Australian churches, Victoria, Qld, ACT, New Zealand offer sanctuary to asylum seekers

happyasS wrote:

the camps are crap and we gotta do better....

i am also concerned to try and home 1,000,000 refugees too or even 100,000 per year without proper checks and balances and the needed community support to help them fit in in society. to just dump that figure of people into australian society in a short space of time is a problem. sure we say that they will go home once the war is over, but will they really? the war might be over but 'true peace' compared to what we have here will take way longer than that. 20 years? 50 years. its just one conflict or dictatorship after another. whos gonna want to leave. and what then? i doubt its easy to forcefully send 1,000,000 people that we have accepted as refugees back to a place they have no wish to go back to. sure we can be pricks and cut off their social security and the like but all that does is encourage crime and so notwithsstanding that its completely inhuman, its not a soln still. i got nothing against people of muslim faith at all, nor any other people, but i expect that if people are living here in society that they can fit in and [edit: not] be outcast and end up living segregated lives....heres what concerns me

a. they can speak a english
b. we can offer them meaningful jobs
c. we as a nation are mature enough to be a true melting pot of culture without going apeshit on the streets.
d. we have enough funds to support them until they find they're own feet.

in my mind the first 3 are critical, the last (money) i dont care about much as we are a rich nation and we have to suck that up. i believe that refugees are best served in proper run camps. if that means that the camps have to be fixed up to meet SD criteria then so be it, i support that.

merkel is now saying that the refugees must return home once the war is over....by 'must' she actually means 'please return'. lots of german people are pissed off at how merkel as simply opened the flood gates, and now she's wondering how to deal with it.

the whole people migration problem is a fucking disaster, and its getting worse. its wont be long before people think that solving climate change is a doddle in comparison.

HappyasS I dunno what to say about your a to d mate.......

a. they can speak a english?

But I'll leave that one to speak for itself.

b. They'll make jobs and get jobs (see post re cost benefit analysis of refugee settlement in Australia) the governments own productivity commission acknowledges this

c. obviously not - https://nikkimcwatters.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/something-rotten-in-the-...

d. currently spending $650k per year per refugee, I'd say the costs are covered.

mk1 wrote:

ID - that link only half opened for me but you'd still have charter flights to most places - you aren't going to put refugees on air asia I'd imagine? Plus the cost of paying off the foreign government won't go down. Perhaps morally a lot of asian countries aren't interested or desperate enough as the remote island nations too? I think we can protect our borders without offshore processing, which is really designed to avoid our moral and legal duties to refugees under international law while keeping it all "out of sight out of mind" if I remember correctly? Well I think at $625k per person per year we can probably afford to meet our moral and legal responsibilities to refugees onshore and have journalists actually able to monitor and report on the process.

"I know others won't agree but IMO the cost of not dealing with the issue especially the cost of not controlling our borders is one that can't even be measured in dollar terms." There's controlling your borders and then there's being inhumane and trying to hide it. We managed quite well without offshore processing prior to Howard.

I can't see why you can't transport refugees by commercial flights?….I mean people even suggest we let refugees live here in the community while being processed, i mean i don't think our government is going to care too much if they run off into the crowd.

Hmmm i love asia but morals in the way of human rights etc aren't exactly any Asian countries strong point, yeah id say its more about island nations wanting or needing the money.

I think we would all like to see detention centres closed down, i agree we can do without them, no boats no detention centres, like sheepdog says very simple :P

It would be interesting to know how we dealt with it before Howard, i mean we can't deny we have had a problem, i guess the world is changing all the time with different issues.

Id say to a degree technology is a factor especially the sharing of information instantly and easily these days with the internet and mobil phones etc perhaps this has allowed people to know Australia is signed to the refugee convention and to share information like contact details for people smugglers, and keep in touch with current policy etc

tim foilat wrote:

happyasS wrote:

the camps are crap and we gotta do better....

i am also concerned to try and home 1,000,000 refugees too or even 100,000 per year without proper checks and balances and the needed community support to help them fit in in society. to just dump that figure of people into australian society in a short space of time is a problem. sure we say that they will go home once the war is over, but will they really? the war might be over but 'true peace' compared to what we have here will take way longer than that. 20 years? 50 years. its just one conflict or dictatorship after another. whos gonna want to leave. and what then? i doubt its easy to forcefully send 1,000,000 people that we have accepted as refugees back to a place they have no wish to go back to. sure we can be pricks and cut off their social security and the like but all that does is encourage crime and so notwithsstanding that its completely inhuman, its not a soln still. i got nothing against people of muslim faith at all, nor any other people, but i expect that if people are living here in society that they can fit in and [edit: not] be outcast and end up living segregated lives....heres what concerns me

a. they can speak a english
b. we can offer them meaningful jobs
c. we as a nation are mature enough to be a true melting pot of culture without going apeshit on the streets.
d. we have enough funds to support them until they find they're own feet.

in my mind the first 3 are critical, the last (money) i dont care about much as we are a rich nation and we have to suck that up. i believe that refugees are best served in proper run camps. if that means that the camps have to be fixed up to meet SD criteria then so be it, i support that.

merkel is now saying that the refugees must return home once the war is over....by 'must' she actually means 'please return'. lots of german people are pissed off at how merkel as simply opened the flood gates, and now she's wondering how to deal with it.

the whole people migration problem is a fucking disaster, and its getting worse. its wont be long before people think that solving climate change is a doddle in comparison.

HappyasS I dunno what to say about your a to d mate.......

a. they can speak a english?

But I'll leave that one to speak for itself.

b. They'll make jobs and get jobs (see post re cost benefit analysis of refugee settlement in Australia) the governments own productivity commission acknowledges this

c. obviously not - https://nikkimcwatters.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/something-rotten-in-the-...

d. currently spending $650k per year per refugee, I'd say the costs are covered.

The english speaking thing is something i also brought up, its a huge factor in allowing a person to gain employment and hence either pay tax or become a burden on the tax payer for an unknown period.

Below is countries where refugees came from over the 2013-2014 period with percentage of people with english skills, i imagine these are still fairly relevant countries.

Iraq 35%
Afghanistan
Syria
Iran
Myanmar
Egypt 35%
African Countries (4% to 40% average 15-20%)
Pakistan 49%
Sri Lanka 10%
Fiji 20%

Some learnt on the list https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1a429cDOixqWnlO0D0Z...

tim foilat wrote:

happyasS wrote:

the camps are crap and we gotta do better....

i am also concerned to try and home 1,000,000 refugees too or even 100,000 per year without proper checks and balances and the needed community support to help them fit in in society. to just dump that figure of people into australian society in a short space of time is a problem. sure we say that they will go home once the war is over, but will they really? the war might be over but 'true peace' compared to what we have here will take way longer than that. 20 years? 50 years. its just one conflict or dictatorship after another. whos gonna want to leave. and what then? i doubt its easy to forcefully send 1,000,000 people that we have accepted as refugees back to a place they have no wish to go back to. sure we can be pricks and cut off their social security and the like but all that does is encourage crime and so notwithsstanding that its completely inhuman, its not a soln still. i got nothing against people of muslim faith at all, nor any other people, but i expect that if people are living here in society that they can fit in and [edit: not] be outcast and end up living segregated lives....heres what concerns me

a. they can speak a english
b. we can offer them meaningful jobs
c. we as a nation are mature enough to be a true melting pot of culture without going apeshit on the streets.
d. we have enough funds to support them until they find they're own feet.

in my mind the first 3 are critical, the last (money) i dont care about much as we are a rich nation and we have to suck that up. i believe that refugees are best served in proper run camps. if that means that the camps have to be fixed up to meet SD criteria then so be it, i support that.

merkel is now saying that the refugees must return home once the war is over....by 'must' she actually means 'please return'. lots of german people are pissed off at how merkel as simply opened the flood gates, and now she's wondering how to deal with it.

the whole people migration problem is a fucking disaster, and its getting worse. its wont be long before people think that solving climate change is a doddle in comparison.

HappyasS I dunno what to say about your a to d mate.......

a. they can speak a english?

But I'll leave that one to speak for itself.

b. They'll make jobs and get jobs (see post re cost benefit analysis of refugee settlement in Australia) the governments own productivity commission acknowledges this

c. obviously not - https://nikkimcwatters.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/something-rotten-in-the-...

d. currently spending $650k per year per refugee, I'd say the costs are covered.

so what is your explanation for why the government chooses to place a limit on refugees? im keen to understand if some of the reasons i stated are not relevant then what is the reason?

Yes yes the White Australia policy. Australians who massacre the English language demanding refugees speak a english.

happyasS wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

happyasS wrote:

the camps are crap and we gotta do better....

i am also concerned to try and home 1,000,000 refugees too or even 100,000 per year without proper checks and balances and the needed community support to help them fit in in society. to just dump that figure of people into australian society in a short space of time is a problem. sure we say that they will go home once the war is over, but will they really? the war might be over but 'true peace' compared to what we have here will take way longer than that. 20 years? 50 years. its just one conflict or dictatorship after another. whos gonna want to leave. and what then? i doubt its easy to forcefully send 1,000,000 people that we have accepted as refugees back to a place they have no wish to go back to. sure we can be pricks and cut off their social security and the like but all that does is encourage crime and so notwithsstanding that its completely inhuman, its not a soln still. i got nothing against people of muslim faith at all, nor any other people, but i expect that if people are living here in society that they can fit in and [edit: not] be outcast and end up living segregated lives....heres what concerns me

a. they can speak a english
b. we can offer them meaningful jobs
c. we as a nation are mature enough to be a true melting pot of culture without going apeshit on the streets.
d. we have enough funds to support them until they find they're own feet.

in my mind the first 3 are critical, the last (money) i dont care about much as we are a rich nation and we have to suck that up. i believe that refugees are best served in proper run camps. if that means that the camps have to be fixed up to meet SD criteria then so be it, i support that.

merkel is now saying that the refugees must return home once the war is over....by 'must' she actually means 'please return'. lots of german people are pissed off at how merkel as simply opened the flood gates, and now she's wondering how to deal with it.

the whole people migration problem is a fucking disaster, and its getting worse. its wont be long before people think that solving climate change is a doddle in comparison.

HappyasS I dunno what to say about your a to d mate.......

a. they can speak a english?

But I'll leave that one to speak for itself.

b. They'll make jobs and get jobs (see post re cost benefit analysis of refugee settlement in Australia) the governments own productivity commission acknowledges this

c. obviously not - https://nikkimcwatters.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/something-rotten-in-the-...

d. currently spending $650k per year per refugee, I'd say the costs are covered.

so what is your explanation for why the government chooses to place a limit on refugees? im keen to understand if some of the reasons i stated are not relevant then what is the reason?

Government limit on refugees? Limit of time in detention? Limit of duration of stay? Limit in number ie quota?

I'm not sure what you're referring to

tim, i dont comprehend your last post...could you put more words into each sentence?

tim foilat wrote:

happyasS wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

happyasS wrote:

the camps are crap and we gotta do better....

i am also concerned to try and home 1,000,000 refugees too or even 100,000 per year without proper checks and balances and the needed community support to help them fit in in society. to just dump that figure of people into australian society in a short space of time is a problem. sure we say that they will go home once the war is over, but will they really? the war might be over but 'true peace' compared to what we have here will take way longer than that. 20 years? 50 years. its just one conflict or dictatorship after another. whos gonna want to leave. and what then? i doubt its easy to forcefully send 1,000,000 people that we have accepted as refugees back to a place they have no wish to go back to. sure we can be pricks and cut off their social security and the like but all that does is encourage crime and so notwithsstanding that its completely inhuman, its not a soln still. i got nothing against people of muslim faith at all, nor any other people, but i expect that if people are living here in society that they can fit in and [edit: not] be outcast and end up living segregated lives....heres what concerns me

a. they can speak a english
b. we can offer them meaningful jobs
c. we as a nation are mature enough to be a true melting pot of culture without going apeshit on the streets.
d. we have enough funds to support them until they find they're own feet.

in my mind the first 3 are critical, the last (money) i dont care about much as we are a rich nation and we have to suck that up. i believe that refugees are best served in proper run camps. if that means that the camps have to be fixed up to meet SD criteria then so be it, i support that.

merkel is now saying that the refugees must return home once the war is over....by 'must' she actually means 'please return'. lots of german people are pissed off at how merkel as simply opened the flood gates, and now she's wondering how to deal with it.

the whole people migration problem is a fucking disaster, and its getting worse. its wont be long before people think that solving climate change is a doddle in comparison.

HappyasS I dunno what to say about your a to d mate.......

a. they can speak a english?

But I'll leave that one to speak for itself.

b. They'll make jobs and get jobs (see post re cost benefit analysis of refugee settlement in Australia) the governments own productivity commission acknowledges this

c. obviously not - https://nikkimcwatters.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/something-rotten-in-the-...

d. currently spending $650k per year per refugee, I'd say the costs are covered.

so what is your explanation for why the government chooses to place a limit on refugees? im keen to understand if some of the reasons i stated are not relevant then what is the reason?

Government limit on refugees? Limit of time in detention? Limit of duration of stay? Limit in number ie quota?

I'm not sure what you're referring to

limit on numbers (quota)

the year to year quota would be based on the bottom line, strictly economics.

other factors will play into the final numbers ie unforeseen circumstances like having to accept an extra 12,000

tim foilat wrote:

Yes yes the White Australia policy. Australians who massacre the English language demanding refugees speak a english.

Don't be silly, its not about demanding people speak english, but english skills are a huge factor in regard to what the long term cost of a refugee will be, like i said before there is a huge difference between somebody who becomes a tax payer or becomes a burden on the tax payer and in most cases English is almost a must for employment, cost to the tax payer also is a big factor in determining how many refugees you can take in, so its relevant.

BTW. my wife's not white my daughter not white, so I'm not exactly someone that is going to be wanting a white Australia policy.

On the other hand the reason the government won't process 1500 or so in offshore detention is a mystery.

tim foilat wrote:

the year to year quota would be based on the bottom line, strictly economics.

other factors will play into the final numbers ie unforeseen circumstances like having to accept an extra 12,000

what do you mean by economics? do you mean the costs of supporting and setting up refugees in the community i.e. jobs, welfare, training. where the govt puts a bottom line on what it thinks it can afford to spend.... or by economics do you mean the government having a population growth target that it is strictly trying to stick to? or something else?

tim foilat wrote:

On the other hand the reason the government won't process 1500 or so in offshore detention is a mystery.

agree with that.

tim foilat wrote:

On the other hand the reason the government won't process 1500 or so in offshore detention is a mystery.

Its not really a mystery.

1. Processing those in offshore centres and settling them in Australia gives a green light to people smugglers and refugees waiting in Indonesia, it comes with a risk of having more boats depart than can be turned back, if you haven't noticed the world is in the middle of a refugee crisis.

2. The government has said they won't be settled in Australia, you can only assume for some reason there is hold ups with settling them elsewhere, like PNG or Cambodia.

3. Like it or not detention centres are part of a deterrent and the longer you keep people in detention the more the deterrent.

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

Yes yes the White Australia policy. Australians who massacre the English language demanding refugees speak a english.

Don't be silly, its not about demanding people speak english, but english skills are a huge factor in regard to what the long term cost of a refugee will be, like i said before there is a huge difference between somebody who becomes a tax payer or becomes a burden on the tax payer and in most cases English is almost a must for employment, cost to the tax payer also is a big factor in determining how many refugees you can take in, so its relevant.

BTW. my wife's not white my daughter not white, so I'm not exactly someone that is going to be wanting a white Australia policy.

The 'speak English statement smacks of the White Australia policy.' It's got nothing to do with your wife and kids you said it.

Non English speaking people live in Australia now, many of them, have done for years. Has this created some catastrophic unemployment problem?

someone fleeing a conflict should speak a certain language?

people can't learn to speak English?

Why is the English such a big issue for you ID?

The guy that serves at the local Thai here speaks about three words of English, he runs a business, employs probably 5-6 staff all paying tax weird.

happyasS wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

the year to year quota would be based on the bottom line, strictly economics.

other factors will play into the final numbers ie unforeseen circumstances like having to accept an extra 12,000

what do you mean by economics? do you mean the costs of supporting and setting up refugees in the community i.e. jobs, welfare, training. where the govt puts a bottom line on what it thinks it can afford to spend.... or by economics do you mean the government having a population growth target that it is strictly trying to stick to? or something else?

Yes to both, its strictly numbers, cost/benefit

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

Yes yes the White Australia policy. Australians who massacre the English language demanding refugees speak a english.

Don't be silly, its not about demanding people speak english, but english skills are a huge factor in regard to what the long term cost of a refugee will be, like i said before there is a huge difference between somebody who becomes a tax payer or becomes a burden on the tax payer and in most cases English is almost a must for employment, cost to the tax payer also is a big factor in determining how many refugees you can take in, so its relevant.

BTW. my wife's not white my daughter not white, so I'm not exactly someone that is going to be wanting a white Australia policy.

The 'speak English statement smacks of the White Australia policy.' It's got nothing to do with your wife and kids you said it.

Non English speaking people live in Australia now, many of them, have done for years. Has this created some catastrophic unemployment problem?

someone fleeing a conflict should speak a certain language?

people can't learn to speak English?

Why is the English such a big issue for you ID?

The guy that serves at the local Thai here speaks about three words of English, he runs a business, employs probably 5-6 staff all paying tax weird.

Oh dear…"bangs head on wall"

A big factor in how many people you can accept is money and the short term and long term cost, like it or not generally speaking having english is a must to gain employment, its hard enough gaining employment with it imagine trying to gain employment without it, coupled with skills possibly not recognised in Australia,(just an example) even something as simple as a driving licence, just because you have it in a country doesn't mean in Australia its recognised same goes for other on paper qualifications.

If we are looking at accepting large numbers of people, be that 50,000, 100,000 or the unrealistic and crazy number of 100,000,000 that was suggested and you take them from close to where the danger is, if we say an average of 30% have english skills then that leaves us with 70% that don't (35,000, 70,000, 700, 0000)

(BTW. the % could be higher because those from higher class who chance of having english skills is much much higher, may have already traveled by plane, because they may be the small % from that country that have a passport and money, low to mid class people in many countries don't own a passport because they don't have the money to travel or often don't have the time/holidays)

Now think about what happen when you throw that much people into a country where they don't speak the language a language that is not an easy one to learn even with extreme motivation takes time.

Most will not get jobs or at best a small % may get low paid low skill jobs where english skills are not a huge factor like being a cleaner etc

Most will not integrate with the general population because they can not communicate with the population hence stick together, causing an us and them situation which fuels stereo types and division xenophobia, racism.

You have just artificially created huge area of low socioeconomic status, where people have very low incomes and are often bored and frustrated this results in high levels of crime and you have also created division.

Thats why english skills are a factor, but i don't expect you to understand.

Pommies, Italians, Greeks, Turks, Vietnamese all came here in great numbers from the 1940s and all except for the poms had little or no English. All settled into their own neighbourhoods and by the 3rd generation were more Aussie that pre WW2 citizens and our country and culture were the richer for their language, their clothes and food.

All governments up to Hawke / Keating had the support of the opposition and of the community. In 1989 Hawke (Labor) unilaterally decided to accept all Chinese students studying in Australia at the time of the Tiananmen Square protests and Frazer (Liberal) accepted thousands and thousands of Vietnamese refugees at the end of that civil war.

All this was done in good and bad economic times and with wide community support and acceptance.

Then along came Howard and Reith and the dog whistle and lies about children being thrown overboard, all because Kim Beasley, one of the nicest men ever in Australian politics was about to win an election. Tampa, remember that? remember all the lies and demonisation of desperate people? all for political advantage ........... and now we have smooth-sayers on forums and on old man's radio arguing against humanity and compassion on all sorts of bogus grounds, hiding behind trumped up logic about economic cost or language skills or the need for deterrent, blah blah blah ......... meanwhile people rot in the government funded hell holes and young children are needing to be stopped from suicide ............

Rather than defend the indefensible you need to ask yourself why are you thinking like this and why you accept blindly the absolute bullshit the politician and the press have fed you .... THINK ... there is a better way

floyd....by asking why humans lack humanity towards asylum seekers you are also asking why people fight with eachother, and go to war...because people instinctively protect their kin first and anything that threatens or percieves to threaten self and kin comes up against human instinct, people then start differentiating, and then humanitarian instincts gets compromised. this instinct is ingrained in human nature and thats why war has always existed. if the government sold a different message then its likely many people would think differently about asylum seekers...but who is right? is the government all wrong? or are they all right? or the truth somewhere in the middle. is it as simple as accepting "well we did it in the 40's so it should work fine now"....i dont have the answer to that one.

@happyas

if you want the world to change first change yourself

hate, fear, greed, anger ... is not ingrained in human nature ... human suffering is a product of the mind not the heart

you make a great point about the government message and this goes to the core of my disgust for what Howard did .... leaders lead, great leaders inspire .... Howard knew exactly what he was doing (appealing to base human racist fears in the community) when he launched that "we will decide who comes here and the nature how they come" dog whistle election campaign .... and all the lies about Tampa and kids being thrown overboard .... no leadership there just dirty rotten gutter politics .... and he is the reason we are in this mess today.

floyd wrote:

@happyas

if you want the world to change first change yourself

hate, fear, greed, anger ... is not ingrained in human nature ... human suffering is a product of the mind not the heart

you make a great point about the government message and this goes to the core of my disgust for what Howard did .... leaders lead, great leaders inspire .... Howard knew exactly what he was doing (appealing to base human racist fears in the community) when he launched that "we will decide who comes here and the nature how they come" dog whistle election campaign .... and all the lies about Tampa and kids being thrown overboard .... no leadership there just dirty rotten gutter politics .... and he is the reason we are in this mess today.

Yeah howard suddenly made up this problem…..wheres that tin foil hat?

Like it or not the world changes all the time, its crazy to compare events from over 50 years ago when the world was extremely different, just think the world population in about 1940 was about 2 billion we are now at 7.4 billion.

I see your quite happy to compare the Australian situation to the European situation, couldn't be more different but what ever, nothing you guys say makes any sense.....we took refugees during the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and we are still taking them now, are you guys aware of this?

hmmm howard made up this problem...

"two wongs dont make a white"-arthur calwell. leader of australian labor party 1960-1967 and immigration minister.

"whitlams opposition to accepting asylum-seekers from south vietnam was motivated by a policy not to upset the communist regime in hanoi" sydney morning herald.

oh and thanks for being the first western government to recognise russias annexation of the baltic states too gough

Yeah to be sure, it was in fact Keating that began the first detention and mandatory detention laws from which the current policy has evolved. It was supposed to be an interim measure.

I dont refuse to acknowledge it at all, I've even said before ideally i don't agree with us being involved in wars that aren't really our business, but the issues of each war is very very complex all i know about it is what I've read which is peoples opinions and mostly media, in my own experience peoples view are often very wrong and the medias views are often very wrong, i know this from issues n Australia and Indonesian that i have first hand knowledge about but the general public and especially the media portray their own twist on it which is often very very different.

Unless you spend lots of time in these countries or you know all the aspects that we probably don't know then our view is just a second hand one.

Hence i personally don't have a strong view on the war issues, because I'm man enough to admit i don't know shit about it other than ideally we shouldn't be involved, but I'm mature enough to understand its not that simple.

But like I've said before even if we are not involved in any wars, there will still be wars a there alway has and there will be refugees, especially in the middle east, its not a new thing and all around the world as the population grows so will conflict, shit isn't going to get better long term, it will only get worse.

Anyway funny you talk about compassion, your the one that wants and agrees with settling people who have recently become refugees in the last year or so, in front of people who have been refugees for in some cases up to 15-20 years?

Tell me how that is compassionate and fair?

Ideally it would make sense to settle those in camps that want to be settled and allow the more recent refugees to then move in and take their place.

floyd wrote:

Pommies, Italians, Greeks, Turks, Vietnamese all came here in great numbers from the 1940s and all except for the poms had little or no English. All settled into their own neighbourhoods and by the 3rd generation were more Aussie that pre WW2 citizens and our country and culture were the richer for their language, their clothes and food.

All governments up to Hawke / Keating had the support of the opposition and of the community. In 1989 Hawke (Labor) unilaterally decided to accept all Chinese students studying in Australia at the time of the Tiananmen Square protests and Frazer (Liberal) accepted thousands and thousands of Vietnamese refugees at the end of that civil war.

All this was done in good and bad economic times and with wide community support and acceptance.

Then along came Howard and Reith and the dog whistle and lies about children being thrown overboard, all because Kim Beasley, one of the nicest men ever in Australian politics was about to win an election. Tampa, remember that? remember all the lies and demonisation of desperate people? all for political advantage ........... and now we have smooth-sayers on forums and on old man's radio arguing against humanity and compassion on all sorts of bogus grounds, hiding behind trumped up logic about economic cost or language skills or the need for deterrent, blah blah blah ......... meanwhile people rot in the government funded hell holes and young children are needing to be stopped from suicide ............

Rather than defend the indefensible you need to ask yourself why are you thinking like this and why you accept blindly the absolute bullshit the politician and the press have fed you .... THINK ... there is a better way

I concur in the main. Though I don't know about the "wide community support and acceptance" previously. In my own time, I remember even as late as the late 80s/early 90s, the STOP THE ASIAN INVASION hardline from certain loons on the fringe.

But that was the difference then, perhaps. Politically, no major player would seek that demographic or seek to inflate it through fear for cheap gain in numbers.

The embarrassing lessons of history, the old 'yellow peril' fear-mongering since 1788, and the later white Australia policy, had been learned. Or had they merely been subsumed?

Enter the Hanson & Howard show. Making it all a prime-time ratings winner again, and thus worth pursuing for its own voting rewards.

"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."

How do you read that statement, Aussie citizen?

The following is taken from this article:

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=18998#.Vrf1o2MXI-Q

The article is about the formation of the Abbott immigration policy as informed by the previous Howard government.

Funny that this article is in Eureka Street, which is a publication of the Australian Jesuits. As a publication of the Australian Jesuits, Eureka Street is "informed by the values of Jesuit spirituality and in particular the principles of Catholic Social Teaching".

An excerpt for the link-averse:

"John Howard's single-minded insistence on the Australian right to decide who enters the country and how they do it is plausible at first hearing, and remains an effective debating point. At one, trivial, level the statement is true. Provided that Australian supervision of entry points is reasonable and admission to citizenship is orderly, no one will enter Australia against the will of the government. That is a simple statement of fact.

The Howard principle, however, implies more than a simple statement of fact. It implies that Australia can rightly make arbitrary and inflexible decisions about who enters the country based only on its perceived self interest."

The Howard principle, however, implies more than a simple statement of fact. It implies that Australia can rightly make arbitrary and inflexible decisions about who enters the country based only on its perceived self interest."

So on the flipside it's ok for our elected government to make adhoc, yielding decisions despite the perceived best interests of the population?

Lot of chatter and interesting to see that both sides of politics (correctly highlighted by some) have varied roles in the migration debate.
So what is the solution ? Would you get consensus on it ?
Have you wondered by both sides of politics are crippling with it ? Agree with ID - times are a changing. It ain't easy. Only take refugees from conflicts we are involved ? Hmmm...that may not be right.

zenagain wrote:

The Howard principle, however, implies more than a simple statement of fact. It implies that Australia can rightly make arbitrary and inflexible decisions about who enters the country based only on its perceived self interest."

So on the flipside it's ok for our elected government to make adhoc, yielding decisions despite the perceived best interests of the population?

Perception's a bit of a bugger, hey? How's that old saw go again, "we perceive and judge people the way we perceive and judge ourselves".

Anyway, I'm assuming the Jesuit's "perceived best interests for Australia" differ from Howard and the gang's. Probably 'who' constitutes Australia too in all manner of ways.

From the article:

"If we apply this principle to domestic situations we can see its weakness. Imagine the father of a household saying, 'We will decide who comes to our house and the circumstances in which they come'. The insistence on will and self-interest alone would not be enough. If, for example, an aged aunt walk up to the front door, half-frozen in a storm, the father could decide to send her away. But his appeal to the Howard principle would not convince us that he had acted rightly. We would expect him to give reasons for making the decision.

Nor would we be convinced if he showed us the list of conditions that visitors needed to meet before they were allowed to enter his house. He might say that only people who rang first, who were known to him, who came in the front gate would be allowed in the house.

We might regard such principles as generally helpful. But if the householder turned away a girl who came to the back door, fleeing from a man trying to assault her, we would regard his behaviour as unreasonable and inhumane. If he then expressed sympathy for her plight while justifying his decision to allow her in, we would regard him as hypocritical.

These examples show that the right to decide according to principles based on our self-interest are not adequate to establish a humane or decent policy. They need to be complemented by considering the need of the person who wishes to gain entry. People in dire circumstances make a claim on the householder that he cannot discharge simply appealing to his self-interest."

Note: From the example above, I think John Howard was more the real estate rentals manager, rather than the landlord/owner or (shiver) the father.

I like this quote too by the way (from elsewhere):

“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions.” - Stephen R. Covey (Businessman, Educator, Mormon. Weird, he wrote a book titled: First Things First, Principle-Centered Leadership)

What Turkey said. Quite civil too. TT boy is a-changin'?

zenagain wrote:

................

So on the flipside it's ok for our elected government to make adhoc, yielding decisions despite the perceived best interests of the population?

Zen, are you serious or is this a sly little joke? of course our elected governments make adhoc decisions against the best interests of the population ........ been happening since the dawn of time and more so since the advent of lobbyists ....... drum roll ...... over to you Tones to defend lobbyists

indo-dreaming wrote:

floyd wrote:

@happyas

if you want the world to change first change yourself

hate, fear, greed, anger ... is not ingrained in human nature ... human suffering is a product of the mind not the heart

you make a great point about the government message and this goes to the core of my disgust for what Howard did .... leaders lead, great leaders inspire .... Howard knew exactly what he was doing (appealing to base human racist fears in the community) when he launched that "we will decide who comes here and the nature how they come" dog whistle election campaign .... and all the lies about Tampa and kids being thrown overboard .... no leadership there just dirty rotten gutter politics .... and he is the reason we are in this mess today.

Yeah howard suddenly made up this problem…..wheres that tin foil hat?

Like it or not the world changes all the time, its crazy to compare events from over 50 years ago when the world was extremely different, just think the world population in about 1940 was about 2 billion we are now at 7.4 billion.

Mmmm, circumstances do change but core human values are timeless I would have thought, you know, like care for your fellow human being ....... or are they being rewritten to fit the modern day narrative of fear and loathing?

Hey TT I couldn't agree more but that's based on the assumption that it's the influenza-riddled elderly Auntie or the schoolgirl fleeing her attacker. Does the father have the right to ascertain whether the relatively comfortably well off Uncle or cousin who turns up unannounced at his doorstep, looking to move in for awhile because dads house is bigger and there's always left-overs in the fridge? Does the rest of the household have a say in the matter?

Some people might think that I lack compassion but I don't. For the most part I agree with everything written by most of the preceding contributors. But, I don't believe in an open slather open borders policy that's all. I think the uptake of refugees should be increased but I also believe there should be a strong message sent to the people who engage in the vile trade of people smuggling too.

No Floyd it wasn't a joke and more often than not both governments make adhoc decisions despite the best interests of the population. I'm glad you said 'governments'.

PS Professional lobbyists and all political donations should be banned for any party.

The main change is that who we consider belongs in our "tribe" expands as our world/level of consciousness expands. From family to tribe to religion to state to .............

Shatner'sBassoon wrote:

What Turkey said. Quite civil too. TT boy is a-changin'?

Yeah, nah

Want to know how far we have sunk as a community of this issue ........ comments from the public today on the Age webpage ......... hope you have a good stomach coz its sickening .........

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seekers-...

Sheepdog wrote:

"Anyway funny you talk about compassion, your the one that wants and agrees with settling people who have recently become refugees in the last year or so, in front of people who have been refugees for in some cases up to 15-20 years?
Tell me how that is compassionate and fair?"

It's compassionate and fair because WE are manning up to those we displaced.... Those who have been displaced for 20 years (you say) are more than likely from a dispute or war we were not involved in...
For example, those neighboring countries who economically supported "Burma" during the "bad days" should've been the ones who housed or took on people displaced from there... Those displaced in the South Americas should be supported by those countries who traded and help keep bad regimes in place...... Nato countries should've taken the Bosnian refugees in the late 90s.... But everyone wants a quagmire... Then everyone can walk away from problems they created..
So we should set an example with those we we are directly involved in, and stop making excuses or using strawman arguments.

Oh okay, so i get it now we help the refugees whom are possibly a result of wars we get in, but the others we don't have a responsibility too.

So its very simple from your perspective then, we just do get involved in wars and we won't have to worry about refugees?

Anyway a great deal of those refugees that you are neglecting are still products of wars that we have been involved in going quite a while back now.

Anyway I'm not against having a refugee intake and i don't even really have much of an opinion on how many it should be I'm sure the government can figure out whats realistic, as you may have noticed I'm more concerned with the issue of controlling our borders or even just people thinking about why its so important and being realistic about the issue and understanding simple decisions can have big effects.

Because I'm basically just sick of seeing the far left acting all compassionate but ignoring all the issues and not providing answers or being realistic and living in some la la land, then the far right just being racist islam fearing pricks, then the best we can do close to the middle and a bit to the right i guess is people using some excuse about people drowning at sea, which is not why we want to stop boats, its just an issue labour and liberal use against each other.

Anyway its hard not to post on this topic, but I've made probably all the points i need to make, i know its pointless people generally don't change their mind but hopefully one person out there will read my rants and think, fuck yeah how fucking obvious is it you can't just let anybody turn up how they like and in uncontrolled numbers and shit even it could only take one person to bring in a disease or something that could affect an industry like fruit and vegetable or livestock or even affect the health of people.

Anyway i don't pretend to have all the answers but the current turn back boat scheme is definitely the best policy we have seen so far to deal with the problem and has the positive effect of meaning we don't need to waste money putting people in detention centres.

But no i still won't be voting Liberal next election.

zenagain wrote:

Some people might think that I lack compassion but I don't. For the most part I agree with everything written by most of the preceding contributors. But, I don't believe in an open slather open borders policy that's all. I think the uptake of refugees should be increased but I also believe there should be a strong message sent to the people who engage in the vile trade of people smuggling too.

That just sounds like a Murdoch/LNP PR release.

"Open slather open borders policy." Where is that a policy from any political party?

"A strong message sent to the people who engage in the vile trade of people smuggling too." Is that a Bolt and/or ScoMo/Dutton cut n paste?

Stopping the boats, by any means necessary, hey?

Border Force officials told a Senate committee last week that 23 vessels have been turned around since Operation Sovereign Borders commenced after the election of the Abbott Government.

Yep, they continued to come and according to the commander of Operation Sovereign Borders Maj Gen Andrew Bottrell there remains a persistent number of attempts, all of which have failed over the last year and a half. In other words they are still coming. And are we just paying the people smugglers to take them back? Or just let them drown elsewhere?

Is this a strong message? Does it all justify the camps anyway?

Taking up your "relatively comfortably well off Uncle or cousin who turns up unannounced at his doorstep, looking to move in for awhile because dads house is bigger and there's always left-overs in the fridge", are these guys really jumping the back-fence with nothing but the clothes on their back, after hitching and paying for the fuel, and banging on the backdoor? Or they more likely to just taxi in, with full luggage and gifts, and ring the front-door bell?

Maybe the MV Portland boat people are the ones we should be concerned about?

Um 23 vessels turned back over more than two year period (2 years 4 months) period, that pretty good going especially seeing what is happening in Europe..

That's averages about 10 boats a year.

2013 we had 300 boats turn up.
2012= 278
2011= 69
2010=134

And in that two year period have we had any new people needed to be put in detention centres as a result of entry via boat? ( i honesty don't know)

Think about it: A people smuggling boat departs indonesia, i believe generally from West Java or across the strait in South Sumatra they get turned back out at sea, they go return to their departure point, obviously after the time spent and fuel spent its very doubtful anyone is getting a refund, the refugees return to the areas that they live with other refugees, they tell others of their experience.

Do you really think after this others will go, yeah im going to waste my money and try?

off course not they are either going to explore other options or they are going to wait for a sign of change for example news refugees in detention have been settled in Australia or a change of policy or government before they try again.

And when communicating with others in areas they have fled or refugee camps, they are going to say, don't bother boats are getting turned back.

I wouldn't be surprised that if the turn back boat policy continues the numbers per year will drop further, as at the start of the policy there would have been a few trying thinking we have to try we just don't know or trying things like different departure points like West timor.

Read into it anyway you like TT. I haven't lived in Australia for the last decade but the country I do live in is democrattic, safe, prosperous, stable and currently at war with nobody. Their annual refugee intake is (drumroll) -zero.

I happen to agree with Indo.

Yeah, but I thought Tones and the gang had stopped the boats? He meant most of the boats? Or he just stopped reporting the boats? Or rather just stopped them coming here? Did he stop the drownings? Who knows? Who cares??

Anyway, in the spirit of allegory:

"Earlier today I had a rather nasty incident. A toddler had just wandered off while she was distracted so I picked him up and placed in my hot car and locked the door, informing the mother that I’d let him out when I’d checked all her documents and ensured that she was, in fact, a bona fide parent. Rather than cooperate, she started to yell at abuse at me, which just proved to me that my swift action was correct because, if that’s the way she spoke to a total stranger, imagine how she spoke at home.

A crowd gathered round and tried to insist that I release the child, but I explained that there had been a number of road deaths from children running on the road and it was only by making an example of this child that we could discourage parents from letting their children walk around unsupervised.

One idiot wanted to know how other people would be aware of this deterrent and I said that I was sure that word would get around, and I intended to film the child in the car and post it on YouTube as a warning to others.

At this point, someone threatened to call the police to which I replied that I was sure that the police would back me up. While they were starting to resemble an unruly mob, I’m a respectable person who’s only doing this in the best interests of the child. Well, perhaps not this child who was getting rather hot and bothered and screaming, but in the interests of the children who don’t get hit by cars thanks to my strong action.

For some reason, the crowd turned violent, pushed me to the ground and stole my keys. As they released the child, I pointed out that I wasn’t the only one who thought that providing strong deterrents justified this sort of action because both Turnbull and Abbott and Shorten and Marles all agree with me, and if another person agrees with you, then you can’t possibly be wrong.

Well?

You’re right – using that as an allegory for what’s happening with asylum seekers in Australia is wrong.

In Australia, the crowd gathering round consists of some people demanding that the child be let out of the hot car, while others are saying that the mother needs to be put in there too and then I can drive them somewhere else and push them out of the car and that’ll be a lesson to everyone.

While the mother in the little story didn’t actually break the law, it needs to be pointed out for the 4,237,003,998th time that nobody coming to Australia seeking asylum has actually broken the law. If anyone wants to argue that they have, then I’m more than happy to ask why the government has never actually charged any of them with the crime they’ve supposedly committed. We all know that it’s because once they ended up in the court system there’s no way that children would be held in detention and that the government would be forced to actually live up to its obligations under the UNHCR conventions."

http://theaimn.com/if-we-apply-off-shore-detention-stops-the-drownings-l...

"hopefully one person out there will read my rants and think, fuck yeah how fucking obvious", I bet it's the one guy who smoked twenty bongs before he read it.

Shatner'sBassoon wrote:

Yeah, but I thought Tones and the gang had stopped the boats? He meant most of the boats? Or he just stopped reporting the boats? Or rather just stopped them coming here? Did he stop the drownings? Who knows? Who cares??

Anyway, in the spirit of allegory:

"Earlier today I had a rather nasty incident. A toddler had just wandered off while she was distracted so I picked him up and placed in my hot car and locked the door, informing the mother that I’d let him out when I’d checked all her documents and ensured that she was, in fact, a bona fide parent. Rather than cooperate, she started to yell at abuse at me, which just proved to me that my swift action was correct because, if that’s the way she spoke to a total stranger, imagine how she spoke at home.

A crowd gathered round and tried to insist that I release the child, but I explained that there had been a number of road deaths from children running on the road and it was only by making an example of this child that we could discourage parents from letting their children walk around unsupervised.

One idiot wanted to know how other people would be aware of this deterrent and I said that I was sure that word would get around, and I intended to film the child in the car and post it on YouTube as a warning to others.

At this point, someone threatened to call the police to which I replied that I was sure that the police would back me up. While they were starting to resemble an unruly mob, I’m a respectable person who’s only doing this in the best interests of the child. Well, perhaps not this child who was getting rather hot and bothered and screaming, but in the interests of the children who don’t get hit by cars thanks to my strong action.

For some reason, the crowd turned violent, pushed me to the ground and stole my keys. As they released the child, I pointed out that I wasn’t the only one who thought that providing strong deterrents justified this sort of action because both Turnbull and Abbott and Shorten and Marles all agree with me, and if another person agrees with you, then you can’t possibly be wrong.

Well?

You’re right – using that as an allegory for what’s happening with asylum seekers in Australia is wrong.

In Australia, the crowd gathering round consists of some people demanding that the child be let out of the hot car, while others are saying that the mother needs to be put in there too and then I can drive them somewhere else and push them out of the car and that’ll be a lesson to everyone.

While the mother in the little story didn’t actually break the law, it needs to be pointed out for the 4,237,003,998th time that nobody coming to Australia seeking asylum has actually broken the law. If anyone wants to argue that they have, then I’m more than happy to ask why the government has never actually charged any of them with the crime they’ve supposedly committed. We all know that it’s because once they ended up in the court system there’s no way that children would be held in detention and that the government would be forced to actually live up to its obligations under the UNHCR conventions."

http://theaimn.com/if-we-apply-off-shore-detention-stops-the-drownings-l...

ID will quite happily give you a billion hypotheticals of refugees that might commit a crime, things nobody else would have thought about.

tim foilat wrote:

Shatner'sBassoon wrote:

Yeah, but I thought Tones and the gang had stopped the boats? He meant most of the boats? Or he just stopped reporting the boats? Or rather just stopped them coming here? Did he stop the drownings? Who knows? Who cares??

Anyway, in the spirit of allegory:

"Earlier today I had a rather nasty incident. A toddler had just wandered off while she was distracted so I picked him up and placed in my hot car and locked the door, informing the mother that I’d let him out when I’d checked all her documents and ensured that she was, in fact, a bona fide parent. Rather than cooperate, she started to yell at abuse at me, which just proved to me that my swift action was correct because, if that’s the way she spoke to a total stranger, imagine how she spoke at home.

A crowd gathered round and tried to insist that I release the child, but I explained that there had been a number of road deaths from children running on the road and it was only by making an example of this child that we could discourage parents from letting their children walk around unsupervised.

One idiot wanted to know how other people would be aware of this deterrent and I said that I was sure that word would get around, and I intended to film the child in the car and post it on YouTube as a warning to others.

At this point, someone threatened to call the police to which I replied that I was sure that the police would back me up. While they were starting to resemble an unruly mob, I’m a respectable person who’s only doing this in the best interests of the child. Well, perhaps not this child who was getting rather hot and bothered and screaming, but in the interests of the children who don’t get hit by cars thanks to my strong action.

For some reason, the crowd turned violent, pushed me to the ground and stole my keys. As they released the child, I pointed out that I wasn’t the only one who thought that providing strong deterrents justified this sort of action because both Turnbull and Abbott and Shorten and Marles all agree with me, and if another person agrees with you, then you can’t possibly be wrong.

Well?

You’re right – using that as an allegory for what’s happening with asylum seekers in Australia is wrong.

In Australia, the crowd gathering round consists of some people demanding that the child be let out of the hot car, while others are saying that the mother needs to be put in there too and then I can drive them somewhere else and push them out of the car and that’ll be a lesson to everyone.

While the mother in the little story didn’t actually break the law, it needs to be pointed out for the 4,237,003,998th time that nobody coming to Australia seeking asylum has actually broken the law. If anyone wants to argue that they have, then I’m more than happy to ask why the government has never actually charged any of them with the crime they’ve supposedly committed. We all know that it’s because once they ended up in the court system there’s no way that children would be held in detention and that the government would be forced to actually live up to its obligations under the UNHCR conventions."

http://theaimn.com/if-we-apply-off-shore-detention-stops-the-drownings-l...

ID will quite happily give you a billion hypotheticals of refugees that might commit a crime, things nobody else would have thought about.

If you think I'm the sort of person that thinks just because people are refugees they are going to rape and pillage then you need to go back and read all my post again, the only time I've mentioned crime is in relation to a situation when you accept large numbers of refugees that can to speak english causing a low socio-economic problem.

High crime rates and and low socio-economic problems can happen in any society no matter race or religion or if they happen to be refugees or not.

In regards to the other silly metaphor type cut and pasted post, they are pure journalist trash.

I did read one good one line metaphor kind of thing the other day though, i will try to find it.

"Did he stop the drownings ? Who cares".
That says a lot. Prof Triggs would love that one.