Don't worry son, you're on the next leaky boat back to wherever you came from!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by orestes1984, Dec 7, 2014.

  1. orestes1984 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #1
    New laws passed by the immigration minister and Australia's parliament mean that Australia is no longer obliged to meet UNHCR commitments on refugees. The kicker here is that this law also deals with refoulment. In simple terms, sending alleged refugees back to places where they may well be persecuted or tortured.

    Australia is no longer a good will citizen of the world stage when it comes to refugees. Yet another well played decision brought to you by the world of neoconservatism.


    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...son-unprecedented-control-over-asylum-seekers
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Approximately how many refugees are coming?

    And what are the problems back in their homeland that they're escaping?
     
  3. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    Sounds like Australia doesn't want to be a lifeboat for hordes of unskilled, undocumented, non-English speaking, illegally-entering, third-worlders.

    Are most Australians fine with that, or are they demanding that Australia opens its doors to the above, no questions asked?
     
  4. orestes1984 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    The debate is almost split in half between those who claim they are "illegal immigrants" vs. those that recognise a persons intangible rights to seek refuge in a foreign country.

    The problem is that it's such a contentious issue that it buys votes, particularly among conservative minded voters, although recently due its ability to attract votes it has been an issue debated by those among the moderate left leaning community also.
     
  5. orestes1984 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #5
    The number of refugees coming by boat over the 2012-13 period was 18,119, 67.5% of which were primary grant refugees, after a review that number dropped to 66.4% but on final review that number jumped to 88.0%.

    The majority of these refugees are Afghans, Sri Lankans and West Africans with legitimate claims of refugee status based on figures.

    They choose to come by boat to Australia often after running out of options in many other countries as a last resort rather than spending in some cases more than 10+ years in processing camps in various countries around the world.

    The current government has state however that they will no longer uphold Australia's part in processing these refugee claims as previously required by being signatory to the UN refugee convention.

    That's about as matter of fact as I can put things without inserting my own thoughts into the matter.
     
  6. Tough Guy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    #6
    Why travel all the way to Australia? Does India or any African countries not participate in these UN programs? If not, why?
     
  7. orestes1984, Dec 7, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2014

    orestes1984 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    Because prior to all of this Australia was seen as a forward thinking, progressive country that would deal with these issues swiftly and decisively rather than being stuck in a UN internment camp for decades, or being stuck in a country that had no such ties to the UN convention.

    India is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees, and you have more chance of sitting in a UN camp for the rest of your natural life than being processed directly in Africa.

    People chose in the past to come to Australia knowing that they would be processed, this will no longer occur. We took a small percentage of the many hundreds of thousands of Afghan, Burmese, Sri Lankan, and West African refugees that are out there in the world but this has been divided on racial lines.

    The current Australian government has decided it wants no part in it.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Doesn't Australia already treat refugees shabbily enough? Parking them in camps in Niugini and Nauru is not exactly in line with their international obligations either.
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    Surely Austalia can accommodate such a small number of refugees.

    Is this primarily an issue of cost?

    Could your country be that hard up?
     
  10. orestes1984 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    It's an issue of race, and prejudice, strong correlations have been made between boat people and terrorism. Then there's also the belief that they came here illegally, that they're also seen as "queue jumpers" that have somehow gotten ahead of those who came by plane or through "proper" channels, or just the plain fact that they're different and they don't belong in Australia.

    It's typical neoconservative fear of others who aren't Australians, much like hard line conservatives in many other places like the United States who believe the only answer to solving the problem is to build a wall around the country and have outposts on the borders to spot "illegal" arrivals and to deport them to whichever sorry country they came from.
     
  11. Tough Guy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    #11
    That sounds to me like a much bigger problem than anything Australia decides to do. And where are countries like China and Japan in all of this? Have they signed on?

    And people need to remember that these refugees typically aren't moving to rural Australia. I'd imagine almost 100% eventually make their way to one of the few major cities. Taking on 200,000 refugees per decade is one hell of a lot of strain to put on a city.
     
  12. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #12
    This is exactly the prejudice and xenophobia that the australian government (both sides of politics) are tapping into by being "tough" on these people illegal queue-jumping disease-ridden terrorists.

    The vast majority of people coming to australia by boat and seeking asylum are actually found to be genuine refugees. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php

    The biggest problem of undocumented arrivals is those from western countries overstaying their visas (see above link). But they are usually white and western with money so not a vulnerable political target.


    It isn't about no questions asked. The third option, that is the most reasonable is to take these people in and process them as asylum seekers. If they are genuine refugees they can be absorbed into the country for protection. It is what we owe them as a citizen of the world and as a rich country that can afford to do so. If they are found to be fraudulent then deport them.

    The current stance and this decision is absolutely disgusting. Nobody should be locked up for seeking asylum. Especially children. It is a dark time in australia's history. And the current conservative abbott government will have the blood on their hands forever.
     
  13. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #13
    Really? Just what does Australia "owe" Afghans and West Africans and how did they incur this debt?
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    I would think that a 0.86% increase over a ten-year period amounts to something less than "one hell of a lot."
     
  15. Tough Guy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    #15
    What city did you use to make your calculation? Far as I know, there's no city in Australia even remotely close to that large.

    But I'll await your response (showing your math as well).
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Your number of 200,000 divided by 23,130,0000 (the current population of Australia according to Google) equals 0.00864677907.
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    He used Australia's overall population, which is over 23 million. I'm skeptical that refugees would be sifted into some of their largest cities though, given the insane cost of living in those areas. Median SFH pricing is over $600k in some of their larger cities.
     
  18. Tough Guy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    #18
    Read the post you quoted. You can't just pretend not to see the word "city". Well, you can pretend, but your replies won't be taken seriously.

    ----------

    So you are trying to tell me they are dropped out in the wilderness to fend for themselves or in tiny villages without any resources meant to support them?

    Yeah, I'm sure that's what happens.
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Are the refugees restricted to reside in only one city?

    If so, then you have a point.

    Otherwise ...
     
  20. .Andy, Dec 7, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2014

    .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #20
    We don't owe them because they are Afghans and West Africans. That is missing the point. We owe them because they are our fellow humans - children, women, and men fleeing atrocities for their lives. The majority of the time through no fault of their own.

    There is no need to treat these people harshly. In fact is abominable to do so. They are entirely vulnerable and it is cowardly to pick on them for votes. We don't need to lock up children and send them back to war and poverty because we are afraid absorbing them into our country might impact our ability to upgrade to the new iphone next year.
     
  21. Tough Guy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    #21
    Immigrants tend to settle in large cities. Show me data that states these refugees are migrating to small farming villages or living in the wilderness.

    If even half of all refugees move to cities, that's upward of 100,000 refugees per decade. That's enough to put significant strain on social programs, transportation systems, etc.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    Cities.

    Plural.

    Just as I suspected.

    Odd. I don't recall making any argument like that.

    Regardless, you do you own research. I'm not into doing other people's homework.

    Is that a claim of fact, or is that just your opinion?
     
  23. Tough Guy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    #23
    Dodging the argument again. Exactly what I expected. And I'm still waiting to hear what city you based your calculation on. Are you planning on providing me that information or will you continue to pretend you didn't make the claim? I don't expect I'll be getting an answer.


    I don't recall you making any argument whatsoever. Not yet anyway.

    In other words, you're wrong and you know it.


    Australia has over $650 billion in government debt. Their social programs are already underfunded and strained.
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    Since 1945 Australia has had over 6.5 million immigrants from all over the world. Transportation and/or social program's have not collapsed. In fact the country is richer than ever.
     
  25. Tough Guy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    #25
    Australia has over $650 billion in government debt (and growing).

    I think you meant "more in debt than ever".
     

Share This Page