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

Sheepdog wrote:

"Stopping the boats has saved lives" is the biggest load of bullshit ever spun..... It's just shifted the death.... The boats started heading to thailand when they couldn't come here.... 100s if not 1000s have died.... And many in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria who found out they couldn't come here by boat either stayed in the war zone and possibly died, or tried to travel across the Mediterranean and drowned there..... "Death shifting" is not "saving lives"..

Sheeepy, on so many things we agree, why don't we stop a while and share some tea

Mal Turdstill's very own "captain's pick"?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-09/barns-philip-ruddocks-human-rights...

"The choice of Philip Ruddock to represent Australia internationally on human rights issues makes as much sense as appointing a cigarette company CEO to champion health."

floyd wrote:

INDO

To summarise then you believe:

Processing refugees in the proper manner = any way the government decides.

It is a problem that Australia is a signatory to the UN charter on refugees because its a welcome mat.

You would like Australia to withdraw from the UN Charter on refugees but double the number of refugees coming to Australia.

If we withdrew from the UN charter and doubled the intake we would have more right (whatever that means) to complain to Indonesia on lack of action of the matter (whatever that means)

So you accept then there is no queue and no refugee camp in the region that can orderly process refugees .... as I said several days ago, desperate people do desperate things ---> boats

I almost agree with you on something….

Except for one thing people do by pass refugee camps.

Why?…because they can afford too because the realistic chances of being resettled is extremely slim.

I understand why people by pass camps and get on boats and i don't blame them if put in the same circumstances and we were lucky enough to have the money to be able too we would most likely do the same.

But where we differ in our view is I understand that its not realistic to accept people in this manner and the government need to do what is best for its people and its future.

Sheep dog is correct though we are just going around in circles now.

happyasS wrote:

here, ill make my position clearer. im going to follow your lead. lets assume nauru doesnt exist as you say.. so what will happen? the number of asylum seekers coming to australia will dramatically increase. that was labour for ya (17,000 arrivals in 2012). the cost of support in the community is 35-65k per person per annum (the left says its 35k but ive done calcs to suggest its up to 65k depending up their requirements, particularly education and training and lesser so health). so lets take the previous labour govt boat arrivals (17,000) and times that by 50k to split the difference...that comes to 850 million.

the government can do the math and does...nauru is a deterent. they can take the 1Billion dollar nauru bill or they can take the 850 million dollar bill and then wonder how many people might actually arrive in reality! it could be well more than labour, maybe double, or triple or more? its syria now, its not the same crisis.

[edit] remember my comment in (d) had nothing to do with nauru....it was a comment about supporting refugees in the community. you chose to bring up the 650k figure suggesting that we could save money.

I forgot to reply to this before, I have no idea if your calculations are correct, but i take my hat off too you for thinking outside the box.

People often talk about dollar figures and cost, but the reality is much of the problems that could or would develop over time can't really be measured in dollar terms.

Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this.

The risk might be quite small but its still a risk with possible devastating consequences, Australia is one of the few countries in the world that generally remain free from many pest and disease and many industries rely on this fact to supply certain markets and once introduced or infected there is generally no going back.

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

in this fantasy, with all these refugees coming, the 'turn back the boats' policy must have failed completely? and border force has completely failed? so I guess we can dismantle them and throw this money at settling people too. Be able to give em maths lessons on top of the English. Watch it mate they'll be taking YOUR job

You know we had road works in my busy street last week, the council workers put up barriers while they worked and all the cars disappeared, the road works are now finished and they have now taken the barriers away…and guess what Tim a real funny thing happened, the street is now busy again with cars????

So your saying the, 'turn back the boats' policy does nothing? It's a complete failure as is border force, in your opinion the only deterrent is the offshore processing facilities and it works just like a road block blocking traffic on a street.

Just don't compare it to the past ey, roadblocks fine, but you have this wonderful ability to understand how the world 'REALY' works and how this rapidly changing world is going to look like in the future, just ask Sypkan.

Your support for the offshore detention is ok with you and it is for a lot of Australians, keep conjuring up ridiculous analogies to justify to yourself why it's ok to keep children in detention indefinetly while they are being raped. Your advocacy is duly noted.

Dude im trying to be diplomatic and not sink to name calling but its like you read one thing and interpret it as something totally different and obviously lack general life experience or understanding of basic principles, reverting to silly one liners.

How can the turn back boat scheme be a complete failure when numbers have dropped from what was 300 a year to 10 a year?.

How can it be a failure if since it started (as far as i know) no more people have been put in detention from boat arrivals, while under past systems hundreds of people ended up in detention centres.

Isn't this what you want?…it's what i want.

I don't claim to understand the world or have the solution on everything, but I'm bringing up issues that yourself and others totally ignore.

Pointing out what you are advocating is not name calling, it's a bitter pill to swallow but it's part of what you are advocating for, same as TB.

Total misread on the turn back policy, you need to retread those few posts between happy and I, the notion that if the naru and manus are closed boats will arrive on mass was put forward by happy.

My point was IF this happens ie mass influx of boats then the turn back policy and border force must be completely ineffective.

You suggest it is in fact effective so if the offshore centres are closed the boats will be held at bay, no mass influx of refugees, take it up with HappyasS.

Im not against closing offshore detention centres i actually think thats the long term aim, but to do that you need to ensure they are not needed, the best way to do that is not accept people by boat and turn boats back.

Like anyone i don't know exactly what would happen if Naru and Manus were closed, but my own thoughts are it would depend on where the current refugees are settled.

If they were settled in Australia for sure there is a risk we could get an influx of boats, you can guarantee that people smugglers would be saying "look they are settling people in Australia, your best chance is now, lets go"

If they were settled in Cambodia or PNG, i don't think there would be much risk at all of an influx of boats and long term i think it would act a a deterrent.

I don't think its a good idea settling those currently in detention in Australia i think the PNG Cambodia option is much better, but if that's never going to happen, then i think it we need to take the risk and settle those currently in offshore detention in Australia but i think we would need to ensure that the turn back operation thing was beefed up to deal with an influx of boats and maybe its not the best time to do it with the current refugee crisis. (who knows we may see it happen just before an election to keep the left and right happy, and for them to be able to say we stopped that boats and now there is no people in offshore detention)

The big problem is with taking that chance is if you do get an influx of boats and even just one slips too far to turn back and you have to take responsibility for those refugee then you could just be back at square one putting people in detention.( the one you have kept open in X-mas island)

Although ideally if you have closed all the offshore processing centres even X-mas island, you continue the turn back boat scheme and if you do get one boat that slips past you take those refugees and fly them to a country with a refugee camp, the country with the refugee camp agrees to help do this because the money we are saving on offshore detention centres we put some of that into helping the countries with the refugee camps.

Sheepdog wrote:

floyd wrote:

Sheepdog wrote:

"Stopping the boats has saved lives" is the biggest load of bullshit ever spun..... It's just shifted the death.... The boats started heading to thailand when they couldn't come here.... 100s if not 1000s have died.... And many in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria who found out they couldn't come here by boat either stayed in the war zone and possibly died, or tried to travel across the Mediterranean and drowned there..... "Death shifting" is not "saving lives"..

Sheeepy, on so many things we agree, why don't we stop a while and share some tea

Bahahahaha..... I'm a coffee man, Floyd...... As long as we steer clear of global warming and you have an espresso machine, we'll go ok...... lol..... Oh.... Hang on..... you're a bombers fan aren't you?....... Nope..that's it..... Beverages and iced vovo's are cancelled bahahaha.......

A South Australian drinking espresso, talking about upwardly mobile, you are moving up the social ladder since moving from the apple isle!!

Been a coffee lover ..... yeah but International Roast doesn't count Sheepster :) You of all people being suckered in by the media about what happened/didn't happen at Essendon. I don't know, don't support drugs in sport (that's why the top 40 circus is just that) but want it all, including the Dank court cases, to come out. The process was very poor from day one and many questions about the role of all key players from Hird to the AFL to ASADA and WADA need to be answered. If its proven let them do the time but so far I just see poor process and trial by media (ASADA did have to threaten the AFL before they (the AFL) stopped leaking to Fairfax / Caroline Wilson

indo-dreaming wrote:

floyd wrote:

INDO

To summarise then you believe:

Processing refugees in the proper manner = any way the government decides.

It is a problem that Australia is a signatory to the UN charter on refugees because its a welcome mat.

You would like Australia to withdraw from the UN Charter on refugees but double the number of refugees coming to Australia.

If we withdrew from the UN charter and doubled the intake we would have more right (whatever that means) to complain to Indonesia on lack of action of the matter (whatever that means)

So you accept then there is no queue and no refugee camp in the region that can orderly process refugees .... as I said several days ago, desperate people do desperate things ---> boats

I almost agree with you on something….

Except for one thing people do by pass refugee camps.

Why?…because they can afford too because the realistic chances of being resettled is extremely slim.

I understand why people by pass camps and get on boats and i don't blame them if put in the same circumstances and we were lucky enough to have the money to be able too we would most likely do the same.

But where we differ in our view is I understand that its not realistic to accept people in this manner and the government need to do what is best for its people and its future.

Sheep dog is correct though we are just going around in circles now.

Into asserts " ...... people pass camps ..... "

What camps and where Indo?

"Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this."

This is thinking, "outside the box"?

Do you think this insight you have has been overlooked by customs, immigration, policy makers, the general public and forum commenters?

what do you reckon the chances are of your scenario happening compared to the chances of something like that happening on one of the millions of craft that come to australia

tim foilat wrote:

"Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this."

This is thinking, "outside the box"?

Do you think this insight you have has been overlooked by customs, immigration, policy makers, the general public and forum commenters?

what do you reckon the chances are of your scenario happening compared to the chances of something like that happening on one of the millions of craft that come to australia

Off course its hasn't been overlooked by our governments this and other reasons are why we have the system we have now and a big reason why both the liberal and labour parties have similar policy and you won't see too much change in the future.

And no you can't not just float from Indonesia to Australia on a private boat, you have to go through a system that ensures you are not bringing something into Australia that you shouldn't be that on purpose or accidental.

floyd wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

floyd wrote:

INDO

To summarise then you believe:

Processing refugees in the proper manner = any way the government decides.

It is a problem that Australia is a signatory to the UN charter on refugees because its a welcome mat.

You would like Australia to withdraw from the UN Charter on refugees but double the number of refugees coming to Australia.

If we withdrew from the UN charter and doubled the intake we would have more right (whatever that means) to complain to Indonesia on lack of action of the matter (whatever that means)

So you accept then there is no queue and no refugee camp in the region that can orderly process refugees .... as I said several days ago, desperate people do desperate things ---> boats

I almost agree with you on something….

Except for one thing people do by pass refugee camps.

Why?…because they can afford too because the realistic chances of being resettled is extremely slim.

I understand why people by pass camps and get on boats and i don't blame them if put in the same circumstances and we were lucky enough to have the money to be able too we would most likely do the same.

But where we differ in our view is I understand that its not realistic to accept people in this manner and the government need to do what is best for its people and its future.

Sheep dog is correct though we are just going around in circles now.

Into asserts " ...... people pass camps ..... "

What camps and where Indo?

Googles your friend.

I believe i read the other day there is about 400 refugee camps world wide.

There may be the odd place where refugees come to Australia from where they don't pass one, but in most cases to get here they would need to pass quite a few.

I should also note that even where there is no camp between the country people are fleeing and Aust, the distance they need to travel to get to Aust is often the same or further than the distance needed to get to a camp.

Yes there are exceptions to this like fiji and IMO these are the countries we should focus our intake from when these situations arise.

indo-dreaming wrote:

happyasS wrote:

here, ill make my position clearer. im going to follow your lead. lets assume nauru doesnt exist as you say.. so what will happen? the number of asylum seekers coming to australia will dramatically increase. that was labour for ya (17,000 arrivals in 2012). the cost of support in the community is 35-65k per person per annum (the left says its 35k but ive done calcs to suggest its up to 65k depending up their requirements, particularly education and training and lesser so health). so lets take the previous labour govt boat arrivals (17,000) and times that by 50k to split the difference...that comes to 850 million.

the government can do the math and does...nauru is a deterent. they can take the 1Billion dollar nauru bill or they can take the 850 million dollar bill and then wonder how many people might actually arrive in reality! it could be well more than labour, maybe double, or triple or more? its syria now, its not the same crisis.

[edit] remember my comment in (d) had nothing to do with nauru....it was a comment about supporting refugees in the community. you chose to bring up the 650k figure suggesting that we could save money.

I forgot to reply to this before, I have no idea if your calculations are correct, but i take my hat off too you for thinking outside the box.

People often talk about dollar figures and cost, but the reality is much of the problems that could or would develop over time can't really be measured in dollar terms.

Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this.

The risk might be quite small but its still a risk with possible devastating consequences, Australia is one of the few countries in the world that generally remain free from many pest and disease and many industries rely on this fact to supply certain markets and once introduced or infected there is generally no going back.

to be honest indo i dont even care if im right or not...my talk about money was only to highlight that its fanciful to argue how inhumane we are but at the same time avoid the topic about costs and other matters such as you bring to the conversation. ....disease is one but its easily managed in reckon, nonetheless thats why we actually process people and do health checks. TB? (and im not referring to you barber). but i get really annoyed when i hear people say that asylum seekers arent terrorists so what are we worried about. yep, true, they arent....but its not about the majority, its about the cracks and thats what we are now reading about being reported by the german police in munich. and its so easy for cracks to develop [edit] and thats why we spend so much friggin money in checking people - its painfully slow. terrorism is real and it happens and its presenting itself here in australia already. but one of the biggest issues is whether australia is ready to become a melting pot of culture. hundreds of thousands of muslim people could well be the best thing ever to happen to australia, this country is devoid of culture and its boring. but at the same time i keep hearing we are so racist. i support higher refugee intake but can australian society deal with intaking 100 or 200,000 refugees in the next year, and another 100,000 the year after and so on. how much internal conflict could that generate?

unfortunately humanity toward the victims of war is but one issue in a sea of complexity.

In regard to the terrorism threat this one is a rare area that i agree with Sheepdog on, i think as things are currently and have been in the past i think the chances are pretty close to zero someone is going to come to Australia by boat acting as a refugee, even without the boat turn back deal,you wouldn't expect terrorist are going to be willing to sit in an offshore detention centre for a few years, it would be just as easy to come in via an airport.

If things changed and we didn't control our borders or had in the community onshore processing, then yeah i think that threat is totally realistic.

BTW on the quarantine issue, yeah we do health checks etc but if boats are allowed to reach Australian shores as HAS happened in the past then the risk is very real, ironically if there was something brought in that had a negative effect on the environment be that flora or flora, you can be certain the Green's would be the first to complain….now what was there policy again on border control?

i understand what you saying indo about terrorists in offshore detention being unrealistic & i agree with what your saying, but im not just talking about boat arrivals/nauru (the status quo today). im talking generally about how we would process our humanitarian intake. sheepdog says to set up an arrangement with Europe and or Turkey to funnel asylum seekers here. we should do it! but without the necessary checks and investigations then we cannot guarantee that terrorists dont slip through. this takes time and money.

its depressing to talk about it, worse still knowing that australia is but a minor peice in a major problem puzzle.

The actual Greens policy on immigration and refugees:

http://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees

For the link-averse:

Some principles

Australia must enact its humanitarian and legal obligations to asylum seekers and refugees and reunite families under the international customary law and the Refugee Convention 1951 and its Protocol.

Seeking asylum is a humanitarian issue rather than an issue of border security or defence, and people seeking asylum must be treated with compassion and dignity.

As signatory to the Refugee Convention Australia must assess the applications of all asylum seekers who arrive in Australian territory, including territorial waters, irrespective of their mode of arrival.

Australia has additional responsibilities to refugees from countries where Australian defence personnel have been deployed in conflict situations.

Some Aims:

Skilled migration programs that do not substitute for training or undermine wages and conditions in Australia.

Greater incentives for rural and regional distribution of refugees and immigrants using successful models for settlement.

Greatly enhanced regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific to provide safer pathways for asylum seekers, with long-term planning to accommodate people displaced by on-going conflicts and climate change.

Once initial health, security and identity checks are completed within a maximum of 30 days, asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to be accommodated in the community, unless otherwise ordered by a court, with periodic judicial review thereafter.

All people categorised as refugees, but given negative security assessments by ASIO, to be given reasons for such assessment and the opportunity to challenge this in the appropriate forum.

Where an asylum seeker is not found to be owed protection, provision of fair and appropriate accommodation until they can be repatriated. Where a person is stateless, provision of accommodation in the community until they are issued with a visa or another durable solution is found.

indo-dreaming wrote:

floyd wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

floyd wrote:

INDO

To summarise then you believe:

Processing refugees in the proper manner = any way the government decides.

It is a problem that Australia is a signatory to the UN charter on refugees because its a welcome mat.

You would like Australia to withdraw from the UN Charter on refugees but double the number of refugees coming to Australia.

If we withdrew from the UN charter and doubled the intake we would have more right (whatever that means) to complain to Indonesia on lack of action of the matter (whatever that means)

So you accept then there is no queue and no refugee camp in the region that can orderly process refugees .... as I said several days ago, desperate people do desperate things ---> boats

I almost agree with you on something….

Except for one thing people do by pass refugee camps.

Why?…because they can afford too because the realistic chances of being resettled is extremely slim.

I understand why people by pass camps and get on boats and i don't blame them if put in the same circumstances and we were lucky enough to have the money to be able too we would most likely do the same.

But where we differ in our view is I understand that its not realistic to accept people in this manner and the government need to do what is best for its people and its future.

Sheep dog is correct though we are just going around in circles now.

Into asserts " ...... people pass camps ..... "

What camps and where Indo?

Googles your friend.

I believe i read the other day there is about 400 refugee camps world wide.

There may be the odd place where refugees come to Australia from where they don't pass one, but in most cases to get here they would need to pass quite a few.

I should also note that even where there is no camp between the country people are fleeing and Aust, the distance they need to travel to get to Aust is often the same or further than the distance needed to get to a camp.

Yes there are exceptions to this like fiji and IMO these are the countries we should focus our intake from when these situations arise.

Right, the goal posts move again.

Just to repeat then, there are no camps within our region.

There are no camps within our region where refugees can safely and orderly be assessed for resettlement in a country like Australia.

So as there are no camps within our region, refugees should stay in the temporary make shift camps close to war zones, is that it Indo?, is that your bottom line?

My above post was cherry-picked obviously. Cherry-pick yourself if you want.

Show where there's an 'open borders/no controls whatsoever' approach in there.

I've said it before on here somewhere. I'm more worried about the MV Portland kind of 'boat people'. Chuck in the 457 and other visa rorts too. Cherry-picking? Howzabout the fruit and vegetable pickers period! Poor ripped off bastards. Us and them!

The only red n black worth its salt.

floyd wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

floyd wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

floyd wrote:

INDO

To summarise then you believe:

Processing refugees in the proper manner = any way the government decides.

It is a problem that Australia is a signatory to the UN charter on refugees because its a welcome mat.

You would like Australia to withdraw from the UN Charter on refugees but double the number of refugees coming to Australia.

If we withdrew from the UN charter and doubled the intake we would have more right (whatever that means) to complain to Indonesia on lack of action of the matter (whatever that means)

So you accept then there is no queue and no refugee camp in the region that can orderly process refugees .... as I said several days ago, desperate people do desperate things ---> boats

I almost agree with you on something….

Except for one thing people do by pass refugee camps.

Why?…because they can afford too because the realistic chances of being resettled is extremely slim.

I understand why people by pass camps and get on boats and i don't blame them if put in the same circumstances and we were lucky enough to have the money to be able too we would most likely do the same.

But where we differ in our view is I understand that its not realistic to accept people in this manner and the government need to do what is best for its people and its future.

Sheep dog is correct though we are just going around in circles now.

Into asserts " ...... people pass camps ..... "

What camps and where Indo?

Googles your friend.

I believe i read the other day there is about 400 refugee camps world wide.

There may be the odd place where refugees come to Australia from where they don't pass one, but in most cases to get here they would need to pass quite a few.

I should also note that even where there is no camp between the country people are fleeing and Aust, the distance they need to travel to get to Aust is often the same or further than the distance needed to get to a camp.

Yes there are exceptions to this like fiji and IMO these are the countries we should focus our intake from when these situations arise.

Right, the goal posts move again.

Just to repeat then, there are no camps within our region.

There are no camps within our region where refugees can safely and orderly be assessed for resettlement in a country like Australia.

So as there are no camps within our region, refugees should stay in the temporary make shift camps close to war zones, is that it Indo?, is that your bottom line?

Yes off course there is no refugee camps in our region, thats because in fairly recent history its quite rare that refugees come out of our region Sri Lanka and Fiji are about the closest in recent history with the odd ones from other SE Asian countries and i remember there was a few from West Papua a few years back, but i mentioned Fiji above and in regard to Sri Lanka there is a refugee camp in the south tip of India.

You obviously didn't google where the refugee camps are in the world and you obviously don't know which countries refugees that end up in Australia come from?

Here i will help you http://www.ssi.org.au/faqs/refugee-faqs/140-where-do-australia-s-refugee...

And heres a link to only a sample of refugee camps http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/where-are-50-most-populous-refu...

Facts are to get to Australia from pretty much all those areas on the first link refugees need to pass quite a few refugee camps…the evidence is there in the links.

Anyway you don't need to be in a refugee camp to apply for a Visa you only need to be outside the border of you country of origin https://www.border.gov.au/Forms/Documents/842.pdf

Go back where you came from ........

http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/go-back-to-where-you-came-from

floyd wrote:

Go back where you came from ........

http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/go-back-to-where-you-came-from

Yep seen it.

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this."

This is thinking, "outside the box"?

Do you think this insight you have has been overlooked by customs, immigration, policy makers, the general public and forum commenters?

what do you reckon the chances are of your scenario happening compared to the chances of something like that happening on one of the millions of craft that come to australia

Off course its hasn't been overlooked by our governments this and other reasons are why we have the system we have now and a big reason why both the liberal and labour parties have similar policy and you won't see too much change in the future.

And no you can't not just float from Indonesia to Australia on a private boat, you have to go through a system that ensures you are not bringing something into Australia that you shouldn't be that on purpose or accidental.

So this system of customs, immigration, quarantine, bio security etc. All these organisations that work to control Australia's borders.

This massive system that handles 2.5+ million air passengers each year, 80 million tonnes of air freight each year, 3000 tonnes of mail each year....https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/international.aspx

This massive system that handles 100 million tonnes of sea freight....https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/asf_2012_13.pdf

Handles hundreds of people DAILY from PNG....http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/19/fears-drug-resistant-tb-au...

Handles thousands of private craft movements.

This massive system seems to work at the moment.

Considering these numbers....factors of millions....considering there doesn't seem to be a lot of undetected disease or organisms getting through causing problems, ask yourself is this system up to the job of dealing with refugee boats at the numbers you are imagining?

talkingturkey wrote:

I've said it before on here somewhere. I'm more worried about the MV Portland kind of 'boat people'. Chuck in the 457 and other visa rorts too. Cherry-picking? Howzabout the fruit and vegetable pickers period! Poor ripped off bastards. Us and them!

Can't say we don't need skilled truck drivers....https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/30746870/truck-stuck-in-airport-tu...

Australia freaking out at a handful of refugees. All the while countries like Sweden take in massive amounts, even though it strains the society at times. Overall, they bloody get on with it because it is the ethical thing to do. If you have a gun or knife or torture or missiles or crippling abject poverty at your back you damn well bloody keep going until you know you have some distance between you and such things. To think Australia doesn't have the space or resources to allow many many many more refugees by boat or otherwise to arrive and be processed on our shores in the community is being willfully ignorant. Look to who holds the purse strings and political privilege. How much do they have, really? Address those greedy inhumane bastards and their minions who churn out the spin to let others do the dirty work on their behalf. The "people smuggling" discourse is a red herring, pure and simple. Stop looking at the borders and seas and start looking closely at the corporate boardrooms and the political bully boys - the real "smugglers".

/rant.

Sheepdog wrote:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/where-are-50-most-populous-refu...

Yes...... yes, of course...... Instead of getting on a boat near Basra in iraq, taking it to the safe ports of Oman and then across to Sri Lanka, then on to the country that has occupied my Country saying they are saving us, Australia, I'll just walk across the Saudi deserts.. Can't be that hard.. Then i just have to dodge the civil war in yemen, And I'll soon be at the Al Kharaz refugee camp.... That sounds feasible... Or perhaps if the dont have a spot for me, I'll continue my journey across the red sea to Sudan or Somalia...
Or perhaps I could go by foot and climb over the Zagros mountain ranges of Iran... I'm sure the shiites will help this little sunni on his way.... Once I get across Iran, I just have to walk the length of the tribal areas of the Pakistani Afghani border, and Wullah!!!!! I'm at the Girdi refugee camp.....
Or maybe I'll just walk through the war torn Isis riddled eastern Iraq and the allied and russian bomb raining Syria and get to Jordan.....
FFS......................

Um it depends where the refugees originate from, but by far the easiest thing to do is to actually go to a refugee camp, the hardest thing to do is make their way all the way down to Indonesia to get on a boat.

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this."

This is thinking, "outside the box"?

Do you think this insight you have has been overlooked by customs, immigration, policy makers, the general public and forum commenters?

what do you reckon the chances are of your scenario happening compared to the chances of something like that happening on one of the millions of craft that come to australia

Off course its hasn't been overlooked by our governments this and other reasons are why we have the system we have now and a big reason why both the liberal and labour parties have similar policy and you won't see too much change in the future.

And no you can't not just float from Indonesia to Australia on a private boat, you have to go through a system that ensures you are not bringing something into Australia that you shouldn't be that on purpose or accidental.

So this system of customs, immigration, quarantine, bio security etc. All these organisations that work to control Australia's borders.

This massive system that handles 2.5+ million air passengers each year, 80 million tonnes of air freight each year, 3000 tonnes of mail each year....https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/international.aspx

This massive system that handles 100 million tonnes of sea freight....https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/asf_2012_13.pdf

Handles hundreds of people DAILY from PNG....http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/19/fears-drug-resistant-tb-au...

Handles thousands of private craft movements.

This massive system seems to work at the moment.

Considering these numbers....factors of millions....considering there doesn't seem to be a lot of undetected disease or organisms getting through causing problems, ask yourself is this system up to the job of dealing with refugee boats at the numbers you are imagining?

None of your post make sense???….it's like your trying to prove me wrong but the evidence you bring actually supports my argument…Thank you..but it is kind of weird?

Yes its a massive system we put a lot of money into the issue because its so important, and no as good as our system is and despite the fact we put so much money and effort into it we could never have a system to deal with the issue of people smuggling boats because of the manner in which boats can and have landed anywhere on our northern shores, they don't just line up and go through anywhere in an organised fashion, if they did they would be part of the proper legal system.

clif wrote:

Australia freaking out at a handful of refugees. All the while countries like Sweden take in massive amounts, even though it strains the society at times. Overall, they bloody get on with it because it is the ethical thing to do. If you have a gun or knife or torture or missiles or crippling abject poverty at your back you damn well bloody keep going until you know you have some distance between you and such things. To think Australia doesn't have the space or resources to allow many many many more refugees by boat or otherwise to arrive and be processed on our shores in the community is being willfully ignorant. Look to who holds the purse strings and political privilege. How much do they have, really? Address those greedy inhumane bastards and their minions who churn out the spin to let others do the dirty work on their behalf. The "people smuggling" discourse is a red herring, pure and simple. Stop looking at the borders and seas and start looking closely at the corporate boardrooms and the political bully boys - the real "smugglers".

/rant.

Ignores all the issues and bigger picture ,suggest processing in the community then use's the word "wilfully ignorant"..how ironic.

Why would that be ironic? Refugees/Asylum Seekers can be processed while living as part of the community. It is done elsewhere (e.g. Canada, Sweden, Spain). In fact, community placement is undertaken for some even in Australia. It has been shown to be the most effective means of dealing with issues, such as PTSD. On the other other hand the impact of Immigration Detention has been shown to be terrible.

See
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/188/1/58
http://apy.sagepub.com/content/21/4/315.short

If Australia is serious about putting an end to people smuggling, it needs to address the reasons why asylum seekers risk getting on a boat. The process also involves devoting resources to addressing the poverty and disenfranchisement currently experienced by fishermen in Indonesia.

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this."

This is thinking, "outside the box"?

Do you think this insight you have has been overlooked by customs, immigration, policy makers, the general public and forum commenters?

what do you reckon the chances are of your scenario happening compared to the chances of something like that happening on one of the millions of craft that come to australia

Off course its hasn't been overlooked by our governments this and other reasons are why we have the system we have now and a big reason why both the liberal and labour parties have similar policy and you won't see too much change in the future.

And no you can't not just float from Indonesia to Australia on a private boat, you have to go through a system that ensures you are not bringing something into Australia that you shouldn't be that on purpose or accidental.

So this system of customs, immigration, quarantine, bio security etc. All these organisations that work to control Australia's borders.

This massive system that handles 2.5+ million air passengers each year, 80 million tonnes of air freight each year, 3000 tonnes of mail each year....https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/international.aspx

This massive system that handles 100 million tonnes of sea freight....https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/asf_2012_13.pdf

Handles hundreds of people DAILY from PNG....http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/19/fears-drug-resistant-tb-au...

Handles thousands of private craft movements.

This massive system seems to work at the moment.

Considering these numbers....factors of millions....considering there doesn't seem to be a lot of undetected disease or organisms getting through causing problems, ask yourself is this system up to the job of dealing with refugee boats at the numbers you are imagining?

None of your post make sense???….it's like your trying to prove me wrong but the evidence you bring actually supports my argument…Thank you..but it is kind of weird?

Yes its a massive system we put a lot of money into the issue because its so important, and no as good as our system is and despite the fact we put so much money and effort into it we could never have a system to deal with the issue of people smuggling boats because of the manner in which boats can and have landed anywhere on our northern shores, they don't just line up and go through anywhere in an organised fashion, if they did they would be part of the proper legal system.

So you acknowledge boats can and in fact have arrived on Australian shores from Indonesia, it has actually happened.

why haven't their been any bug or crazy ant outbreaks?

How do we detect illegal drug smuggling boats, illegal fishing boats?

So let's get this straight - Sheep, clif, etc want all people feeling oppressed/threatened to get out of their country and go elsewhere. This
a. ensures the success of the forces which oppress/threaten them, and
b. overstretches the resources of compassionate nations leading to the ultimate destruction of the cultures established by said nations.
A double win for ISIS, al qaeda, dictator of your choice! Sounds like a plan only a fool would endorse.

theween wrote:

So let's get this straight - Sheep, clif, etc want all people feeling oppressed/threatened to get out of their country and go elsewhere. This
a. ensures the success of the forces which oppress/threaten them, and
b. overstretches the resources of compassionate nations leading to the ultimate destruction of the cultures established by said nations.
A double win for ISIS, al qaeda, dictator of your choice! Sounds like a plan only a fool would endorse.

HAHAHA - ^ That's the dumbest thing I have ever read. (edit)

mk1 wrote:

theween wrote:

So let's get this straight - Sheep, clif, etc want all people feeling oppressed/threatened to get out of their country and go elsewhere. This a. ensures the success of the forces which oppress/threaten them, and b. overstretches the resources of compassionate nations leading to the ultimate destruction of the cultures established by said nations. A double win for ISIS, al qaeda, dictator of your choice! Sounds like a plan only a fool would endorse.

HAHAHA - ^ That's the dumbest thing I have read. (edit)

I concur.

With you, that is, not Weenyboy.

It was all going good up to "etc" then the wheels came off, the axles broke, the engine overheated and the wiperblades started scratching the glass.

Oh the hilarity of it!! Wait, maybe it really was sarcasm??

Sheepdog wrote:

Manus Island.. A cesspit of experimentation.. Staff told not to have malaria drug.. But detainees not spared - all injected.... Orwellian......
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/manus-malaria-drug...

http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-and-culture/asylum-seekers-on-manus-i...

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4403464.htm

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33943282

This drug, (I think) is owned by Roche .......

In 2014 , The Australian government spent 192 million dollars stockpiling A roche drug called tamiflu, "just in case" of a flu pandemic.....
But a study was done... Tamiflu was not only useless, but all it did was; "produced a minor increased risk of vomiting and nausea, headaches, psychiatric disturbances and renal events".....
Dr Alan Hampson, from the Influenza Specialists Group of course disputed the findings....

ps - the pandemic never happened......

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/government-spends-192-million-st...

"a cesspit of experimentation".....really SD? how do arrive at that?

heres your logic.

1. lariam is given to asylum seekers
2. lariam has side effects which include mental disorders
3. ignore that lariam is one of the most common and effective antimalarial medication and available still throughout the world to civilians and still used by many military including UK MoD.
4. ignore that the likelihood of mental disorders is still low
5. importantly, ignore reports provided about the poor effectiveness of alternative medications at manus island
6. ignore side effects of other malaria medications

7. then conclude that lariam "experimentation" is happening on manus island.

then bring up roche and a completely unrelated event/story.

sheepdog, your efforts are wasted on swellnet. your book titled "conspiracy theories of the western world" would be a best seller. please tell me when you've finished it because I want an autographed copy.

and whats any of that got to do with "experimentation"....im still confused by how you reach this conclusion, don't avoid it. you started your post with it and so its kinda important.

I never said it was "safe" sheepdog....but all drugs have side effects. remember its still a publicly available drug throughout the world....

again you missed the key point in one article....it was said that "the previous drug was required to be taken multiple times a day and asylum seekers were forgetting to take it"....only a 30% compliance rate. the staff don't take it because there are better alternatives to lariam...but only if you friggin actually take them.

giving the stockpiled drug to all of the "1500" detainees at manus....yeah SD...that's a real money saver.

you see, there are multiple ways to look at the same story.

clif wrote:

Why would that be ironic? Refugees/Asylum Seekers can be processed while living as part of the community. It is done elsewhere (e.g. Canada, Sweden, Spain). In fact, community placement is undertaken for some even in Australia. It has been shown to be the most effective means of dealing with issues, such as PTSD. On the other other hand the impact of Immigration Detention has been shown to be terrible.

See
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/188/1/58
http://apy.sagepub.com/content/21/4/315.short

If Australia is serious about putting an end to people smuggling, it needs to address the reasons why asylum seekers risk getting on a boat. The process also involves devoting resources to addressing the poverty and disenfranchisement currently experienced by fishermen in Indonesia.

I thought it would be quite obvious that if you give people exactly what they are after (to get to Australia and live in the community) you will only encourage more people rather than deter people.

But if it ever happens i will be looking into the possibility's of exploiting it and paying to help them get to Oz, I've got plenty of very poor Indo friends that would be happy to live and work in the Australian community yeah sure once there are processed they will be flown back home, but i know they won't care because they will go back with more with more money than they will ever otherwise see.

Or are you going to tell me, they won't be processed and will instantly turned back based on the fact they look Indonesian?

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

tim foilat wrote:

"Just one small example, if a boat landed on our shores and accidentally brought in a disease or a small animal that we don't have like a mite or some crazy ant or bug etc its very hard to measure the cost of this."

This is thinking, "outside the box"?

Do you think this insight you have has been overlooked by customs, immigration, policy makers, the general public and forum commenters?

what do you reckon the chances are of your scenario happening compared to the chances of something like that happening on one of the millions of craft that come to australia

Off course its hasn't been overlooked by our governments this and other reasons are why we have the system we have now and a big reason why both the liberal and labour parties have similar policy and you won't see too much change in the future.

And no you can't not just float from Indonesia to Australia on a private boat, you have to go through a system that ensures you are not bringing something into Australia that you shouldn't be that on purpose or accidental.

So this system of customs, immigration, quarantine, bio security etc. All these organisations that work to control Australia's borders.

This massive system that handles 2.5+ million air passengers each year, 80 million tonnes of air freight each year, 3000 tonnes of mail each year....https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/international.aspx

This massive system that handles 100 million tonnes of sea freight....https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/asf_2012_13.pdf

Handles hundreds of people DAILY from PNG....http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/19/fears-drug-resistant-tb-au...

Handles thousands of private craft movements.

This massive system seems to work at the moment.

Considering these numbers....factors of millions....considering there doesn't seem to be a lot of undetected disease or organisms getting through causing problems, ask yourself is this system up to the job of dealing with refugee boats at the numbers you are imagining?

None of your post make sense???….it's like your trying to prove me wrong but the evidence you bring actually supports my argument…Thank you..but it is kind of weird?

Yes its a massive system we put a lot of money into the issue because its so important, and no as good as our system is and despite the fact we put so much money and effort into it we could never have a system to deal with the issue of people smuggling boats because of the manner in which boats can and have landed anywhere on our northern shores, they don't just line up and go through anywhere in an organised fashion, if they did they would be part of the proper legal system.

So you acknowledge boats can and in fact have arrived on Australian shores from Indonesia, it has actually happened.

why haven't their been any bug or crazy ant outbreaks?

How do we detect illegal drug smuggling boats, illegal fishing boats?

Because if you haven't noticed both our governments Labour and Liberal have had policy to ensure boats don't reach our shores, however even with this we have had times when boats have slipped by and reached our shores.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't, you may have 100 boats or 1,000 boats or god knows how many boats reach our shores without a problem but it's that one boat that does bring in something that is the problem and that could be boat number 1 or boat number 10 or boat number 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 nobody knows but the risk is always there, and often once it happens there is no going back.

I assume we detect boats with radar type technology and obviously the less boats the easier it is and the more boats the harder it gets, and once detected you need to physically reach the boat.

I have no idea about the larium manus deal, on face value you would have expected they give a better anti malarial like Doxycycline id personal never touch Larium because of the stuff I've heard and read.

But I'm sure there is reasons why the choice of medication you would expect they have the best and most knowledgeable advice possible and i don't think $$$ are a problem.

Taking an anti malarial for a short time like a holiday compared to a long time is two very different things and malaria strains can be resistant to certain anti malarial's or build up resistance.

I guess the government would be between a rock and a hard place, provide a anti malarial and ensure no one gets malaria or don't provide the medication and then the media and far left will have a field day with the fact people got malaria.

PS. Edit i just read Happys post, okay makes some sense.

Ha ha yeah Sheep dog definitely is a conspiracy theorist, not alway a bad thing though always makes for an interesting read and it's good to look at things from a different angle, I'm sure the majority of conspiracy theories are wrong but still you would think the odd one is correct.