Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Is the economic-migrant floodgate about to open?

Is the economic-migrant floodgate about to open?

One little story that has all but disappeared in the flurry of election news is the fact that the Australian Navy picked up 16 Indonesians and they are being detained on Christmas Island. Now reports in today’s Australian describe them thus:

They are the island’s first illegal arrivals since February, but will not be joining Vietnamese brothers Joseph and Joe in the island’s detention centre. This is because families with children have been held in community detention, not detention centres, since June 2005.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship officials yesterday continued interviews with the adults in the group – fishermen Sukardi Liri, Sadar and Sangaji Jawa and their wives – as part of an assessment of their claims for protection.

Relatives and neighbours on Roti have told The Australian the group was seeking economic asylum because the commonwealth’s crackdown on illegal fishing had made it impossible for them to earn a living*.

The department refuses to allow the families to speak to The Australian, saying no media can speak with the group while their interviews with the department are continuing. Guards manned the porches of the group’s three homes yesterday.

The Australian

If they are seeking to come here for purely economic reasons then by any measure they are not “Refugee’s” nor are the “asylum seekers ” they re illegal immigrants pure and simple. I have already noticed oneUber-lefty who claims that these people are “refugees” The poor sad sack is obviously of the “border security? We don’t need border security!” school of thought that would allow just about anyone to enter the country. So this will actually be the first test for the incoming Rudd government with the ideologues from the   far left.
This latest group of boat people should be promptly sent back to Indonesia where they do not face any discrimination, where they would not be in fear of their lives, where their only problem is an economic one and where the Indonesian government has the actual responsibility for their welfare.

Finally there is more than  just a hint of hypocrisy in certain a  “green” Uber-lefty supporting the case of this group of “refugees” when their fishing practice is responsible for the near extinction of reef sharks in northern Australian waters, a significant environmental crime by any measure, yet that Uber-lefty will without doubt make any excuse to ignore this inconvenient truth.
I predict that the detention centre on Christmas island will actually get quite a workout in the coming years as the change of government encourages the people smugglers to try their hand once again. How long will it be before that facility is not only commissioned but full to capacity?


It’s a worrying start Comrades

8)

* my bold 

 


15 Comments

  1. Mondo Rock says:

    I predict that the detention centre on Christmas island will actually get quite a workout in the coming years as the change of government encourages the people smugglers to try their hand once again.

    I’ll hold you to that prediction Iain.

    If it turns out that you’re wrong, as I suspect you will be, I wonder if you’ll accept it or simply try to spin your way out?

  2. Iain says:

    Mondo
    Please explain just why I would need to apply any spin at all to my prediction should it fail to materialise?
    Given the risk to life and the pernicious exploitation of the migrants by the people smugglers I would in fact be quite happy to be wrong on this prediction.

  3. MK says:

    The environment will just have to take one for the team Iain, the leftists have Australia to undermine.

  4. Madd McColl says:

    Iain you’re peddling that falsity that asserts that Howard’s harsh border policies were actually responsible for the decline in numbers, how can you argue this so confidently? Take the time look at a graph of world refugee numbers prior to and after 2001 and I think you’ll discover a rather large fault in that argument. Australia received a tiny trickle of refugees by world standards and reacted pathetically (to win an election albeit) in response. Numbers worldwide declined immediately between 2001 to 2002 due to many factors and as our history with such things dictates, when Europe and America recieve far less, Australia recieves near to none.

    Howard’s behaviour in this area was atrocious and embarrassing considering the tiny numbers we were dealing with in comparison to others. When will you people wake up to that fact?

  5. Iain says:

    In a word MM
    Bollocks,
    Australia is a very desirable destination for illegal immigrants and unlike most of the other equally desirable destinations we have no porous land borders. And as others here have pointed out it was the ALP that ”invented’ the detention regime and it is the fact that we allowed (and financed) many layers for appealing decisions that ensured that many claimants for refugee status spent long periods in detention, and don’t forget that they could leave the country any time they wished.

  6. Madd McColl says:

    Exactly what is “bollocks” Iain? Nothing you’ve said above actually refutes what I said.

    I pointed out the FACT that world refugee levels dropped immediately after 2001 coinciding with Operation Relex. Indeed the U.N will let you know I’m right:

    http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home?page=statistics

    The EU-25, Europe, Canada/U.S.A, Australia and N.Z all experienced an enormous drop (around 50% across the board) after 2001. Tell me, was Howard responsible for all this? The fact that the Australian Navy regard Relex as being an absolute failure always seems to slip peoples attention (funnily enough).

    Where’s the evidence to support your assertion that Labor will encourage an influx?

    ‘Australia is a very desirable destination for illegal immigrants and unlike most of the other equally desirable destinations we have no porous land borders.’

    Firstly, a “refugee” isn’t an “illegal immigrant” get it right, a refugee can legally enter and claim asylum. In excess of 90% of The Tampa’s load were given refugee status. Secondly, as far as Australia being “very desirable”, it doesn’t even rate on most U.N graphs because of how minute the numbers are (even at the peak) comparably. From memory the high point is 4%. It was a small trickle.

    ‘…and don’t forget that they could leave the country any time they wished.’

    I’ll just let that comment sit there shall I? Bravo Iain, bravo.

    The Coalition disgustingly used the lives of refugees to win government. Remember the orders for ministers to not take “humanising” photographs of refugees? The media bans? The consistent accusation that terrorists could be amongst them? Don’t be so naive. The Howard government transparently flirted with race politics ever since neutralising Hanson, and you guys wonder why base members were caught handing out those flyers during the election.

    Priceless.

  7. Iain says:

    Exactly what is “bollocks” Iain? Nothing you’ve said above actually refutes what I said.

    MM
    It is all well and good for you to claim that the down turn in attempts to get to this country is all about declines the movements of would be migrants world wide and I won’t deny that this may be a contributing factor But the bottom line is that the Howard government’s unflinching insistence that it would not allow so called refugees to easily get any kind of permeant residency has provided a great disincentive for people trying to get into the country.
    But read the quote I cite for this piece it clearly states that this latest group attempted to come here for purely economic reasons and there is no doubt in my mind that as such they would not meet any definition of a “refugee”. Now you can sprout all of the stats and United Nations reports that you can find but none of them will change that fact. How about you consider the implications of that in relation to your apparent support for an open door policy for all who wish to come to this country?

    Where’s the evidence to support your assertion that Labor will encourage an influx?

    Well as I have said in a previous comment I hope for the sake of the exploited hopefuls that I am wrong but you can’t tell me that if Labor significantly relaxed the policy that there would not be more people trying their luck

    ‘Australia is a very desirable destination for illegal immigrants and unlike most of the other equally desirable destinations we have no porous land borders.’

    Firstly, a “refugee” isn’t an “illegal immigrant” get it right, a refugee can legally enter and claim asylum. In excess of 90% of The Tampa’s load were given refugee status. Secondly, as far as Australia being “very desirable”, it doesn’t even rate on most U.N graphs because of how minute the numbers are (even at the peak) comparably. From memory the high point is 4%. It was a small trickle.

    It gets down to definitions doesn’t? firstly someone who tries to enter this or any other country is not automatically a “refugee” as you are trying to suggest and in the case I cite for this piece it is clear that they are illegal immigrants coming here for economic reasons. Further as I say in the piece they are environmental criminals who have been working hard on causing the extinction of sharks on our northern reefs which should in it’s self be enough reason for anyone with any kind of “green” credentials to have nothing with aiding and abetting criminals to enter this country.

    ‘…and don’t forget that they could leave the country any time they wished.’

    I’ll just let that comment sit there shall I? Bravo Iain, bravo.

    Good because it is absolutely true .

    The Coalition disgustingly used the lives of refugees to win government. Remember the orders for ministers to not take “humanising” photographs of refugees? The media bans? The consistent accusation that terrorists could be amongst them? Don’t be so naive. The Howard government transparently flirted with race politics ever since neutralising Hanson, and you guys wonder why base members were caught handing out those flyers during the election.

    Priceless.

    But my point with this piece is that now the Ruddites have to wrestle with a problem that is far more difficult that you “open slather lefties” are willing to admit. The reasons that people try to enter this country illegally are as varied as there are chancers on the boats Demonise Howard as much as you like because I don’t see Rudd talking about any radical changes to the way that we treat illegal arrivals, the pacific solution was always going to be a stopgap and now that we have a shiny new facility on Christmas Island I see no moral problem with processing the likes of this group there before sending them back to Indonesia, where they face no fear of anything but how to make a legal living rather than trying to plunder our fisheries.

  8. Madd McColl says:

    ‘It is all well and good for you to claim that the down turn in attempts to get to this country is all about declines the movements of would be migrants world wide and I won’t deny that this may be a contributing factor But the bottom line is that the Howard government’s unflinching insistence that it would not allow so called refugees to easily get any kind of permeant residency has provided a great disincentive for people trying to get into the country.’

    So in short, you have no evidence to support your assertion? I’ve proven that Australia’s decline in refugees is exactly comparable to every other country in percentage after 2001, therefore I’ve supported my case with EVIDENCE. You’ve merely unthinkingly repeated the party line ignoring all facts to the contrary.

    Again “so-called” refugees?? The influx during and before 2001 WERE UNDENIABLY refugees, they were largely proven to be just this.

    ‘But read the quote I cite for this piece it clearly states that this latest group attempted to come here for purely economic reasons and there is no doubt in my mind that as such they would not meet any definition of a “refugee”.’

    This is not what I’m arguing, I agree that there’s no such thing as an “economic refugee”. I’m addressing other fallacies in your post.

    ‘How about you consider the implications of that in relation to your apparent support for an open door policy for all who wish to come to this country?’

    Straw man argument.

    ‘Well as I have said in a previous comment I hope for the sake of the exploited hopefuls that I am wrong but you can’t tell me that if Labor significantly relaxed the policy that there would not be more people trying their luck’

    So what’s the deterant now Iain? The Pacific Solution? We need not send them to other countries just so we can spare the population the truth and subsequent guilt. Why would actual “illegals” try their luck when they know that the system will reject them if they aren’t genuine?

    ‘It gets down to definitions doesn’t? firstly someone who tries to enter this or any other country is not automatically a “refugee” as you are trying to suggest’

    Another straw man, as Elijah would say, you’re going for an agricultural subsidy.

    ‘…and in the case I cite for this piece it is clear that they are illegal immigrants coming here for economic reasons.’

    Again, not arguing that these people are refugees.

    ‘…I don’t see Rudd talking about any radical changes to the way that we treat illegal arrivals…’

    Ditching the Pacific Solution IS a radical change from Howard as it is one of the most ridiculous policies in Australian history.

    ‘…the pacific solution was always going to be a stopgap…’

    A six year “stopgap” Iain? Howard loved it don’t kid yourself and would have continued down that path as long as he could have.

  9. Iain says:

    So in short, you have no evidence to support your assertion? I’ve proven that Australia’s decline in refugees is exactly comparable to every other country in percentage after 2001, therefore I’ve supported my case with EVIDENCE. You’ve merely unthinkingly repeated the party line ignoring all facts to the contrary.

    I think that it is you who is ignoring the fact that the attempts to get into this country by boat not only declined in the period you cite but virtually stopped.

    Again “so-called” refugees?? The influx during and before 2001 WERE UNDENIABLY refugees, they were largely proven to be just this.

    MM this is really just a difference in our viewpoints here. You clearly take the claims from those who try to enter the country illegally at face value but I don’t so what? Anyone who comes here claiming to be a refugee have the onus to prove their status, until they manage to do that they are not in any legal sense “refugees”

    ‘But read the quote I cite for this piece it clearly states that this latest group attempted to come here for purely economic reasons and there is no doubt in my mind that as such they would not meet any definition of a “refugee”.’

    This is not what I’m arguing, I agree that there’s no such thing as an “economic refugee”. I’m addressing other fallacies in your post.

    But the latest arrivals ARE the topic of my post and you seem to be invoking the straw man yourself by talking about everything but the latest arrivals to Christmas Island.

    ‘How about you consider the implications of that in relation to your apparent support for an open door policy for all who wish to come to this country?’

    Straw man argument.

    But the implications of any change of policy IS the topic of my post MM and you seem unwilling to consider it at all.

    ‘Well as I have said in a previous comment I hope for the sake of the exploited hopefuls that I am wrong but you can’t tell me that if Labor significantly relaxed the policy that there would not be more people trying their luck’

    So what’s the deterrent now Iain? The Pacific Solution? We need not send them to other countries just so we can spare the population the truth and subsequent guilt. Why would actual “illegals” try their luck when they know that the system will reject them if they aren’t genuine?

    But MM that is exactly how any kind of deterrent works. Would you floor it in your car when you saw a cop with a radar gun by the side of the road? NO of course you would not do that because you are deterred by the consequences. 🙄

    ‘It gets down to definitions doesn’t? Firstly someone who tries to enter this or any other country is not automatically a “refugee” as you are trying to suggest’

    Another straw man, as Elijah would say, you’re going for an agricultural subsidy.

    No you are just citing the straw man to avoid the very pertinent point about who actually is a refugee.

    ‘…and in the case I cite for this piece it is clear that they are illegal immigrants coming here for economic reasons.’

    Again, not arguing that these people are refugees.

    Then why are you commenting on this post? For it is this group of people and the fact that at least one Uber-Lefty claims that they ARE refugees that is exactly what this post is about.

    ‘…I don’t see Rudd talking about any radical changes to the way that we treat illegal arrivals…’

    Ditching the Pacific Solution IS a radical change from Howard as it is one of the most ridiculous policies in Australian history.

    ‘…the pacific solution was always going to be a stopgap…’

    A six year “stopgap” Iain? Howard loved it don’t kid yourself and would have continued down that path as long as he could have.

    On the surface the main objection top the Pacific solution has always been that would be illegal immigrants should be processed in this country. But the fact that they were not getting into Australia before they proved their bona fides was another reason that trying to get into Australia became more difficult and less attractive. Well the new facility on Christmas Island achieves the aims of not letting Illegal arrivals enter the country proper UNTIL they prove their claims while they will actually be on Australian soil. The same clear disincentive that worked with the pacific solution without the messy and expensive consequences of having them detained in another country. i would argue that even if the Howard government had been returned we would have seen the end of the pacific solution, precisely because the facility on Christmas Island is now ready to be commissioned.

  10. Madd McColl says:

    ‘I think that it is you who is ignoring the fact that the attempts to get into this country by boat not only declined in the period you cite but virtually stopped.’

    Just as the numbers entering Indonesia from where our arrivals left virtually stopped Iain, please look up the evidence, then speak. You’ve shown how ignorant you are on this issue once again.

    ‘You clearly take the claims from those who try to enter the country illegally at face value but I don’t so what? Anyone who comes here claiming to be a refugee have the onus to prove their status, until they manage to do that they are not in any legal sense “refugees”’

    OK, you don’t seem to be understanding what I’m actually saying. Firstly for a refugee to enter the country in such a fashion is NOT “illegal” as I’ve said. Secondly, I said that the overwhelming majority had thier histories and stories thoroughly checked and were given refugee status. Australia refused to settle them anyway in many cases out of spite, they were often sent to thrid countries where they now live. So this isn’t about ME taking them at face value, it’s about FACTS.

    ‘But the latest arrivals ARE the topic of my post and you seem to be invoking the straw man yourself by talking about everything but the latest arrivals to Christmas Island.’

    Iain it’s clear and obvious what I’ve been addressing all along so stop attempting to draw me into the ins and outs of these latest cases since I haven’t mentioned them at all except to point out that I agree that there’s no such thing as an economic refugee. So please give that one up. I’m addressing the charge that Labor would open the floodgates and the implicit (now explicit) suggestion that Howard was solely responsible for closing them.

    ‘But the implications of any change of policy IS the topic of my post MM and you seem unwilling to consider it at all.’

    What are you blind!? That’s the main point I’m addressing! I’m attacking your fallacy that Howard’s heartless policies stemmed the tide in any hugely significant way. All the evidence I’ve provided is directed towards this point.

    ‘But MM that is exactly how any kind of deterrent works. Would you floor it in your car when you saw a cop with a radar gun by the side of the road? NO of course you would not do that because you are deterred by the consequences.’

    You missed my point Iain, the system is deterant enough for actual “illegals” because when their stories are checked they’re sent back. No humane country should impliment a program where desperate real refugees are locked up in third countries for years as punishment for taking flight, solely to deter others from seeking refuge!!! I mean the moral bankruptcy of such a position is self evident!!

    ‘No you are just citing the straw man to avoid the very pertinent point about who actually is a refugee.’

    WTF!!!??? You said: ‘Firstly someone who tries to enter this or any other country is not automatically a “refugee” as you are trying to suggest’. Considering that I never once suggested such a thing this is a straw man argument. I’ve never believed that anyone who tries to enter this country is “automatically a refugee”, a “refugee” is someone escaping persecution to a second country so only those who have done this can be named so. What I’ve said is that the vast majority of those who came prior to and during 2001 from Afghanistan and Iraq WERE PROVEN TO BE REFUGEES! Thier claims were upheld either here or in third countries.

    ‘Then why are you commenting on this post?’

    It’s obvious why as I’ve said it over and over again.

    ‘On the surface the main objection top the Pacific solution has always been that would be illegal immigrants should be processed in this country. But the fact that they were not getting into Australia before they proved their bona fides was another reason that trying to get into Australia became more difficult and less attractive. Well the new facility on Christmas Island achieves the aims of not letting Illegal arrivals enter the country proper UNTIL they prove their claims while they will actually be on Australian soil.’

    Iain you don’t get it do you? You’ve swallowed the bullshit whole. Not once have you addressed the fact that the majority of boat arrivals have been LEGAL REFUGEES proven through the process. The renaming of arrivals as “illegal immigrants”, “que-jumpers” etc…which you’re so clearly fond of has been a ruse. Above you refuse to even canvass the posibility that the “illegal immigrants” you speak of in the Pacific Solution could be actual refugees seeking asylum. You’re a perfect example of the effectiveness of the propoganda, Naivety + Bullshit = 2001 election victory.

  11. Iain says:

    OK, you don’t seem to be understanding what I’m actually saying. Firstly for a refugee to enter the country in such a fashion is NOT “illegal” as I’ve said. Secondly, I said that the overwhelming majority had their histories and stories thoroughly checked and were given refugee status. Australia refused to settle them anyway in many cases out of spite, they were often sent to third countries where they now live. So this isn’t about ME taking them at face value, it’s about FACTS.

    You MM the problem that I have with most of the illegal arrivals from places like the Middle east is that by the time they have got onto a boat for that last hop most of them have been through half a dozen countries, all of which could have given them “refuge” and I find it very hard to take seriously the idea that they have to come here at all in the search for a safe haven. They want to come here for economic reasons not because they don’t feel safe anywhere else.

    Iain it’s clear and obvious what I’ve been addressing all along so stop attempting to draw me into the ins and outs of these latest cases since I haven’t mentioned them at all except to point out that I agree that there’s no such thing as an economic refugee. So please give that one up. I’m addressing the charge that Labor would open the floodgates and the implicit (now explicit) suggestion that Howard was solely responsible for closing them.

    I don’t deny that external factors have had a part to play but trying to definitively attribute a cause to an effect on this issue is really a fool’s errand, unless you want to survey everyone who has ever thought about trying to get into Australia that is.

    What are you blind!? That’s the main point I’m addressing! I’m attacking your fallacy that Howard’s heartless policies stemmed the tide in any hugely significant way. All the evidence I’ve provided is directed towards this point.

    And I’m saying that when you pin your colours to the mast by charactering Howard’s policy was “heartless” you are hardly going to be a dispassionate judge of the situation now are you?
    I say that there has to be a point at which any nation says no to even the most desperate people when they what to get in, We and all other western nations should not be expected to endlessly absorb those from failed societies who flee rather than try to make their own countries work. Compassion can not be the only thing that has to be considered here.

    You missed my point Iain, the system is deterrent enough for actual “illegals” because when their stories are checked they’re sent back. No humane country should implement a program where desperate real refugees are locked up in third countries for years as punishment for taking flight, solely to deter others from seeking refuge!!! I mean the moral bankruptcy of such a position is self-evident!!

    Rubbish, there are lots of people who have only just managed to meet the criteria with the help of activist lawyers. The movement of people who claim to be “refugees” has exploded over the last thirty years all around the world, now you can call me an old cynic but I can’t believe that all of them or even a significant number are as fearful as activists like you would have us believe.

    ‘No you are just citing the straw man to avoid the very pertinent point about who actually is a refugee.’

    WTF!!!??? You said: ‘Firstly someone who tries to enter this or any other country is not automatically a “refugee” as you are trying to suggest’. Considering that I never once suggested such a thing this is a straw man argument. I’ve never believed that anyone who tries to enter this country is “automatically a refugee”, a “refugee” is someone escaping persecution to a second country so only those who have done this can be named so. What I’ve said is that the vast majority of those who came prior to and during 2001 from Afghanistan and Iraq WERE PROVEN TO BE REFUGEES! Their claims were upheld either here or in third countries.

    Sorry but why should we be obliged to accept them even if their fears of persecution are real? As I said before there are other countries where they could seek refuge and where they would find a more familiar culture as well.

    Iain you don’t get it do you? You’ve swallowed the bullshit whole. Not once have you addressed the fact that the majority of boat arrivals have been LEGAL REFUGEES proven through the process. The renaming of arrivals as “illegal immigrants”, “que-jumpers” etc…which you’re so clearly fond of has been a ruse. Above you refuse to even canvass the possibility that the “illegal immigrants” you speak of in the Pacific Solution could be actual refugees seeking asylum. You’re a perfect example of the effectiveness of the propaganda, Naivety + Bullshit = 2001 election victory.

    I am not a gullible fool who has been duped by the Howard government propaganda, I see that detaining those who arrive here uninvited, providing for their health and welfare and even being prepared to arrange for their repatriation and even offering them some money to get started again in their home country is enough, and meets any humanitarian obligation, an obligation that should not necessarily include giving then any kind of ongoing residency or citizenship here..

  12. Madd McColl says:

    ‘…all of which could have given them “refuge” and I find it very hard to take seriously the idea that they have to come here at all in the search for a safe haven. They want to come here for economic reasons not because they don’t feel safe anywhere else.’

    It’s just one fallacy after another with you on this one. They are often pushed from port in most countries they cross (Indonesia during the late 90’s in particular) or sit in a completely unacceptable state of limbo waiting for conflict to end in their home country. So yes, they do attempt to escape the prospect of sitting in a refugee camp in a country (like Iran) that hates them being there and treats them like shit. What you appear to be saying is that if other countries do this, why don’t we? This is obviously a ridiculous position. As for arguing that they’re all coming for “economic reasons” well the circumstances I’ve laid out above demonstrate this charge to be poorly thought out. Why aren’t they coming because they’ve heard that we respect human rights as opposed to many others, or that we’re an accepting nation? Better to just demonise them as economic invaders hey Iain?

    ‘I don’t deny that external factors have had a part to play but trying to definitively attribute a cause to an effect on this issue is really a fool’s errand, unless you want to survey everyone who has ever thought about trying to get into Australia that is.’

    Exactly! So you agree after arguing otherwise that you cannot prove that Howard’s policy had any effect. Whereas I argue that there’s more than merely circumstantial evidence that his policies WEREN’T responsible. I might be wrong, but I have evidence to support my claim and you have coincidence.

    ‘And I’m saying that when you pin your colours to the mast by charactering Howard’s policy was “heartless” you are hardly going to be a dispassionate judge of the situation now are you?’

    I’m not arguing dispassionately and I don’t need to, I’m passionate about it, but that’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. What’s required is that we both back our comments with evidence, I’ve done this, you haven’t.

    ‘We and all other western nations should not be expected to endlessly absorb those from failed societies who flee rather than try to make their own countries work.’

    Am I reading this? When you’re a Jew in Nazi Germany choosing between staying to try and ‘make your own country work’ or fleeing as a refugee is no choice at all. When you’re a Communist in the Taliban’s Afghanistan choosing between staying to ‘make your country work’ and fleeing is also, no choice at all. We can’t absorb everyone as you say, but that posibility hasn’t ever come close to realisation, in fact Australia constantly needs more people and the percentage of the influx that are refugees is pathetically small.

    ‘Rubbish, there are lots of people who have only just managed to meet the criteria with the help of activist lawyers. The movement of people who claim to be “refugees” has exploded over the last thirty years all around the world, now you can call me an old cynic but I can’t believe that all of them or even a significant number are as fearful as activists like you would have us believe.’

    You appear completely ignorant of how difficult it is to prove you’re a refugee. If an “activist lawyer” manages to prove this then they clearly fit the definition as it is tough, long and strict. Australia’s quotent were from war afflicted countries and tyranous regimes (so tyranous we attacked them later) which through the world’s history have been the normal circumstances to generate refugees. I’m not talking about false claimants seeking economic gain here, the stats show that Australia recieves very few of those due to our geographic position, and the screening will always catch them.

    ‘Sorry but why should we be obliged to accept them even if their fears of persecution are real? As I said before there are other countries where they could seek refuge and where they would find a more familiar culture as well.’

    Finally now we’re getting to the truth behind your desire to keep them out, you just think them ethnicly unacceptable to our country is that right? Why don’t they stay in that refugee camp in Iran, a country that will never integrate them?

    BTW, when you’re a signatory to the refugee convention you are oblidged to accept them.

  13. Iain says:

    It’s just one fallacy after another with you on this one. They are often pushed from port in most countries they cross (Indonesia during the late 90’s in particular) or sit in a completely unacceptable state of limbo waiting for conflict to end in their home country. So yes, they do attempt to escape the prospect of sitting in a refugee camp in a country (like Iran) that hates them being there and treats them like shit. What you appear to be saying is that if other countries do this, why don’t we? This is obviously a ridiculous position. As for arguing that they’re all coming for “economic reasons” well the circumstances I’ve laid out above demonstrate this charge to be poorly thought out. Why aren’t they coming because they’ve heard that we respect human rights as opposed to many others, or that we’re an accepting nation? Better to just demonise them as economic invaders hey Iain?

    So what you are saying here is that our compassion obliges us to do what other nations will not do. Well I say that there has to be a limit to our compassion. and that as a nation of just twenty million people that we already punch well above our weight on the numbers of people that we accept and that the people that we allow in have to be the ones that we choose not just the one that run the gauntlet of or border security.

    Exactly! So you agree after arguing otherwise that you cannot prove that Howard’s policy had any effect. Whereas I argue that there’s more than merely circumstantial evidence that his policies WEREN’T responsible. I might be wrong, but I have evidence to support my claim and you have coincidence.

    No MM you have statistical “evidence” that does not talk at all to the motivations for people’s decisions and it is the factors that influence the decisions that are the crucial element here. Your statistics are just as circumstantial as my “coincidence”.

    I’m not arguing dispassionately and I don’t need to, I’m passionate about it, but that’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. What’s required is that we both back our comments with evidence, I’ve done this, you haven’t.

    See the response above.

    ‘We and all other western nations should not be expected to endlessly absorb those from failed societies who flee rather than try to make their own countries work.’

    Am I reading this? When you’re a Jew in Nazi Germany choosing between staying to try and ‘make your own country work’ or fleeing as a refugee is no choice at all. When you’re a Communist in the Taliban’s Afghanistan choosing between staying to ‘make your country work’ and fleeing is also, no choice at all. We can’t absorb everyone as you say, but that possibility hasn’t ever come close to realisation, in fact Australia constantly needs more people and the percentage of the influx that are refugees is pathetically small.
    Well I would argue that we should in fact be trying to move away from the notion of an exponential growth in both our economy and in or population, and if you are the follower of the green faith that you have shown your self to be on the issue of global warming then you should not be running the populate or perish line that you are running here.

    You appear completely ignorant of how difficult it is to prove you’re a refugee. If an “activist lawyer” manages to prove this then they clearly fit the definition, as it is tough, long and strict. Australia’s quotient was from war afflicted countries and tyrannous regimes (so tyrannous we attacked them later) which through the world’s history have been the normal circumstances to generate refugees. I’m not talking about false claimants seeking economic gain here, the stats show that Australia receives very few of those due to our geographic position, and the screening will always catch them.

    As I said before we already punch well above our weight on this yet you would have us the open the doors and let all that wish to come here do so or is there a limit in your mind to the numbers that we should accept at all?

    Finally now we’re getting to the truth behind your desire to keep them out, you just think them ethnically unacceptable to our country is that right? Why don’t they stay in that refugee camp in Iran, a country that will never integrate them?

    BTW, when you’re a signatory to the refugee convention you are obliged to accept them.

    I don’t care what their ethnicity may be but I suspect that you would find reasons to reject the clearly persecuted whites from Zimbabwe wouldn’t you? And the actual point that you are claiming as a “gotcha moment” was a question, The UN convention on refugees was , I remember rightly created in the wake of WW2 and as time has gone on has become more and more a can of worms and one that has exacerbated the problems for people more than it has solved. And to get back to that question why SHOULD we and other “western nations” be obliged to accept an unending stream of people who want to come to our countries because their own are social failures? The fact that there is a UN convention is NOT enough of an answer.

  14. Madd McColl says:

    ‘Well I say that there has to be a limit to our compassion. and that as a nation of just twenty million people that we already punch well above our weight on the numbers of people that we accept and that the people that we allow in have to be the ones that we choose not just the one that run the gauntlet of or border security.’

    So doctors OK, labourers no? And Australia doesn’t punch “well above its weight”, our intake has always been low comparatively. One way the Coalition used to deliberately confuse facts is to say that Australia is second only to Canada in offshore refugee intake which sounds good, but we are way way down the bottom in overall numbers.

    ‘No MM you have statistical “evidence” that does not talk at all to the motivations for people’s decisions and it is the factors that influence the decisions that are the crucial element here. Your statistics are just as circumstantial as my “coincidence”.’

    No, I have statistical evidence that strongly suggests Howard’s policies weren’t responsible for stemming the tide, their motivations for leaving weren’t addressed in the comment you cite. I’m also buoyed by the fact that such a high percentage were given refugee status. Compare these with your ZERO, and it appears that you lose.

    ‘…or is there a limit in your mind to the numbers that we should accept at all?’

    Must I repeat? Australia has only recieved a tiny trickle of cross border arrivals, the numbers are absolutely tiny. As I said, the U.N graphs usually don’t even add Australia. What’s more is we accept refugees from camps all the time, in fact most are recieved in this way, the only problem with this is that we get to be super picky and only choose the highly skilled members leaving others to stagnate for years in refugee limbo.

    ‘I don’t care what their ethnicity may be but I suspect that you would find reasons to reject the clearly persecuted whites from Zimbabwe wouldn’t you?’

    Read my words: ANY PERSON FLEEING PERSECUTION TO A SECOND COUNTRY IS A LEGAL REFUGEE AND ENTITLED TO ASYLUM. I don’t give a shit if they’re purple, in fact many whites from Zimbabwe probably could claim asylum if they weren’t recieved so enthusiastically by other nations anyway. But this raises an interesting senario: What if those arriving on boats were English or American? Would your view change?

  15. Iain says:

    So doctors OK, labourers no? And Australia doesn’t punch “well above its weight”, our intake has always been low comparatively. One way the Coalition used to deliberately confuse facts is to say that Australia is second only to Canada in offshore refugee intake, which sounds good, but we are way way down the bottom in overall numbers.

    You still don’t say where you would draw the line MM do you? Because I think that as a nation we do have a right to decide who comes into this country and you seem to want open borders or am I overstating your position? If you want some thing less than an open border say so.

    No, I have statistical evidence that strongly suggests Howard’s policies weren’t responsible for stemming the tide, their motivations for leaving weren’t addressed in the comment you cite. I’m also buoyed by the fact that such a high percentage were given refugee status. Compare these with your ZERO, and it appears that you lose.

    Sorry MM but “strongly suggests” is not evidence, which is precisely the point I was making.

    ‘…or is there a limit in your mind to the numbers that we should accept at all?’

    Must I repeat? Australia has only received a tiny trickle of cross border arrivals, the numbers are absolutely tiny. As I said, the U.N graphs usually don’t even add Australia. What’s more is we accept refugees from camps all the time, in fact most are received in this way, the only problem with this is that we get to be super picky and only choose the highly skilled members leaving others to stagnate for years in refugee limbo.

    When we can’t possibly take them all why should we not be selective? For crying out loud would you have us take every displaced person adrift in the world? I’ve asked you before where do we draw the line?

    Read my words: ANY PERSON FLEEING PERSECUTION TO A SECOND COUNTRY IS A LEGAL REFUGEE AND ENTITLED TO ASYLUM. I don’t give a shit if they’re purple, in fact many whites from Zimbabwe probably could claim asylum if they weren’t received so enthusiastically by other nations anyway. But this raises an interesting scenario: What if those arriving on boats were English or American? Would your view change?

    You can try to shout about this as much as you like but the reality is that these people are not seeking asylum for a finite period but they are seeking resettlement and permanence, I cite the resistance by East Timorese to the idea that they should return to their country now that the East Timor is free of the Indonesians. Frankly I don’t think it matters where people arriving in boats come from so please stop trying to play the race card OK?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: