2013 Federal election (3 Viewers)

[isildurrrr1]

I thought that women and children were still allowed through? or is it women with children?

I cant see this plan working for long though. PNG is corrupt and full of crime, how will they contain them? PNG residents wont be happy they are now getting the refo's. Rudd is only doing it to make it look like he has solved the problem, but in the long term it will fail. Then again Abbotts plan is probably no better, if only we had a decent pm

No one is allowed to be settled in Australia if they arrive by boat. Everybody is doing this to win the swing bogan votes.

 

[OzKo]

It's an absolutely daft policy in my opinion.

Not so much the offshore processing but not providing a window to legitimately resettle in Australia.

It's a step too far.

 

[Sathius005]

Rudd stops the boats with Pacific Solution Mark 2.
In the year 2012, 25 000 asylum seekers came to Australia (90 per cent of these were found to be genuine refugees). Australia's humanitarian intake was 20,000 so effectively our refugee immigration system was determined by people smugglers and not those waiting in refugee camps around the world in hell holes such as in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan. Something needed to be done to stop the evil trade that is people smuggling.

 

[TheGreatest99.95]

It's an absolutely daft policy in my opinion.

Not so much the offshore processing but not providing a window to legitimately resettle in Australia.

It's a step too far.

not to mention how much it'll cost. The cost of it will skyrocket as the numbers increase

 

[kaz1]

not to mention how much it'll cost. The cost of it will skyrocket as the numbers increase

the numbers would decrease, no one wants to live in the hellhole of rape, violence and poverty that is PNG

 

[isildurrrr1]

the numbers would decrease, no one wants to live in the hellhole of rape, violence and poverty that is PNG

wat.

Refugee numbers are usually determined by conflicts around the world. With the war in Syria happening you'll see a lot more people trying to get as far away as possible.

The PNG solution is just the government subcontracting the work. It's a disgraceful policy and just reinforces how backwards australia is. Sure some of you don't really care how the rest of the world thinks, but the only reason why this is on the table it's just a political stint to win votes.

Refugees are people who are already legally granted the status of asylum btw. 91% of asylum claims have been determined legitimate. it's not the same as illegal immigration. There are far more people arriving by plane (brits, chinese and americans) who are working here under false pretenses.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...mentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AsylumFacts

Most refugees are from conflict/persecution areas, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka aren't exactly the safest place to live.

 

[Garygaz]

everyone has such black and white views on this issue and no one wants to discuss the finer points. for example, i think most people would find that we all believe it is in our best interests to look out for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. great, no arguments there. however, people seem to want to take this idealist approach to asylum seekers, demanding an end to detention centres, to policies which seemingly discriminate against those who are trying to claim asylum here without acknowledging the other realities of the situation. for example, how many refugees should we take? how much support should be given to refugees once they settle in our country? how should this support be funded? do we roll back our refugee intake if our job market begins to show signs of weakness or the government struggles to return to surplus? how do we provide a program which offers those in need of asylum proper protection whilst not making australia the destination of everyone who wants a chance at a better life? because behind the obvious warm fuzzy feelings you get when you state that you are pro-asylum seekers and that we should all chip in to help, you are stuck with the reality of often having a family completely unskilled (in terms of first world skill set) migrants who become a financial cost to society. afganistan 2011: 2.7m refugees iran 2011: 1m refugees and now we have the issues of syria and egypt boiling over. it's okay to say you want to help but it's not okay to refuse to discuss the costs involved as well.

i mean, take a read of this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/immigration-audits-reveal-large-scale-visa-fraud/4833710. general work visas 47% fraud rates, student visas 37% fraud rate. you can look at the obvious negatives this entails like flooded job markets in certain sectors (ahah IT anyone?) and unclaimed tax. just let everyone in, it will work out great.

 

[kaz1]

wat.

Refugee numbers are usually determined by conflicts around the world. With the war in Syria happening you'll see a lot more people trying to get as far away as possible.

The PNG solution is just the government subcontracting the work. It's a disgraceful policy and just reinforces how backwards australia is. Sure some of you don't really care how the rest of the world thinks, but the only reason why this is on the table it's just a political stint to win votes.

Refugees are people who are already legally granted the status of asylum btw. 91% of asylum claims have been determined legitimate. it's not the same as illegal immigration. There are far more people arriving by plane (brits, chinese and americans) who are working here under false pretenses.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...mentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AsylumFacts

Most refugees are from conflict/persecution areas, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka aren't exactly the safest place to live.

I never said I supported Kevin Rudd's policy nor said the boaties weren't genuine asylum seekers. I was just pointing out that people fleeing war and persecution in places like Syria would be less inclined to jump on a boat to get from one hellhole to another (PNG).

 

[isildurrrr1]

I never said I supported Kevin Rudd's policy nor said the boaties weren't genuine asylum seekers. I was just pointing out that people fleeing war and persecution in places like Syria would be less inclined to jump on a boat to get from one hellhole to another (PNG).

Most of the people in Syria are fleeing to Turkey and Jordan. None of them are really coming over to Australia. Most of the people coming from boats are from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, all of them serious conflict zones.

Gargyz: Nobody is saying that housing refugees don't cost money. They're coming over here to escape the violence that exist in their homeland. Refugees aren't exactly coming over to Australia because they want to be here, they're here because they've lost their home. Australia intakes around 20k refugees a year. The cost is nothing compared to other government programs, it's such a terrible argument "oh my god it costs money to harbour these people." If you have a vietnamese or lebanese background, it would be quite ironic to be against this policy. Sure Australia can bail out of every refugee commitment, but it's not exactly smart to do so now is it?

I do agree with mandatory detention, it's our only way of processing people to make sure their claims are legitimate.

 

[JT145]

Anyone else annoyed by how media refers to Gillard becoming Prime Minister as "when Julia Gillard rose into her role as Prime Minister as Kevin resigned" and refers to Rudd coming back in power as "betrayal" "disgusting treatment of first female prime minister" "backstabbing" "sneaky cheeky Rudd" "sexist conspiracy".

It's partially feminism and also because people are annoyed at seeing it happen again. IMO Gillard should have gone to the election, gotten smashed, and Rudd takes over.

However Rudd taking over is all damage control for the election, may not help Labor to victory but definitely reduces their margin of loss.

 

[kaz1]

Labor 52.5%
Coalition 47.5%
http://roymorgan.com.au/findings/morgan-poll-july-22-2013-201307220719

 

[Jimmy2064]

No one is allowed to be settled in Australia if they arrive by boat. Everybody is doing this to win the swing bogan votes.

How stereotypical of you. However it is a little bit extreme I will admit, and it's not a long term solution.

I think offshore processing is a good idea, however the people that really ARE refugee's should be allowed entry. Not the idiots that burn down the facilities that we do give them.

 

[Jimmy2064]

Most of the people in Syria are fleeing to Turkey and Jordan. None of them are really coming over to Australia. Most of the people coming from boats are from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, all of them serious conflict zones.

Gargyz: Nobody is saying that housing refugees don't cost money. They're coming over here to escape the violence that exist in their homeland. Refugees aren't exactly coming over to Australia because they want to be here, they're here because they've lost their home. Australia intakes around 20k refugees a year. The cost is nothing compared to other government programs, it's such a terrible argument "oh my god it costs money to harbour these people." If you have a vietnamese or lebanese background, it would be quite ironic to be against this policy. Sure Australia can bail out of every refugee commitment, but it's not exactly smart to do so now is it?

I do agree with mandatory detention, it's our only way of processing people to make sure their claims are legitimate.

45k apparently as of last year.

 

[Kiraken]

How stereotypical of you. However it is a little bit extreme I will admit, and it's not a long term solution.

I think offshore processing is a good idea, however the people that really ARE refugee's should be allowed entry. Not the idiots that burn down the facilities that we do give them.

aren't something like 90% of people seeking asylum in australia found to be genuine refugees?

Also, what are the advantages of offshore processing as opposed to onshore processing? (legitimately curious)

 

[lee337]

How stereotypical of you. However it is a little bit extreme I will admit, and it's not a long term solution.

I think offshore processing is a good idea, however the people that really ARE refugee's should be allowed entry. Not the idiots that burn down the facilities that we do give them.

He's right, the rednecks/"100% Aussie" will be less inclined to vote for Abbott for the sake of keeping Australia "white".

 

[Jimmy2064]

He's right, the rednecks/"100% Aussie" will be less inclined to vote for Abbott for the sake of keeping Australia "white".

I never said he wasn't right.

 

[Jimmy2064]

aren't something like 90% of people seeking asylum in australia found to be genuine refugees?

Also, what are the advantages of offshore processing as opposed to onshore processing? (legitimately curious)

Yeah apparently that's the statistic. It's the 10% that come here not as a refugee that worry me.. why travel on an extremely risky journey if you aren't a refugee? The sightseeing? Also, I watched a guide through the living conditions on Christmas Island (some religious group going on about how terrible it is), it was strange that there was a very high proportion of 20-35 year old men in comparison to women children and families. It's the same people that you see burning down and rioting in the videos etc etc. It may just be the media's portrayal however I personally found it quite strange.

Because I think it's an incentive to come. I think enough people risk their lives travelling here, let alone do we need more unnecessary death.

 

[TheGreatest99.95]

He's right, the rednecks/"100% Aussie" will be less inclined to vote for Abbott for the sake of keeping Australia "white".

surely you mean Rudd/Labor?

 

[TheGreatest99.95]

the numbers would decrease, no one wants to live in the hellhole of rape, violence and poverty that is PNG

there will also be these costs http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ed/story-e6frfkui-1226683208284#ixzz2ZkvGbIgw

 

[Jimmy2064]

surely you mean Rudd/Labor?

I was abit confused too, I think he means people with relatively narrow viewpoints will more likely vote for Rudd now based on the new policy.