for themselves in their middle eastern hell hole. Get your own house in order before piggybacking on another culture that's fought hard for their democracy and freedoms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Minnie the Minx said:

I've been called everything from a feminazi, to a troll to a nasty piece of goods over my views on this.

 

I am not. If you see for yourselves the real struggling people in Australia, I have a house in Manly and they built an entire estate tax payer funded a few suburbs away to house the 'poor immigrants'. What is up with with that I ask. My neighbours and some are elderly can't get Meals on Wells and these folks get their halal food delivered daily.

 

The thing is after so many years, they don't make one effort to integrate, to learn the language, to try to get any kind of employment even as shelf stackers at Woolies or Kmart because oh wait....their religion they can't work on a Friday.

 

You read these stories a lot about maltreatment and how human rights are being abused.

 

I say look into the backyard of the folks first. 

Didn't I hear that 1/3 of them are on welfare, oh that's right I am paying for it because if I want my pension when I reach that age, I have to return and stay for 2 years before I can take it with me anywhere I please, a numbers game I dare say, if he doesn't return, well his pension can pay for him, bla bla bla

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...