This is your reply to my asking you to justify your accusation that Abbott is a racist? To condemn anyone without factual backup, is common to those dictators you mention.
Catter, I hear what you are saying. There is so much bias media reporting and false information given to the public, that there is no way for anyone to know or fully understand what is really happening. These facts are now compounded by politicians who believe they have the moral right to keep & hide the truth from the Australian public, like we were some firghtened stupid children that always need protecting "from" the truth, and cannot make rational decisions for ourselves. When discussing issues surrounding the welfare and protection of other people, emotions always run high and become a factor in the discussion, and in the majority of these discussions, logic and facts fly out the window. No one really knows the true extent of Leo's mental condition at the time he committed suicide. The advocacy groups want to blame someone and point fingers without wanting to know all the informating and facts, and the Government wants to deflect any responsibility by hiding the information and facts. For people like myself who want to know and understand the truth and whats really happening, we constantly get told bias information by people with their own specific individual agendas, that is not necessarily the truth and facts surrounding the issue they are presenting. I feel extremely sad about what happened to Leo, but the media did deliberately use Leo and his situation as "one" suicide on that day to inflame the refugee situation and the people for their own agenda to sell a media story and newspapers. How many other Australians committed suicide on that same day as Leo due a "mental health" related condition that was never reported, or got the same media coverage as Leo's situation? Is this the extent of our patriotic mentality and attitude these days. We give sympathy and empathy for a refugee who committs suicide due to a mental health condition, and who is frightened and scared. But for an Australian who is frightened and scared and committs suicide due to a mental health condition, we just sweep it under the carpet and don't want to know it exists? How many Australians commit suicide every day of the week, because they are frightened, alone, and have no one to turn too...?
CD, not bad again.... If we treat refugees the way they deserve there will be less tragedies like this one, plain and simple. We signed a treaty a long time ago, and see what happens under Adolf Abbott? Regards
How about dealing with a few real world issues. For example, the fact that if left unchecked, people smuggling would definitely grow into a deadly nightmare.
And how do you sort them out, the economy ones and the war refugee ones? In international waters? By turning the whole lot back? Turning a blind eye? It only works with a proper and diligent process in place... Regards
I thought you'd like to see the attached map. If the US is not an economic superpower now, what's the definition? It's the successful economic system that the US used that has overtaken all other economies, not just Australia's. China is joining the US as an economic superpower using a free enterprise system. If you want Australia to be neutral we'd still need a backup. Switzerland has the EU.
I don't have the statistics, but it is my understanding that if a refugee lands in Australia, they have the resources provided to them to circumvent any laws that require them to leave even if they are found to not be entitled to refugee status. So the only solution is to not let them land.
Are you telling us that self proclaimed refugees are not provided with legal representation, all the way to the high court if necessary, at Australian taxpayers expenses? Can't change the fact that we cannot take in endless streams of freeloaders. There is a point where we cannot take anymore. When I look at our own homeless, welfare, unemployment and health care queues I would say we are at that point now.
The simple facts are: anyone arriving in our country without any identification and documentation to prove who they are, cannot be automatically given refugee asylum or automatically released into our society. I dare anyone to tell me, if a complete stranger knocked at their door, they would allow that stranger to enter their house, and live in their house without knowing anything about them. This would be an act of absolute stupidity, and we all know it. This is the reason why refugees showing up without any documentation have to be held in detention camps until their true identities have been verified. Its my understand that its the responsibility and job of the UN to investigate, and then protect people being victimised by the governments in their own countries. If certain groups of people in Sri Lanka are being victimised by other groups, and the Sri Lankan Government knows about it, then why is the UN doing nothing about it, and why are the people of other countries and the media in those countries not asking the UN what "they" are doing to stop the victimisation in Sri Lanka. I understand the empathy and compassion for the plight of people in distress. I also understand some Australian people have committed their own personal resources to attack our Governments legal responsibility to the welfare of refugees, which I believe is a good thing, but shouldn't these people also be attacking the UN's responsibility and job to ensure the protection and welfare of citizens living in their own country? Why has the UN not sent in UN troops to Sri Lanka to investigate these complaints that people are being killed and tortured? If individual countries are forced to deal with the massive problem of refugees on their own, then what the hell is the UN good for, and why are tax payers supporting it? Seems to me, its an antiquated department financially sponging off the tax payers to keep a hand-full of old retired diplomats employed, so they can jet-set around the world throwing endless cocktail parties - and accomplishing nothing.
Surely, the easiest way to stay in downunder is to arrive by plane and never hop on your return flight. That is far cheaper, then paying 10grand to people smugglers. Except, you don't have a passport and are fleeing your own country. We shouldn't , and no point, demonize people, who arrive on our doorsteps by boats. Only if it can be proven, that they hope for a better financial life, they should be send back to apply for the right way Regards
I agree, that no one would be automatically demonsied by the method of transport in which they arrive in Australia. I also agree many people arrrive in Australia with visa's, and never return home again, but thats were Australian tax payers money is not spent wisely, on employing more customs officers to search for these people and return them. Unfortunately, Australian politicians would rather squander tax payers money on paying a chef $40,000 to fly over to the USA to cook a few chops on the Barbie. I also understand that people fleeing their countries due to emergency situations don't have time to get passports or visas. However, you are suggesting that every person that has arrived in Australia by boat without any documentation has never previously had a visa or passport. You are also suggesting that "ALL" these individuals have never had a licence to drive a motor vehicle in their countries, and have never had any basic accounts with their names on them. Basic documents - licence, phone, electircity, gas, doctors, or another account with their names on them that they could easiely bring with them without any problems. I'm sorry, but no one will ever convince me, that in every situation, armed soldiers approach all these peoples homes, and all these people that have arrived here by boat without any documentation, only have 60 seconds to get their belonging and flee. I really admire peoples compassion and empathy in these situations, but I also feel their empathy and compassions somtimes blinds them to logic. Refugees fleeing Sri Lanks by the land route have to pass through six countries before coming to Australia. India; Bangladesh; Myanmar; Thailand; Malaysia and Indonesia. Australia has embassies in every one of these countries these so-called asylum seekers travel through. Why didn't these fleeing refugees seek asylum in any of these six Australian Embassies? Didn't Julian Assange seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, when he felt his life was threatened and in danger? Did Assange travel through 6 other countries to get to his chossen country before seeking asylum, or did he approach the first foreign Embassy that could offer his asylum? All these problems are personified by ''Captain Emad'', who fled Australia in June even though he had been under investigation by police. The man, Abu Khalid, was a people smuggler who came to Australia by passing himself off as an asylum seeker. He brought his wife, three children and a grandchild. All received refugee status, settled in Canberra and were provided with public housing despite using different identities to those they used to enter Indonesia from Iraq. Yet even after Khalid's activities were exposed by the ABC's Four Corners program, he was allowed to leave. Systemic deceit has been rewarded by systemic support. Even some asylum seekers who have avoided immigration control, destroyed their identity documents and not yet had their claims decided are eligible for support under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme. Among the benefits that can be made available to those granted protection visas, and those granted refugee status, is a one-off household formation package of up to $9850. Families can be eligible for education assistance of up to $9220. People granted refugee status become eligible for welfare payments immediately without having to wait the two-year period set for immigrants. Single applicants are eligible for a Newstart Allowance. Parents are eligible for Centrelink's parenting payment. Refugees, and some on bridging visas, also receive Medicare assistance for medical, hospital, dental, medicine and optical costs. Mobile phones are provided to those who arrive as unaccompanied minors. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html
Hi, some of your points are certainly true, Julian Assange however was a bad example. How about this: If those who are not in danger at home(proven)can't settle in Australia within 2 years, meaning making their own money, will be send back? I am currently in Switzerland, you wouldn't believe on which levels people discuss the subject migrants, I think we could learn a lot from them.... Cheerio
Compare the death toll with that of the ALP`s slack border policies. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ration-protective-edge-continues-9601820.html
I feel Assange was a good example, because it demonstrates perfectly, that anyone who feels their life or liberty is being threatened can seek help and assistance in any foreign embassy in any country regardless of their status. That is what a foreign embassy in a foreign country is for. Maybe you could give an example; whereby Julian Assange approaching a foreign embassy seeking help from a foreign country is different to a refugee seeking the same help from a foreign embassy in a foreign country? The government "own" reports have already proven the majority 85.3% of refugees coming to Australia come here for easy access to Australia's welfare system. LINK below. https://engage.wa.liberal.org.au/na...manitarian-migrants-on-benefits-after-5-years There is no legal recourse for Australia under our current human rights act that would allow these refugees into our country, and then legally force them to obtain work within a set period of time or they would be returned home. Australia being a volunteer signatory to the UN convention on refugees also has to comply with the UN's legal legislation. Therefore, Australia's only option at the moment, is to try and stop the 85.3% of financial opportunistic refugees coming here, who are obviously coming here for no other reason except to take advantage of our countries easy welfare system. Refugees come here and get our tax payer welfare, but our own countries young people are forced to have no money, because they are not entitled to any welfare benefits for 6 months after they leave education training. Is Australian tax payers money suppose to be helping refugees coming here to sponge off us, or our own people who really need it? Yes. European countries are definitely looking at the refugee problem differently, and they don't seem to have the same child like naivety that Australians have.
CD, Assange wasn't getting any help from his embassy, but another county's one, I think it says it all. The one who hasn't done wrong is on the run, while those who caused the war are free. What a world are we living in? 85% economic migrants? That is a lot, I agree. But it still means we have to look at those 15%, which might come from war torn countries. Sorry, not much time these days, regards
But the point is. Anyone can go to any foreign embassy in any foreign country for help if their life is in "real" danger, and any embassy will help them if endangerment can be proven. Why are not Sri Lankan refugee's or other refugees coming from the middle east going to "any" foreign embassy in the 6 countries they pass through for help - including Australian embassies in those countries? Its a legitimate and reasonable question. 85% of refugees still on welfare after 5 years, is a massive financial burden on the Australian tax payers. I believe the answer is; anyone who arrives in Australia without any documentation supporting who they are, is automatically disqualified from resettlement in Australia regardless of circumstance.
Okay, I share a certain sentiment with your first two sentences.The last point I oppose to the strongest. How many people do you know haven't got a travel document, most people refer to as passport? I know plenty. Now just assume, there is a war coming to Australia, and you have to run, there is no time to wait a month before such a document can be obtained.... Regards
I like the idea. It could work for a country like Australia, because we are so far away and isolated by oceans. You cannot get here without documents, not legally or deliberately avoiding other safe ports in poorer countries then Australia. If someone turns up with documentation, then its proof they've traveled illegally through other countries - therefore criminals. The only argument I can think of is a claim that someone kidnapped them, stole their documents and put them on a boat..... but then how did that boat manage to make passage to Australia, most often past many safe ports in other countries along the way!? Its not possible. They are clearly bypassing the refugee system for economic reasons... and that is not a valid reason for asylum/refugee status. Real refugee's are just happy to escape the violence, fake refugee's spend money to turn up and lie about it to get our welfare.
Exactly. They're coming because we subsidize poverty. Abolish entitlements and the problem disappears, they're free to compete in the labor market absent of taxpayer backing.
The Australian Labour market is not working in Australia to support your idea. Ask the thousands of unemployed Australians losing their jobs daily, or the unemployed who have lost the opportunity get employment, because foreign 457 visa workers are being brought into Australia by foreign owned companies to work cheaper than Australian workers. Australian politicians are allowing this to happen, and then they hurting the unemployed by not giving them any welfare assistance when they cannot get employment.
I have no interest in protecting you from competition. If two parties consent to an employment contract I have no desire to interfere. If the employee party undercuts what you're willing to work for that's tough nuts. I have nothing in particular against your preference for protectionism and isolation, but I do not share it.
I think you have a very sad opinion of humanity. We are not be considered ants, who have to scurry around on the floor fighting each other over the bread crumbs being chucked down to us by the master sitting at the table.
