• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

The Refugees, the Army and the Boat...

going by our population ("per capitre" is it?), we take on the second highest number of refugees a year of any country in the world. only canada takes on a higher ratio of refugees/population.
These numbers might be correct, but in no way do they represent our problems regarding asylum seekers (ie: those that turn up illegally). We accept heaps of refugees, because we choose to. You will however find that asylum seekers make up less than 4% of the total refugee influx. Here is a statistical breakdown of refugee's arriving in similar countries to australia...
Totalintake.gif

source: Refugee Council of Australia
You'll notice that the illegal refugees (blue bar) make up stuff all compared to other countries. The other thing that must be taken into account is that we choose to spend squillions on illegal refugees by making it law that they must be detained. It is also the case that even if illegal refugees are found to be legitimate the most they can hope for is a three month temporary visa and access to only limited social security.
The vast vast majority of refugees accepted into australia are legal. Just remember that the statistics sprouted by media outlets are more often incorrect, inaccurate or downright decietful.
And i think it's a sad day when a prime minister's popularity can sore on the basis of him being a right bastard to 400 people whose situation can only be described as desperate. It might be the majority opinion that he's doing the right thing, but if anything can be learnt from history it is that a majority can often be wrong...
* my opinion, nothing more, not worth much *
[This message has been edited by pundi (edited 31 August 2001).]
 
word up pundi! beautifuly said!
thank you!
Like it's been said over and over again in this thread, I have nothing against sending "dodgy" people back to their country.
But only once it has been determined they aren't refugees.
What happened to the "giving everyone a fair go" idea! It seems we have forgotten all bout it!
"...Afghan people can go to islamic SE Asian countries like Malaysia, however they choose to go there first, then they choose to try to enter Australia and it is my belief they choose to make the trip from these countries to Australia because we are considered to have a higher standard of living than countries like Malaysia, not because it is the only option they have..."
i don't blame them! put yourself in their position, wouldn't you do the same! wouldn't you want the best life possible for your children! I know i would!
[This message has been edited by Shadow (edited 31 August 2001).]
 
ta for pointing that out pundi, i usually don't use information when it's second hand, but then the abc is generally pretty reliable.
smile.gif

------------------
wisest is he who knows that he does not know...
 
hehe, yeah i would have thought the abc would be a good source too, but i guess that was ten years ago
wink.gif
.
I think the whole idea that we are being overriden with illegal refugee's is completely overblown. For example considering 1997 (yeah i know this was a while ago, but meh), Australia had a total of 10,000 illegal immigrants arrive. We granted 15% of those people asylum. That means that in that year only 1500 illegal immigrants were allowed to stay. That's hardly something to complain about when canada in that same year granted 10,000 people asylum (canada's total population is 30 million).
I'll repeat again that australia doesn't have a refugee problem, merely a problem with dealing with those few people that do arrive. We should be streamlining the determination process by which refugees are assessed. Lawyers and courts simply can't do it without turning it into one extremely expensive process. We need to do this differently...
I know that the stats used above are old, and that the number of people trying to enter australia has risen in recent years. But proportionally I don't feel it matters too much. And as an aside cnn claims that 2% of those illegal immigrants are from New Zealand... Stats are wonderful things
wink.gif
 
A number of people have put forth points regarding the questionable governments of the nations these people are fleeing from. Basically, I'll try to shed some light on historical/political reasons underpinning some of these, and also a few historical lessons we should be heeding in this situation.
The overwhelming majority of the refugees or 'boat people' that are attempting to imigrate to Australia are from Iraq and Afghanistan. A bit of background:
Afghanistan
In 1979 at what is now reflected upon to be at the second 'peak' of the Cold War, the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the interests of further cementing its periphery sphere of influence. During this period of tense Soviet/US relations many proxy wars were fought between these two powers in their respective battles for perceived security dominance, and Afghanistan was unfortunately one of them. The US, in age old fashion, took to supplying arms and money to the Taliban in order to resist the Soviet occupation. They did this despite foreknowledge of the rebel groups fundamentalist ideals and lack of regard for human rights. Eventually, due to a combination of factors including a crumbling economy and decline of the Union, the Soviets withdrew in 1989. Since the Taliban controlled large supplies of US armaments, they siezed control in the resulting power vaccum. This has resulted in constant violence and civil-war.
This from the UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR):
20 years after the 1978 Soviet invasion in support of the communist regime in Afghanistan, and 10 years after the withdrawl of the last Soviet soldier in 1989, Afghanistan is still a country in which armed conflict over power between opposing political factions continues. Afghanistan has in the process been devistated, producing the world's largest ever single refugee case-load, at times as high as 6.2 million persons.
For the sake of pointless self serving Cold War politics, this is currently one of the least desirable places to be on Earth. Most western UN nations currently also have trade sanctions enacted on Afghanistan, for the Taliban's failure to turn Osmar bin Laden over to international authorites (US and Australia are also complicit with these). This is only aggravating conditions within the country. The role the US played in putting the Taliban into power cannot be overlooked.
Compared to the total number of Asylum seekers circulating the globe, Australia has seen comparitively litte.
Iraq
Iraq invited the wrath of the entire western world when it invaded Kuwait (a territory historically belonging to Iraq anyway). Western nations and particulary the US swung into action at the prospect of their oil reserves being threatened, and the rest as they say... Is history. What is notable however is the fact once again, the US had been funding and supplying arms to Saddam throughout the 1980's during their war with Iran. It was largely through US support that Saddam's ruling socialist B'aath party was able to maintain a stable leadership of the nation.
What is interesting about the Gulf War is that the international task force failed to complete the job and perform a land invasion thereby deposing Hussein. Rather, the world has placed trade embargos on the nation in an effort to destabilise his regieme. It seems this however has had little effect, other than to drastically decrease living conditions for the Iraqi people, hence the outflux of refugees. The UN is no longer welcome in Iraq, largely due to the US exploiting UNESCO weapons inspections as a cover for CIA intel operations, which was exposed after the commander Scot Ritter went public. This has hampered efforts to resolve issues on an international level within the territory... The US's solution was to bomb targets within Iraq as part of the 1998 Desert Fox campaign. The rationale of that action was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, however this seems unlikely, as UNESCO inspections themselves had been unable to succesfully find any such sites even when they had access to the area some months before. Most targets included party headquaters, and industrial infrastructure.
It should not require a whole lot of explanation as to why refugees are trying their damndest to get out of this place...
Finally, I urge everybody here to read about the ill fated voyage of the SS St. Louis "the ship of shame" back in 1938. It was filled with Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany... It is interesting to note the numerous parralels its situation draws with the present. Remember, one who does not learn from the mistakes of history is doomed to repeat them.
Read it here: The voyage of the St. Lois
To those quoting John Howards current popularity over this issue as an excuse for its ethical grounds... I thought you of all could rise above populist politics and examine things with an eye for independant thought.
------------------
The woods are dark and deep, and you have miles to go before you sleep...
 
all i can say is,
much respect to you -Thoth!
Like Finn said, u r a wise one!
 
I'm a bit late to this debate as I didn't get back into the coutry until about day three and didn't give a toss about the news while away. Anyway my 2c. Although I'm for very liberal immigration policies as I prescribe to the aussie 25million policy (A little old and new tech should mean that the number is raised)(For reference this was a 70's scientific study into the ideal self sustaining polulation for Australia) which has never been implimented. I don't care where they come from, what religion they follow or what language they speak (Although I do believe they should learn some English when arriving). But when it comes to assylum seekers not is all as it seems. Many are criminals on the run for various (And legitimate) crimes such as rape, murder etc and should be scrutinised through a detainment process. I feel that these facilities should of a far higher quality than they are now and on par with the average living conditions of residents of Australia. Anyway my final point is that this ship is full of almost all males which makes me suspicious. Are they genuanly on the run from an oppressive government or are they weathly individuals who can afford the way out through this means with bank accounts that can be accessed as some later stage, which happens ask any one at immigration especially the lawyers who work straight to the minister (ie lawyers who do the final checking, the good ones not the bad). Anyway just my opinion. Would you not think that a genuine cargo od asylum seekers would have a good proportion of women and children as these are (For the most part) the carers and the future. Anyway I'm a bit suspicious on this one, to many males for my liking.
 
Just an update while I see this has been bumped again.
I'm watching right now live footage of them being ferried onto the HMAS Manora(sp?). Seems the lot of them will be spending a lot of time on the water. Its at least a week before they will get to their next port of call and it's still not even been decided whether or not they will be allowed to land when they get there, so it could be another week back. Virgin Blue cheif, Mr Icantremberhisname, has told the media in a pretty cheap publicity stunt that he can fix the whole thing right now and end Australia's embarressment as he put it by offering them all a free flight home. Only problem now seems everyone is only to willing to take these people somewhere for nothing but with all the legal mess and political red tape behind the whole situation they wont actually be allowed to go anywhere.
It seems there will be no quick solution to this and does appear that its all going to end up in a back and forward court case that will never end while the refugees will just have to drive arround in circles in international water somewhere.
 
just a note on "queue jumpers" and "economic refugees".
Firstly: look at the people who did come through the "right channels". These are well of people for a citizenship simply for economic reasons.
Secondly: if poverty causes someone to die of starvation, it is still death.
Not Happy
 
A BIG FUCK YOU TO REMMY
I say this only to illustrate a point[so chill Finn]. I'm a human, I have a right to opinion, these people have a right to opinion too[yes even you too remmy] perhaps they could even be the same as us?[heaven forbid]. Attempts have been made to dehumanise these people, labels such as queue jumpers and criminals spring to mind, you apply these labels to these people for wanting what you have the good fortune to take for granted?. Those are people out there, Fuck sakes.
There is of course the grey area genuine criminals amongst refugees. But the issue still stands, there are four hundred people out there on a vessel that should hold 27. Unfortunately there is the other grey area of precedent, politics does not allow for each situation [social contract negates this]. I dont have the answers I do not credit myself with the knowledge or intelligence to successfully address this situation, but it always angers/pains me to see people suffering needlessly.
p.s. I hope that was a joke mirage, if so it wasnt funny, remnants of white australia policy indeed
 
blah...i cbf reading the thread.
but....
legitimate people who have came here from overseas have spent $$$ and time doing it the right way. Is it fair on them that other people can just stroll in? I'm sorry but no, fuck that. I do have pity for these people, but where do we draw the line?
 
serotone,
if you cbf reading the thread then you shouldn't bf posting a reply!
if you had bothered to read it, you would probably realise that there are many many reasons why this is not the appropriate time or place to draw the line you refer to!
Finn
 
I think there's a bit of confusion here...
Guys the refugees who are the most poor are some of the ones who are stuck in Asia LEGALLY trying to gain admittance into our country.
Why?
Because paying these people smugglers costs an awful lot of money. I heard last night, but unfortunately can't remember now for the life of me, exactly how much these people were paying for illegal transport, but it was a fair old wack of money.
The refugees who are trying to gain an honest entrance into Australia are the ones disadvantaged, because they are too poor to afford the illegal transport, and they are probably the biggest sufferers for what is undeniably in my opinion, queue skipping.
These refugees illegally gaining entrance are the ones who are rich enough to afford it, not the economically poor ones. I might also add that they are also generally the ones who refuse to give identification - Very suspect to my mind.
I think the steps we should really be taking is prioritising faster response and management of the offshore refugees trying to gain an honest admittance. I think our priorities are in some cases a bit messed up, though many I think mean well.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the amount that it "supposedly" costs 1 person to go on a boat is $10,000:00
Certainly not cheap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------
SILENCE!!!!!!!! Your insolence will not be tolerated - Dr Evil
 
Yeah $10,000 is the information I got aswell, but apparently some times its even more than that. So what some clever smugglers must be making a hell of a lot of cash of these people if they cram 400+ bodies on board.
 
""...Afghan people can go to islamic SE Asian countries like Malaysia, however they choose to go there first, then they choose to try to enter Australia and it is my belief they choose to make the trip from these countries to Australia because we are considered to have a higher standard of living than countries like Malaysia, not because it is the only option they have...""
"i don't blame them! put yourself in their position, wouldn't you do the same! wouldn't you want the best life possible for your children! I know i would!"
So what you are saying is that they aren't coming here running from an oppressive regime in Afghanistan, they've got away from that and have now decided to better their situation by coming into a country illegally, hmmm that hardly seems a good enough reason to be letting them in.
If Malaysia is not good enough then I think I'd be letting all the legal Malaysian refugee applicants in before I'd let illegal refugees in, don't you think?
Basically their trip wasn't a question of necessity it was an illegal attempt to enter a country because it has a "better" standard of living, than the country they were in - Malaysia in this case.
 
Mr E Moore, I'll clarify why the refugees come here rather than attempting to seek asylum in other Islamic nation states. The reason this is is due to the fact that Australia is the only country in the region that is a signiature state to the Refugee Convention of 1954. The convention states that all asylum seekers arriving on a member states territory must be entitled to due process in determining their refugee status. Malasia, Indonesia and other Islamic nations did not ratify the convention, which means they can deport asylum seekers without any recourse. The reason refugees come to Australia is because they realise they have a chance under Australian law at getting their refugee status recognised. That is what is a main controversial issue at hand with regards to the Tampa situation, as Australia dispensed with its obligations to the Convention when it refused to allow the Tampa to dock.
 
Looks like this will be an ongoing issue...
Boatpeople must return: judge
From AAP
11sep01
A FEDERAL Court judge has ordered the asylum seekers rescued by the Norwegian freighter MS Tampa last month be returned to the Australian mainland.
In a stunning blow to the federal government, Justice Tony North ruled the asylum seekers had been illegally detained on board the Tampa after the rescue on August 26.
He ordered that they be brought to Australia by 5pm (AEST) this Friday unless his ruling was overtured on appeal.
The judge said it had been established that the asylum seekers had been held in detention when 45 SAS troops boarded the Tampa off Christmas Island.
"Where complete control over people and their destiny is exercised by others it cannot be said that the opportunity offered by those others is a reasonable escape from the custody in which they were held," Justice North said.
"An ancient power of the court is to protect people against detention without lawful authority."
In the action brought by Melbourne solicitor Eric Verdalis and the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties (VCCL) it was claimed that no person in Australia could be detained without lawful authority.
Justice North said the contention was so well established in Australian law that the government did not challenge it.
The government however denied that the asylum seekers were held in detention on the MS Tampa and that they were free to go wherever they wished, except for Australia.
I guess everyone will start bagging the courts now. It will be pretty hard to sneak this one past them seeing as it's pretty fundamental to the judicial system that no-one has the right to detain another without lawful cause. Good work Mr North
smile.gif
...
 
Top