chooka Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. I'm Koori decent and celebrate Australia Day why does that make me hypocritical? I am quite happy that the British colonised what later became Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. I'm Koori decent and celebrate Australia Day why does that make me hypocritical? I am quite happy that the British colonised what later became Australia. Got nothing to do with what your background is, but if you want to run and hide behind it in logical debate, that is up to you. I celebrate Australia Day too by the way. I'm just pointing out the irony, but it appears you missed it. Nice to see you've given full rebuttals of all my other points as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonarax Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Tony Abott has stated that this will never go ahead when he is P.M. His plan is to put the Military in full control of the asylum seeker issue and boats will be pushed back out to sea with the aid of the Navy and SAS they will not be permitted to land on any Australian soil. Says RUDD is weak and not taking a strong stand. While Abott is amusing cause he gives Gillard so much grief, the guys a total idiot when it comes to running the full show. Not that any of them should be in power.. i reckon a full restart of the system every 4th election. Kick them all out and ban further politic influence from them in future elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonarax Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. I'm Koori decent and celebrate Australia Day why does that make me hypocritical? I am quite happy that the British colonised what later became Australia. I'm Aboriginal decent and celebrate Australia Day, whats ya point mate? (too lazy to directly quote samran) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) In my opinion the way forward is to hold a referendum regarding the ongoing commitment by Australia to the applicable UN conventions & treatment of asylum seekers/refugees. simple1 ... I can see that you are a compassionate person and most Australian people can feel compassion for the plight of a genuine refugee. We, Australians, are all about a 'fair go' and supporting the 'underdog' ... but many view the 'Boat People' as queue jumpers. The fair go should be applied to those who have waited patiently for years in Asylum camps in Malaysia and the like. You talk about holding a 'referendum' ... well, there is one about to be held ... it's called a Federal Election ... and it's a 'referendum' by default. The reason being that, for the moment, the only policy discussion is about the current refugee problem. Now, on the basis that the majority of policies are framed around what the Political Party reckon will get them re-elected ... both parties are for 'off-shore' processing, they are just bickering about the process to show to the voting public that there is a point of difference. The only major party advocating 'on-shore' processing and community detention are the Greens. Should their vote bounce from around 10% in the last election to 15 or 20% ... that is sending a message to major parties. It won't happen because the major political parties will have consensus tested their policy before engaguing their current policy. . Compassionate or just likes to see the spread of Muslim influence. His wife is Muslim and he converted based on earlier statements which I think is awesome! Nevertheless, he speaks of how Muslim populations will slowly take over Christian populations in countries currently controlled by Christian populations. Perhaps he likes to see influx of Muslims for personal reasons.I think it is all well and good if Australian people are willing to spend the money necessary to take care of these boat people. Contrary to what I think Simple1 suggests (he did not answer specific questions posed as usual), I doubt very seriously that all of these boat people are going to immediately integrate into society and become self sustaining. They are likely to be burdens on the government for quiet some time. Bringing up simples religion is a bit of a low blow dog whistle don't you think? Thanks, but I am not a practising Muslim, nor ever been a follower of the Islamic faith. In another topic I made clear my circumstances, that I now deeply regret due to the continuous personal attacks and misrepresentations by some such as F430murci Edited July 25, 2013 by simple1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Thanks, but I am not a practising Muslim, nor ever been a follower of the Islamic faith. In another topic I made clear my circumstances, that I now deeply regret due to the continuous personal attacks by some such as F430murci Run of the mill bigotry then.... Edited July 25, 2013 by samran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 simple1 ... I can see that you are a compassionate person and most Australian people can feel compassion for the plight of a genuine refugee. We, Australians, are all about a 'fair go' and supporting the 'underdog' ... but many view the 'Boat People' as queue jumpers. The fair go should be applied to those who have waited patiently for years in Asylum camps in Malaysia and the like. You talk about holding a 'referendum' ... well, there is one about to be held ... it's called a Federal Election ... and it's a 'referendum' by default. The reason being that, for the moment, the only policy discussion is about the current refugee problem. Now, on the basis that the majority of policies are framed around what the Political Party reckon will get them re-elected ... both parties are for 'off-shore' processing, they are just bickering about the process to show to the voting public that there is a point of difference. The only major party advocating 'on-shore' processing and community detention are the Greens. Should their vote bounce from around 10% in the last election to 15 or 20% ... that is sending a message to major parties. It won't happen because the major political parties will have consensus tested their policy before engaguing their current policy. . Compassionate or just likes to see the spread of Muslim influence. His wife is Muslim and he converted based on earlier statements which I think is awesome! Nevertheless, he speaks of how Muslim populations will slowly take over Christian populations in countries currently controlled by Christian populations. Perhaps he likes to see influx of Muslims for personal reasons.I think it is all well and good if Australian people are willing to spend the money necessary to take care of these boat people. Contrary to what I think Simple1 suggests (he did not answer specific questions posed as usual), I doubt very seriously that all of these boat people are going to immediately integrate into society and become self sustaining. They are likely to be burdens on the government for quiet some time. Bringing up simples religion is a bit of a low blow dog whistle don't you think? Thanks, but I am not a practising Muslim, nor ever been a follower of the Islamic faith. In another topic I made clear my circumstances, that I now deeply regret due to the continuous personal attacks by some such as F430murci Does seem that way and for that I apologize. I do stand by my statement and question why some think it is the moral or legal duty for countries such as the US or Australia to take care of people fleeing other countries. Religious of cultural bias does shape our desires and is the pink elephant in the room that some would prefer to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) F430murci: Apology not accepted as this is about the fourth time you have posted personal attacks. Each previous attack I have responded politely as possible or your posts were deleted by the mods; yet you continue... Edited July 25, 2013 by simple1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FDog Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. You are talking about economic refugees. Australia is not obliged to take economic refugees. It is not Australia's problem that other countries these people go through do not offer them a better economic life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. You are talking about economic refugees. Australia is not obliged to take economic refugees. It is not Australia's problem that other countries these people go through do not offer them a better economic life. Correct regarding "economic refugees" & those who have been identified as not being legitimate refugee/asylum seekers (about 10%) have been denied entry to Australia. Australia is legally obliged by international conventions it has ratified and signed to assess & process any who arrive on it's territory, by sea or air, claiming refugee/asylum status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 No FDog. I was talking about real refugee's. Real refugee's have economic needs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 F430murci: Apology not accepted as this is about the fourth time you have posted personal attacks. Each previous attack I have responded politely as possible or your posts were deleted by the mods; yet you continue... Haha, no need to tell me either way. I have only attacked your ideology and subtle but manipulative prejudices you have previously interposed against non-Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 ...as opposed to prejudices towards muslims... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. You are talking about economic refugees. Australia is not obliged to take economic refugees. It is not Australia's problem that other countries these people go through do not offer them a better economic life. Correct regarding "economic refugees" & those who have been identified as not being legitimate refugee/asylum seekers (about 10%) have been denied entry to Australia. Australia is legally obliged by international conventions it has ratified and signed to assess & process any who arrive on it's territory, by sea or air, claiming refugee/asylum status The point is, you seem to be complaining because Australia is not standing there with open arms welcoming everyone that arrives on a boat with nothing but the clothes on their back and then spending the money to put these people in state shelter, state assistance, state medical and etc. that comes out of the coffers of Australians. Do you provide any direct financial assistance to any of these folks that arrive on boats? I cannot imagine myself ever condemning another country for not taking care of a US citizens fleeing the US to have some other country place the US citizens on their internal welfare or assistance programs. I guess I feel a bit bad for Australia because I see it as a very bad situation for Australia and we in the US are facing a lot of health care and financial issues related to people showing up in the US with no health care or means to take care of themselves. Helping people is fine and dandy, but it is not okay when it starts to negatively impact a country's own citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. You are talking about economic refugees. Australia is not obliged to take economic refugees. It is not Australia's problem that other countries these people go through do not offer them a better economic life. Correct regarding "economic refugees" & those who have been identified as not being legitimate refugee/asylum seekers (about 10%) have been denied entry to Australia. Australia is legally obliged by international conventions it has ratified and signed to assess & process any who arrive on it's territory, by sea or air, claiming refugee/asylum status The point is, you seem to be complaining because Australia is not standing there with open arms welcoming everyone that arrives on a boat with nothing but the clothes on their back and then spending the money to put these people in state shelter, state assistance, state medical and etc. that comes out of the coffers of Australians. Do you provide any direct financial assistance to any of these folks that arrive on boats? I cannot imagine myself ever condemning another country for not taking care of a US citizens fleeing the US to have some other country place the US citizens on their internal welfare or assistance programs. I guess I feel a bit bad for Australia because I see it as a very bad situation for Australia and we in the US are facing a lot of health care and financial issues related to people showing up in the US with no health care or means to take care of themselves. Helping people is fine and dandy, but it is not okay when it starts to negatively impact a country's own citizens. F430. The government is spending many times more processing them offshore than on shore. Edited July 25, 2013 by samran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 You are talking about economic refugees. Australia is not obliged to take economic refugees. It is not Australia's problem that other countries these people go through do not offer them a better economic life. Correct regarding "economic refugees" & those who have been identified as not being legitimate refugee/asylum seekers (about 10%) have been denied entry to Australia. Australia is legally obliged by international conventions it has ratified and signed to assess & process any who arrive on it's territory, by sea or air, claiming refugee/asylum status The point is, you seem to be complaining because Australia is not standing there with open arms welcoming everyone that arrives on a boat with nothing but the clothes on their back and then spending the money to put these people in state shelter, state assistance, state medical and etc. that comes out of the coffers of Australians. Do you provide any direct financial assistance to any of these folks that arrive on boats? I cannot imagine myself ever condemning another country for not taking care of a US citizens fleeing the US to have some other country place the US citizens on their internal welfare or assistance programs. I guess I feel a bit bad for Australia because I see it as a very bad situation for Australia and we in the US are facing a lot of health care and financial issues related to people showing up in the US with no health care or means to take care of themselves. Helping people is fine and dandy, but it is not okay when it starts to negatively impact a country's own citizens. F430. The government is spending many times more processing them offshore than on shore. . . . and will spend many times more by letting them in and letting them integrate into society without sufficient assets or means to take care of themselves. So perhaps the bigger issue is deterrence if Australia hopes to regain control of the situation. How does one deter? Send them elsewhere and perhaps never let them in? You see processing as the major hurdle. I see acceptance and knowing what to do with them as the major hurdle. If they are truly going to let everyone in or most everyone in, then process them on shore. According to simple1, the ones on shore are not getting processed. Is this correct? If so, then the issue is not processing, but one of realization that letting them in will have a harmful impact on Australia. Resolve the latter and the ultimate end goal and the processing issue becomes easier to resolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rust Never Sleeps Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Let asylum seekers into Australia. 91% of asylum seekers were granted refugee status 2011-2012. refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php Most boat people come from countries that are in civil war or in countries where Western armed forces are now active. Most boat people would not leave their countries if they were safe,but they are not safe. Australia's interests would be better served on a socio-economic level if we try to intergrate them into our community,through regular employment or community progams,(not locked up). Let's treat boat people like human beings,not animals. Post your name and address on, you pick the website, and let then people know how many spare rooms you have and how many YOU are prepared to look after for free. I have a G/F who is a former Burmese refugee and who is now a Thai national,and when I resettle in Thailand we will be adopting a Burmese refugee child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Posts where the response is inside the quote have been removed. It is very confusing to know who said what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) . . . and will spend many times more by letting them in and letting them integrate into society without sufficient assets or means to take care of themselves. So perhaps the bigger issue is deterrence if Australia hopes to regain control of the situation. How does one deter? Send them elsewhere and perhaps never let them in? You see processing as the major hurdle. I see acceptance and knowing what to do with them as the major hurdle. If they are truly going to let everyone in or most everyone in, then process them on shore. According to simple1, the ones on shore are not getting processed. Is this correct? If so, then the issue is not processing, but one of realization that letting them in will have a harmful impact on Australia. Resolve the latter and the ultimate end goal and the processing issue becomes easier to resolve. You are bringing the unique perspective of the US lunatic fringe right which is always refreshing. But it us clear you don't have a clue about the situation. As simple1 has already said, they are not bring processed under the 'no advantage principal' (look it up). The issue here is they are being sent for processing and medium term settlement in PNG, which doesn't exactly have the best record for human rights itself. Murder, violence and rape are common place. It also costs much much more. In terms of supporting themselves, every wave of migrants and refugees has had no problem establishing themselves in Australia? Why should it be different this time? As for having a 'harmful impact' on Australia. What would that be then? It seems that is your anti-Muslim bigotry shining through on that one. This bloke certainly has taken the Australian way of life up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachar_Houli. I believe his parents came from lebanon escaping the civil war there. Tell me how this harmful. Edited July 26, 2013 by samran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jamhar Posted July 26, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted July 26, 2013 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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 This topic is about Australia's plan for processing/settling refugees in PNG. Personal remarks about other posters are off-topic and have been removed. Further such nonsense is going to earn suspensions. Stick to the topic. You are welcome to agree or disagree, you are welcome to ask questions about the topic, not about the mental state of other posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamhar Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 - There is no 'queue'. Just ask those stuck in the Thai border camps for years on end. - Just because you have a bit of cash (usually pooled by relatives to get just one through) doesn't mean you can't be a refugee. Just ask the Jews from WWII. - The fact they are willing to get on a boat ride says alot about their options between their home country and Australia. In between (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, PNG), no work rights, no access to health and education = no chance to start a new life. Not much use being 'safe' if you are starving and not allowed to feed and educate your kids - The ones who do have papers destroy their papers cause they are told to by the people smugglers. For the rest, well, getting your passport application sorted from a government you are fleeing from is kind of counter-intuative (though not for some of you, I'm sure). - The refugee convention put together precisely because Jews (on boats) were turned back from the America back to Germany during WWII cause up till then it was illegal to enter without proper paperwork. No guesses to where they were sent back to, and their ulitmate fates. - All this is ironic and a bit hypocritcal coming from citizens' of a country who's national day is....wait for it....a celebration of an unannouced boat arrival. You are talking about economic refugees. Australia is not obliged to take economic refugees. It is not Australia's problem that other countries these people go through do not offer them a better economic life. Correct regarding "economic refugees" & those who have been identified as not being legitimate refugee/asylum seekers (about 10%) have been denied entry to Australia. Australia is legally obliged by international conventions it has ratified and signed to assess & process any who arrive on it's territory, by sea or air, claiming refugee/asylum status The point is, you seem to be complaining because Australia is not standing there with open arms welcoming everyone that arrives on a boat with nothing but the clothes on their back and then spending the money to put these people in state shelter, state assistance, state medical and etc. that comes out of the coffers of Australians. Do you provide any direct financial assistance to any of these folks that arrive on boats? I cannot imagine myself ever condemning another country for not taking care of a US citizens fleeing the US to have some other country place the US citizens on their internal welfare or assistance programs. I guess I feel a bit bad for Australia because I see it as a very bad situation for Australia and we in the US are facing a lot of health care and financial issues related to people showing up in the US with no health care or means to take care of themselves. Helping people is fine and dandy, but it is not okay when it starts to negatively impact a country's own citizens. Again a mis-informed observation, I have never said that asylum seekers/refugees should not be subject to assessment as to the validity of their claims. It is entirely appropriate for assessment to be undertaken by Australian authorities & those whose claims have been denied to be safely returned to their home countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) 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. I never mentioned that it had been cut so I don't believe I need to provide proof of something I never said. I said the money being spent on the boat people could build housing for the homeless Australians and the impoverished who should be the number priority. The money for the NIS from an increase in the medicare levy (tax) is not going to help the homeless or the indigenous population living in squallers more money is needed for these people also. Edited July 26, 2013 by chooka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) 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 Edited July 26, 2013 by simple1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post FDog Posted July 26, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted July 26, 2013 Agreed Chooka. If they were genuine refugees they would be more than happy to stay in PNG. But as they are selective and that putting them in PNG will reduce the rate of boat people coming to Oz then it proves they are not genuine. No country should have an open door policy. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Agreed Chooka. If they were genuine refugees they would be more than happy to stay in PNG. But as they are selective and that putting them in PNG will reduce the rate of boat people coming to Oz then it proves they are not genuine. No country should have an open door policy. Australia does not have an open door policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 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. I never mentioned that it had been cut so I don't believe I need to provide proof of something I never said. I said the money being spent on the boat people could build housing for the homeless Australians and the impoverished who should be the number priority. The money for the NIS from an increase in the medicare levy (tax) is not going to help the homeless or the indigenous population living in squallers more money is needed for these people also. off topic but do you disagree with ABORIGINAL leader Noel Pearson says welfare entitlement has been "a tragic disability" for his people Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/welfare-tragic-for-indigenous-australians-says-aboriginal-leader-noel-pearson/story-fncynjr2-1226621171716#ixzz2a7M4Z1Rp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now