Asylum Seekers - What should Australia do?

[Adamski]

For a six month period while i was in the Army i was deployed to Christmas Island for refugee patrolling aboard a navy ship. The type of people aboard these "illegal" ships are not the innocent people that the media have obviously led you to believe. I have seen mentioned in earlier posts that these immigrants "pay thousands of dollars to board these ships", this is true, they often pay ten's of thousands. So then this begs the question "why not fly over here on a holiday and then disappear?". The answer to this question is that the vast majority of these people are travelling with a criminal record or with someone that has a criminal record (family) that would not permit them to enter Australia if they tried the legal way.

I think this is one of the best explanations I have read in this thread so far although the point about being a 'criminal' is a little loose especially in regard to the Tamil's. They may or may not be criminals but persecution has meant that it would be very hard for them to get out of the country by a 'legal' means. It is very easy then to take the side of people being persecuted due it it being 'unfair' but a lot of the time there is a reason for the persecution..(although that reason tends to be validated by people of shall we say demented demeanor i.e. Hitler).

It is just such a complex issue that I think should be resolved by a much deeper action by the government. This could be an on the ground refugee selection in the country the people are trying to flee. If only a government was able to wander into a country and pull persecuted people out without there being a MASSIVE ruckus. It is just too hard to deal with people trying to enter your country by the time they hit your national waters. As an analogy it's like trying to stop the flow of a tap that has broken off at the sink rather than wandering over to your meter and turning the water off there.

 

[McBain]

I think this is one of the best explanations I have read in this thread so far although the point about being a 'criminal' is a little loose especially in regard to the Tamil's.

The Tamil issue is a complex one (not like any of these things is simple). They were a minority in a country and the Tigers did a bunch of nasty things to try and get their own way. Now they claim they are being persecuted, which in some ways is true, but a lot of people say they brought it on themselves. Messy.

This could be an on the ground refugee selection in the country the people are trying to flee.

Except that over 80% of refugees accepted by Australia are accepted offshore - as in they aren't here already (where "here" might mean Xmas Island, Nauru, or wherever they've been shoved). It is probably safe to say that these refugees/asylum seekers aren't in their original country though.

 

[Kingswood]

Would it be fair to say, no matter what side of the argument you are on, that the media are playing us all like fools?

From information in this thread alone we can see that the number of boat people enterring the country is minute compaired to the total number of immigrants accepted each year. We have also learnt that the cost to Australia is not as great as the commercial tv stations want us to believe.

But most news outlets are making it out to be a "massive wave" of boat people, I saw the ad for this weeks 60 minutes playing up the whole "what do we do with all..... those.... people..."

 

[Adamski]

The Tamil issue is a complex one (not like any of these things is simple). They were a minority in a country and the Tigers did a bunch of nasty things to try and get their own way. Now they claim they are being persecuted, which in some ways is true, but a lot of people say they brought it on themselves. Messy.
Except that over 80% of refugees accepted by Australia are accepted offshore - as in they aren't here already (where "here" might mean Xmas Island, Nauru, or wherever they've been shoved). It is probably safe to say that these refugees/asylum seekers aren't in their original country though.

Very true. This issue with accepting refugees from the offshore 'deposits' that the Australian government uses is that you are already selecting from a minority. There may be many people trying to leave their country without the money for a boat trip who may be far more honest and 'nicer' citizens. The only way you'd find this out is going to the country itself. Even with this philosophy I fail to incorporate all the variables that are present. One thing I wonder is how honest the money is that is paid to people smugglers to get from one place to another. Yes, you would think that people with a lot of money to get out might be of the more successful, educated demographic...or they might me hardened drug runners!

It really was opening a huge tin of worms to begin this thread on here but the discussion has proved valuable (with some exceptions).

 

[thecat]

Would it be fair to say, no matter what side of the argument you are on, that the media are playing us all like fools."

I liked the comment by the chick on QandA last night that it is an 11 year old arguement that has been done, dusted and agreed upon yet it gets rehatched every now and then by both sides of politics trying to score cheap points off each other and distract people from other issues.

When the dust clears both parties agree that they agree with each other and it all rolls on like before

 

[LQQK]

When calling people ‘criminals’, remember that laws (not just actions) can make people criminals. Not so long ago NSW had consorting laws, which meant if you had any contact with a known criminal you committed the crime of consorting. It covered simple things like having family members over, asking a stranger for directions or even working as an outreach worker (there was a case of a priest who was helping alcoholics being changed with consorting). We are seeing this again in Australia today with the anti-bikie laws.

They weren’t criminals but the law made their actions a criminal offence. I imagine there could be similar laws about meetings (like a prayer service), large assemblies (like a wedding) or even certain areas that are off limits to certain races (apartheid) that will make you a criminal if you breach them.

To label of criminal is not straight forward, it needs to be taken in context. There was this bloke who led a campaign to raise money overseas to fund and train para-military operations against his own government. He made plans for a bombing campaign to sabotage military and other government targets. His actions were so serious even the CIA helped his government to capture him. He spent the next 27 years in prison. Was prisoner 46664 an undesirable criminal or a hero?

 

[disfocus]

...He spent the next 27 years in prison. Was prisoner 46664 an undesirable criminal or a hero?

One man's terrorist...Official backflips on the status of terrorist/freedom fighters like Mandela is nothing new--Afghanistan anyone? With a side-serve of Hussein?

 

[thecat]

Was prisoner 46664 an undesirable criminal or a hero?

While he gets a lot of praise for being a peaceful hero his early years certainly contained a lot of violent action to get his point across. Even while he was in prison and a poster boy for peace the action of his then wife and former party were questionable

 

[johnny]

When calling people ‘criminals’, remember that laws (not just actions) can make people criminals. Not so long ago NSW had consorting laws, which meant if you had any contact with a known criminal you committed the crime of consorting. It covered simple things like having family members over, asking a stranger for directions or even working as an outreach worker (there was a case of a priest who was helping alcoholics being changed with consorting). We are seeing this again in Australia today with the anti-bikie laws.

They weren’t criminals but the law made their actions a criminal offence. I imagine there could be similar laws about meetings (like a prayer service), large assemblies (like a wedding) or even certain areas that are off limits to certain races (apartheid) that will make you a criminal if you breach them.

To label of criminal is not straight forward, it needs to be taken in context. There was this bloke who led a campaign to raise money overseas to fund and train para-military operations against his own government. He made plans for a bombing campaign to sabotage military and other government targets. His actions were so serious even the CIA helped his government to capture him. He spent the next 27 years in prison. Was prisoner 46664 an undesirable criminal or a hero?

I'm not going in to details (cue Dead Eyes Opened..., again) and you can take it for what it's worth but how ever small the percentage may be there are some poeple who come as asylum seekers that most sane people would not want in any country. There are definitely some political and perspective calls in there as you are implying above, no doubt and I'd also say that the majority are simple refugees. But there are also elements of organised crime and violent political crime involved as well.

You have to remember that when war or mass persecution comes it usually doesn't take a nation by surprise. The people with education and money have usually already left by legal means by the time it happens. The people that end up on people smuggling routes are usually the lower of the socio-economic spectrum, which is where in most societies you will unfortunately find more criminals and potential for petty and violent crime. That is a simple reality that is impossible to get away from.

That then leads on to the argument that if you are going to take asylum seekers it is in the host country's interest to give language and vocational training to those we take in to devalue the resort crime offers. Very basic stuff.

That sounded like a bunch of academic dribble, didn't it?

Sorry about that....

.

 

[atschool]

Just a bit of related news I found on the ABC about Sri Lankan asylum seekers in Canada.

"....Singapore-based terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna says Australia might have something to learn from Canada's recent experience with a boat of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka."

"The ship Ocean Lady that was seized in Canada in Vancouver, the ship has now been identified as a Tamil Tiger owned and a Tamil Tiger operated vessel."

"A number of individuals who were on board have been identified as Tamil Tigers. So at this point of time the Canadian Government is screening the individuals who are on board Princess Easwari."


Link to the full story.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2723073.htm

I don't think that all the asylum seekers who arrive by boat to Australia are terrorists/Tamil tigers but it does seem odd that some people would spend $10, 000+ to take a crappy boat to Australia instead of flying.

 

[johnny]

Um, because they are being killed, persecuted or are stuck in what is basically a concentration camp as the government deals with the mop up in the north of the country after a decades long civil war. They pay off some people to get them out and on a boat. These people can't just turn up at an airport and off they go.

There are issues of passports, visas, passing through immigration to get out of Sri Lanka, etc. You seem to be looking at it a little simplistically and possibly without enough knowledge of the local conditions.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I'm not going in to details (cue Dead Eyes Opened..., again) and you can take it for what it's worth but how ever small the percentage may be there are some poeple who come as asylum seekers that most sane people would not want in any country. There are definitely some political and perspective calls in there as you are implying above, no doubt and I'd also say that the majority are simple refugees. But there are also elements of organised crime and violent political crime involved as well.

You have to remember that when war or mass persecution comes it usually doesn't take a nation by surprise. The people with education and money have usually already left by legal means by the time it happens. The people that end up on people smuggling routes are usually the lower of the socio-economic spectrum, which is where in most societies you will unfortunately find more criminals and potential for petty and violent crime. That is a simple reality that is impossible to get away from.

That then leads on to the argument that if you are going to take asylum seekers it is in the host country's interest to give language and vocational training to those we take in to devalue the resort crime offers. Very basic stuff.

That sounded like a bunch of academic dribble, didn't it?

Sorry about that....

.

No Johnny, that is very far from academic. Dribble, yes

 

[K3lvinator]

+1 for Johnny!

 

[johnny]

No Johnny, that is very far from academic. Dribble, yes

Ah go fark yourself.

Visibility here today is at about 600 meters due to heavy pollution, absolutely hideous.

 

[Drizz]

Johnny: Are they still burning coal for heating? They used to back in the 80s.

As for asylum seekers problem in Australia: I laugh everytime say we have a problem! When there is a land bridge of any form between Australia and anywhere in the world than be worry! At least Australia intercepts most of these before they hit our shores unlike US or the UK.

Also isn't it a bit of a moot point keep referring to these guys as "illegals"? Isn't the whole idea of granting asylum is to offer amnesty over breaches of normal immigration rules? So only people that can be granted asylum are ones who cannot meet the normal immigration rules in the first place!

 

[johnny]

Yeah, can't remember the exact stats but something like 80% of power generated here comes from coal. Bit of wind and rain tonight has cleared it though. If that clears too I might go for a ride tomorrow and hopefully forget how ugly the humanity can be.

 

[disfocus]

Also isn't it a bit of a moot point keep referring to these guys as "illegals"? Isn't the whole idea of granting asylum is to offer amnesty over breaches of normal immigration rules? So only people that can be granted asylum are ones who cannot meet the normal immigration rules in the first place!

Have a look here for a brief outline of the legal differences between refugees, IDPs, asylum seekers, economic migrants, illegal immigrants etc:

http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml

 

[rhysrhysbaby]

I don't think that all the asylum seekers who arrive by boat to Australia are terrorists/Tamil tigers but it does seem odd that some people would spend $10, 000+ to take a crappy boat to Australia instead of flying.

Do you think catching these crappy ass boats out here might be their last option?

If war broke out today (here in Australia) I couldn't get out of the country on a plane because I don't have a passport, so would my next option be to jump on a boat and hope for the best?