2013 Federal election (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

"only single adult males will be shipped to PNG. Women and children will be kept in Australia and families will not be split up, in a move which could see more women and children put on boats by people smugglers. "

And there's the policy's gaping hole.

The smugglers will simply load up the boats with women and children.

 

[townie]

Interesting. I recall reading that the no women and children was only until Manus was brought up to standard.

And I disagree, the gaping policy hole is no leader from any side of politics willing to actually show genuine leadership on this issue but instead just play to the common denominator of their electorates (the greens included, they just happen to play to the hard left and refuse to recognize there is a problem which IMO is just as bad as pretending that a few thousand asylum seekers is the end of modern civilization)

 

[Rafy]

Government is running this taxpayer funded ad in all of today's national and capital city newspapers. Yes, that's right, running in Australian papers. Shows just what a cynical ploy this is. Probably one of the most disgraceful government ad campaigns of recent times. Taxpayer funded just weeks from an election from a PM who said he'd stop this sort of this. There is no justification for the ad either. How many boat people read the Canberra Times? It's of course entirely a political ad.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

My 2 cents on this asylum seeker debate. What people have failed to recognise is that this is a debate between the ideas of internationalism vs national sovereignty. Currently you (Hippies) either support all individuals having the ability to come here, proceeding to live off welfare and other things offered to citizens, and also rasing the crime rate etc, with a small minority that may eventually contribute to society (doubtful). OR you support closed borders to illegal immigration, if they come here by boat you shoot them or let them drown if they’re stupid enough to sink their own boat.

This middle ground that we currently support is the worst of both views. As believers in national sovereignty we can’t just have anybody coming here, but as internationalists we can’t just let them die, so what do we do? We imprison them whilst providing them we basic human necessities plus education and health services. Whether they are on Australian soil, Christmas Island, or Nauru, it doesn’t matter as we still pay the billions of dollars to keep them alive. A cost that has no predictable roof and thus theoretically could lead to national bankruptcy provided people keep coming here illegally.

Therefore IMO there are only two feasible ways to go about this. You can either have closed borders to illegal immigration and do as suggested by the national sovereign view and shoot/let them die, OR have open borders but you give them nothing, meaning no welfare, free education, or free health care. I would personally add to that, no ability to own land unless specially granted, and have them pay a foreigners tax on top of their income tax. This of course would only appeal to people who actually want to come here for economic reasons and have the capacity to thrive, lest they sink (metaphorically)/get deported because they failed to meet their obligations as non-citizens.

Whether you agree with either of the two solutions presented doesn’t matter to me. What is more important is that people start framing this debate properly on principled views and not on emotions “awwww poor refuges, let’s give them all our stuff!” or “fucking sand niggers, they can’t fuck off back to tajikyrgahasturkapakifghanistan”.

 

[Jimmy2064]

My 2 cents on this asylum seeker debate. What people have failed to recognise is that this is a debate between the ideas of internationalism vs national sovereignty. Currently you (Hippies) either support all individuals having the ability to come here, proceeding to live off welfare and other things offered to citizens, and also rasing the crime rate etc, with a small minority that may eventually contribute to society (doubtful). OR you support closed borders to illegal immigration, if they come here by boat you shoot them or let them drown if they’re stupid enough to sink their own boat.

This middle ground that we currently support is the worst of both views. As believers in national sovereignty we can’t just have anybody coming here, but as internationalists we can’t just let them die, so what do we do? We imprison them whilst providing them we basic human necessities plus education and health services. Whether they are on Australian soil, Christmas Island, or Nauru, it doesn’t matter as we still pay the billions of dollars to keep them alive. A cost that has no predictable roof and thus theoretically could lead to national bankruptcy provided people keep coming here illegally.

Therefore IMO there are only two feasible ways to go about this. You can either have closed borders to illegal immigration and do as suggested by the national sovereign view and shoot/let them die, OR have open borders but you give them nothing, meaning no welfare, free education, or free health care. I would personally add to that, no ability to own land unless specially granted, and have them pay a foreigners tax on top of their income tax. This of course would only appeal to people who actually want to come here for economic reasons and have the capacity to thrive, lest they sink (metaphorically)/get deported because they failed to meet their obligations as non-citizens.

Whether you agree with either of the two solutions presented doesn’t matter to me. What is more important is that people start framing this debate properly on principled views and not on emotions “awwww poor refuges, let’s give them all our stuff!” or “fucking sand niggers, they can’t fuck off back to tajikyrgahasturkapakifghanistan”.

+1

Problem being we'll never be able to turn them around or leave them to sink due to UN and human rights ties so that's out of the question, then again so is allowing them into the country (in my opinion). I do however think Rudd's policy, whilst still costing a hell of alot of money, at least might defer them for seeking refuge knowing they are going to PNG (which should be fine if they are legitimate refugee's anyway, which half of them aren't).

 

[JT145]

My question is though is that will illegitimate refugees risk their lives coming here on boats? Surely the legitimate refugees have more to lose? Or is it that their economic situation is so poor (in so called illegitimate refugees) that coming here is a viable option?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

My question is though is that will illegitimate refugees risk their lives coming here on boats? Surely the legitimate refugees have more to lose? Or is it that their economic situation is so poor (in so called illegitimate refugees) that coming here is a viable option?

Maybe it's just me, but could you rephrase that question so I can understand it?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

+1

Problem being we'll never be able to turn them around or leave them to sink due to UN and human rights ties so that's out of the question, then again so is allowing them into the country (in my opinion). I do however think Rudd's policy, whilst still costing a hell of alot of money, at least might defer them for seeking refuge knowing they are going to PNG (which should be fine if they are legitimate refugee's anyway, which half of them aren't).

The UN has 0 powers, case in point Rwanda. Nothing came of the Tampa Crisis; nothing will come of a repeat in a similar situation. Australia is a sovereign nation that is able to decide who comes here and under what conditions.

 

[JT145]

Maybe it's just me, but could you rephrase that question so I can understand it?

Even though I understand there are two types of 'boat people' (being economic migrants or people escaping persecution) surely there would be more 'legitimate' refugees as they are leaving in fear of their lives instead of leaving for a want of a better life. Is there any data that shows the type of 'boat people' entering Australia (and what the proportion is between economic migrants or asylum seekers or others?)

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Even though I understand there are two types of 'boat people' (being economic migrants or people escaping persecution) surely there would be more 'legitimate' refugees as they are leaving in fear of their lives instead of leaving for a want of a better life. Is there any data that shows the type of 'boat people' entering Australia (and what the proportion is between economic migrants or asylum seekers or others?)

I am not aware of any conclusive data on the subject, nor do I think it is possible to get any as everybody lies.

There will always be people coming here for a better life, whether it is for purely economic reasons or because of some kind of persecution, thus the ratio of 'true refugees' to fake ones doesn't matter. The more important question that has already been posed is what do we do about it?

 

[Sathius005]

Boat people come to Australia because of welfare.
I think you guys missed the boat at least 90 per cent of boat people have been proven to be genuine refugees in 2013. Bob Carr was being opportunistic when he claimed that boat people are economic refugees. Bob Carr clearly doesn't understand the pain and suffering that boat people have to endure to get here. Having said that boat people mostly come to Australia because of Centrelink. 80 per cent of refugees are on welfare benefits for the first ten years since they arrive in Australia. Labor increased the refugee intake so more refugees are coming to Australia. As a result the government has to go into debt in order to pay welfare payments. I expect Kevin Rudd to introduce tough welfare to work policies.

 

[Kiraken]

Even though I understand there are two types of 'boat people' (being economic migrants or people escaping persecution) surely there would be more 'legitimate' refugees as they are leaving in fear of their lives instead of leaving for a want of a better life. Is there any data that shows the type of 'boat people' entering Australia (and what the proportion is between economic migrants or asylum seekers or others?)

it's interesting to note that boat people actually pay quite a sizable sum to people smugglers to get onto the boat. They aren't necessarily any poorer than legal immigrants

 

[JT145]

I just had a look at this article

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/t...ustralian-waters/story-fndir2ev-1226676024840

While I do think that some of their realities are somewhat exaggerated I think it does raise some good points.

 

[JT145]

Thing is though, I think Australia has a moral and ethical responsibility as a developed country in accepting refugees, despite the potential negatives that it may place in our communities. I personally think that this method is extreme and we shirk our responsibility as a member of the international community. PNG, despite the (large amounts of) money and related compensation that we are giving them should not bear the weight of our asylum seekers as surely asylum seekers have firstly a right to seek asylum in Australia and the influx of asylum seekers would have a more profound effect on PNG than it does to us.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I just had a look at this article

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/t...ustralian-waters/story-fndir2ev-1226676024840

While I do think that some of their realities are somewhat exaggerated I think it does raise some good points.

The article is irrelevant. You’re doing what I'm suggesting people stop doing which is avoiding the question. To summarise that article, “People are trespassing onto Australian land BUT BUT!!! It's not as bad as xyz so we should just lie down and accept whilst giving them lots of stuff they didn't earn.”

You have 4 choices. Either we accept them and give them welfare which leads to economic ruin because if we follow that policy, what happens if 2 million boat people show up tomorrow? How are we going to afford it? Who’s going to pay? It’s a flawed policy, and the same goes for putting them in detention. It’s this middle ground between national sovereign and internationalist views that will lead this country to ruin.

Your other two choices are to tell them to bugger off, or let them come in but don’t give them anything.

Posting ‘Myths about asylum seeker’ articles does nothing but draw attention away from the real issue.

We need to quit this. It's BILLIONS OF DOLLARS we're spending on these people by virtue of the fact they managed to cross a border.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Thing is though, I think Australia has a moral and ethical responsibility as a developed country in accepting refugees, despite the potential negatives that it may place in our communities. I personally think that this method is extreme and we shirk our responsibility as a member of the international community. PNG, despite the (large amounts of) money and related compensation that we are giving them should not bear the weight of our asylum seekers as surely asylum seekers have firstly a right to seek asylum in Australia and the influx of asylum seekers would have a more profound effect on PNG than it does to us.

So you are for allowing people to come into this country, ok fair enough, next question. What do we do with them once they get here?

 

[JT145]

The article is irrelevant. You’re doing what I'm suggesting people stop doing which is avoiding the question. To summarise that article, “People are trespassing onto Australian land BUT BUT!!! It's not as bad as xyz so we should just lie down and accept whilst giving them lots of stuff they didn't earn.”

You have 4 choices. Either we accept them and give them welfare which leads to economic ruin because if we follow that policy, what happens if 2 million boat people show up tomorrow? How are we going to afford it? Who’s going to pay? It’s a flawed policy, and the same goes for putting them in detention. It’s this middle ground between national sovereign and internationalist views that will lead this country to ruin.

Your other two choices are to tell them to bugger off, or let them come in but don’t give them anything.

Posting ‘Myths about asylum seeker’ articles does nothing but draw attention away from the real issue.

We need to quit this. It's BILLIONS OF DOLLARS we're spending on these people by virtue of the fact they managed to cross a border.

I'd rather accept them into our country and give them welfare rather than tow the boats back out into the Indian Ocean. The issue of welfare does not only apply to asylum seekers but also to Australians. Hypothetically 2 million Australians tomorrow could just go out of work and we need welfare to support all of them which can also lead us into economic ruin. Asylum seekers are not going to stay uneducated and stay on welfare forever, they should not be regarded as the underclass that has no chance at employment. If they had bothered to try this hard to get into Australia I would hope (yes, here is a flaw in my argument) that they would attempt to contribute to Australia in some way, shape or form which would in theory bring a weight off Australia's economy which has to supply welfare.

While I will admit that these people have come from a more impoverished background than 'normal migrants' (migrants such as myself who were born overseas then come here) they should not be classified as perpetually welfare dependent and/or helping to create a worse Australian society. I personally know three asylum seekers (from Afghanistan) who have made large attempts to integrate into Australian society and become independent, although it is very difficult. Of course I know that this cannot speak for the entire population of asylum seekers but they are not all going nowhere and attempting to be welfare-dependent.

 

[Lolsmith]

"these people"

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I'd rather accept them into our country and give them welfare rather than tow the boats back out into the Indian Ocean. The issue of welfare does not only apply to asylum seekers but also to Australians. Hypothetically 2 million Australians tomorrow could just go out of work and we need welfare to support all of them which can also lead us into economic ruin. Asylum seekers are not going to stay uneducated and stay on welfare forever, they should not be regarded as the underclass that has no chance at employment. If they had bothered to try this hard to get into Australia I would hope (yes, here is a flaw in my argument) that they would attempt to contribute to Australia in some way, shape or form which would in theory bring a weight off Australia's economy which has to supply welfare.

While I will admit that these people have come from a more impoverished background than 'normal migrants' (migrants such as myself who were born overseas then come here) they should not be classified as perpetually welfare dependent and/or helping to create a worse Australian society. I personally know three asylum seekers (from Afghanistan) who have made large attempts to integrate into Australian society and become independent, although it is very difficult. Of course I know that this cannot speak for the entire population of asylum seekers but they are not all going nowhere and attempting to be welfare-dependent.

I don't know what you are trying to argue here.

Are you suggesting that people, who can't communicate and are usually illiterate, won't need to be on welfare and looked after by Australian tax payer dollars? Because you have admitted that they will be, thus my point still stands of what happens if X amount of people show up and flood the system till we as a country can't cope. Unfortunately there is absolutely no way to win that argument because its simple mathematics, ergo you will lose every time.

You have brought up the situation that 2 million Australians could go out of work tomorrow, and then lead us to economic ruin by all of them applying for welfare. Not only does that just agree with my point, but it also further brings up the very good question of whether it is ethical to steal money from people, and then give it others who don't deserve it under the guise of 'Wealth Redistribution'.

Now at no point will I ever deny that immigrants of ANY kind can be productive citizens in this country eventually. But what happens in the interim period when we are still paying out of our pocket? See previous point.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I agree with JT145, we should be doing more to support asylum seekers arriving from boats. The fact that they're willing to put their lives in danger just for a chance to reach Australian waters and given to opportunity to restart their lives suggests that they are desperate to escape from dangers faced at their original place of residence. The ASRC say: While plane arrivals typically have only a 40% success rate, 85–90% of boat arrivals are generally granted a protection visa.

While yes scuba_steve2121 they can be an economic burden on the Australian economy the ASRC also say: It is often assumed (largely due to inaccuracies in the media) that asylum seekers receive greater benefits than ordinary Australians in need of assistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Asylum seekers living in the community have no access to Centrelink benefits. The only welfare benefits they are entitled to fall under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS). However, strict conditions for entitlement apply and the payments are only equivalent to 89% of the Centrelink Newstart Allowance. Only a small percentage of asylum seekers receive the ASAS. There is very limited government subsidised housing available to asylum seekers". So while they do contribute to economic burden on Australia it is ultimately limited.

What many people don't actually know is that more asylum seekers arrive by plane. This is from the Australian Human Rights Commission: In 2010–11 the total figure included 6316 applications lodged by asylum seekers who entered Australia by air, who almost always arrived on a valid visa, and then applied for a Protection Visa. A further 5175 requests were made in 2010–11 by unauthorised arrivals who came to Australia by boat without a valid visa."

So I think if the Australian Gov. is so determined to stop the boats who are willing to put their lives at risk to just arrive in Australia why "not stop the planes" as well?

You have simply done what JT145 has done and that is avoiding reality. You have fallen into the trap that JT145 has, which is saying that it's not so bad because XYZ. They could all come on boats, they could all come on planes, their method of transport is irrelevant. You’re saying that don't get as much as citizens who are on welfare, again irrelevant, because the fact remains we still give them SOMETHING. Yes their burden is limited, LIMITED to the number of people who come here. Now what were to happen if X amount of people came here and fucked up the system? As I’ve already said you can't win the 'let them in and give them stuff" argument. Now you have 3 other options to choose from as I have already pointed out, 2 of which that won't logically lead to economic ruin.

If you want to let them in, that's fine, that's great. But don't steal money from people through taxation to fund their lives here. If you want to help refugees offer up your own home, or pay money to a charity that does.