Boat People

Who cares one iota about an international archaic law, especially when that law was enacted with the specific purpose of helping the thousands of displaced persons, in the immediate aftermath of WW11 .These current 'illegals' are mere impostors who have no hesitation in jumping the long queue ahead of those who have been patiently waiting their turn.

Give them the good old Aussie boot, from whence they came!

 

Show us the proof that 'thousands of illegals arrive by air'. I have seen this declaration made before but no one has ever provided proof.

When you reply with your proof just remember I am debating your declaration of thousands not those who are, from time to time, granted special asylum eg those Chinese who were granted asylum in the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

 

It's spurious in the extreme to blame John Howard for the Seiv-x incident. If these people hadn't been encouraged to take this dangerous trip by the luvvie duvvies, this episode would never have occurred. The people who encouraged such a dangerous trip know they have blood on their hands and are conniving, with a degree of desperation, to shift the blame elsewhere. Fortunatley we were not all that easily fooled!

 

I have just one question: Are you a Liberal?

 

What's the point of the question?

Whether I vote Liberal or Labor is irrelevant. But whether there is a need for such an archaic law is relevant. It should be discarded into the rubbish bin of history, like all archaic laws. It's long past its used by date.

 

Why is it an archaic law? What is so wrong with allowing people to seek asylum by boat? How is that possibly wrong?

 

To stop te mysery of people smuggling. Simple really.

Why don't you support people that CAN'T afford to pay smugglers?

 

You forgot to say "I'm not a racist, but....." at the beginning of that

 

So, you have no problem with the vast majority of asylum seekers who arrive by plane. You just don't like the tiny minority that arrive by boat! How does that work? Why is the mode of transport relevant?

 

I would say that statistically, the chances of a similar incident would be lessened. What happened to those people elsewhere is another matter. I'm confident many die before getting the opportunity to hop on a boat in the first place (but i haven't looked to back that up).

 

World War 11? Shouldn't that be WWII? Roman numerals are used for a reason.

The international law should be revisited i agree, times have changed somewhat. However, the same situations exist for the fleeing of these people from where ever they come from.

I think what is most different is our use of these people as tools for domestic political advantage. As i've said before in this post, the geopolitical bollocks is what determines whether an asylum seeker is 'welcome'. If it suits, people fleeing an enemy are welcome. People fleeing regimes we support are really not particularly welcome.

Why did you say " 'illegals' "?

 

It would be very interesting to see if these smugglers make any real money from their endeavours. Has anyone ever investigated that?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if many or maybe most do it for very little financial gain.

 

I have just one question for you. Can you answer the rebuttals made but this, as well as other posters debating your arguments instead of answering with stupid and pointless questions like these?

 

LOL yeah smuggler are real humanitarians. Loading boats up to over capacity, ditching boats in Australian waters and jumping onto other vessels telling asylum seekers that the Navy will save them. As well as charging poor refugees an arm and a leg to jump in some POS boat.

They wouldn't do it if the money wasn't good, because they aren't in it for the desire to help refugees.

 

These "people smugglers" i.e. the crew of the actual boats are almost exclusively recruited from poor remote rural areas in Indonesia where they are existing barely at subsistence level. Many of these cant even read or write and some are as young as 15. The organisers who never step foot on the boats capitalise on these villagers poverty, there is a dual punishment ocurring when we imprison these crew members. That is that their families in many cases lose the main breadwinner of the family and sink further into poverty, there is no social security in Indonesia to provide for their families. I have seen disastrous social and economic consequences ocurring because of these peoples imprisonment.

 

Absolute pure nonsense.

 

You make several claims, throughout the forum, about how the boat people are escaping persecution.

This maybe true, however, where do they board the boats?
How many are being persecuted in the country, they board the boat?
If they are not persecuted, where they boarded the boat, would this make your claim redundant?
If they are not persecuted in the country, they board the boat and they are so desperate, why do they not claim asylum in that country?

Should you not address the real issues with the boats, rather than those you perceive, are the problem?

 

As has been pointed out the majority of asylum seekers are granted residency because are are determined to be genuine refugees. If you have an issue with the governments decision making process in regards to this process then state exactly what you have an issue with.

The countries that these asylum seekers pass through do not grant refugee status to these people, whether or not you agree with this is not the point. I dont see validity in the argument that just because 3rd world countries are reluctant to grant refugee status to these people then we should follow their example. We are Australian, not Malaysian or Indonesian or anything else, we determine the way we want to behave towards asylum seekers and our process.
If you think theres an argument to be made as to why we should behave more inhumanely towards these people then spit it out. Personally I believe that part of our national character is based on giving people a fair go and I am not prepared to sacrifice that for some cheap political point.

 

It aides people smuggling!

Are you people (*)(*)(*)(*)ing deaf?

 

Very simple really,because times have changed. New curcimstances need new laws not laws enacted to deal with problems of the past. The current boat people are not real refugees. They are just queue jumpers looking for the largesse handed out by Western nations. And they don't care if they trample(metaphorically speaking of course) on those who are (maybe years) ahead of them

 

Supply some factual information to support this. Whats your opinion based on other than what side of the bed you got out of this morning and the emotional manipulation of the gullible by some far right radio shock jock.

 

People from Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia etc can not be "real" refugees? How do you work that out

Are you telling us the vast majority of asylum seekers to Australia who are not "boat people" but arrive by plane ARE "real" asylum seekers? Why?

WTF is this "queue" you are talking about?

 

Guess what? Almost ALL of the asylum seekers over the past few years have had their Visa applications approved:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/boat-arrivals-almost-all-get-visas/story-e6frf7l6-1226011849151

Nearly ALL of the people arriving here by boat have been accepted as being genuine refugees - and yet the Liberals would still like to send these innocent people back to their countries where they will be beaten, raped or even murdered.

Tony Abbott would be proud, I am sure.

 

I already have - not one argument have I seen about why we should deny these people the right to enter our country. Not one.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/people-smugglers-operate-as-open-secret-20110128-1a8ds.html

Yeah pure nonsense.