Support NeoGAF

[wachie]

What?

There should have been a huge public outrage even at the hint of this.

 

[Shaneus]

granted this is absolutely terrible and i'm NOT justifying this shit..
paint me curious: is there actually no other country nearby, that these guys have to go to australia? because australia it's pretty much in the middle of nothing, so i cannot understand where these migrants without any sustainance means are coming from...

Believe it or not, New Zealand offered to take (from memory) a few hundred asylum seekers.

Our government turned them down, I shit you not.

Fake edit: 150

Malcolm Turnbull has again rejected an offer from New Zealand to take 150 refugees from Australia’s offshore detention centres saying: “Settlement in a country like New Zealand would be used by the people smugglers as a marketing opportunity.”

This was less than six fucking months ago.

 

[bomma_man]

Perhaps this is right, I think our working population (income earners) is around 60% so approx. 14.4 million to foot the bills. That seems reasonable.

I can only speak for myself but I do have concern that letting a batch in leads to larger batches expecting the same over time. Does a few thousand turn into 10,000s? I don't pretend to know what figure we can handle successfully.



Thanks for having a mature chat with some actual proposed solutions. I edited in italics for my take on your points. I don't think it's a last resort, far from it. I'm just not up for opening our country to the entire world without process in place. We're unique in having such a small population and our position on the world stage, I want that managed intelligently and humanely. I don't want the Australian way of life to go the way of the dodo, nor do I want our living or education standards to drop. I'm not ignorant to label refugees, whatever path they take to get here, as the issue. I just want checks and balances for permanent residency is all. Similarly I want humane treatment for all to have checks and balances, no matter the government policies.

The climate change thing is about future proofing - it's going to be a massive source of displacement and conflict in the next century. It's arguably already contributed to the Syrian conflict.

 

[walking fiend]

Is there an issue with talking through things? I literally started with statements like "Treatment of humans beings by our country in this manner is deplorable. No excuses.", "limited knowledge" and "what do you suggest", obviously that degrades into negativity instead of educating me or proposing workable solutions.

Nice to know y'all can be mature about things.

You are just playing dumb though, that's the problem. I replied to your post, specifically, and noted that Germany has accepted a million refugees (now over a million). Canada has accepted tens of thousands of refugees in the past few years, and we have accommodated them properly.

However, you speak of hundreds of refugees as if they will be a great burden to the tax payers.

Sheltering refugees coming through boats is not rocket science, it doesn't require some extra sophisticated solution, but only a little bit of humanity.

You say there are no excuses, and then claim there is no viable solution to the problem. At least have the courage to say that you are not willing to help the refugees.

 

[DrSlek]

Idiot? That sounds more like a racist.

Every country has them but having less racists will lead to the ouster of fear politics. It's why an Australian fear mongering strategist was hired in the last Canadian election and Canadians shut it down. Pretty sure some fell for the tactic, just that having less of such "racists" is the key.

I'm quite certain there'd be quite a bit of overlap on a Venn diagram of those groups in this country.

 

[bomma_man]

You are just playing dumb though, that's the problem. I replied to your post, specifically, and noted that Germany has accepted a million refugees (now over a million). Canada has accepted tens of thousands of refugees in the past few years, and we have accommodated them properly.

However, you speak of hundreds of refugees as if they will be a great burden to the tax payers.

Sheltering refugees coming through boats is not rocket science, it doesn't require some extra sophisticated solution, but only a little bit of humanity.

You say there are no excuses, and then claim there is no viable solution to the problem. At least have the courage to say that you are not willing to help the refugees.

Australia also takes in tens of thousands of refugees, just not if they come by boat. Because reasons.

 

[walking fiend]

Australia also takes in tens of thousands of refugees, just not if they come by boat. Because reasons.

He was talking about the refugees that need to be accommodated by the state, and that it is not a viable solution to feed them, provide housing for them, etc. Basically, he was claiming that the reason is that the economical burden is too much...

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I can totally understand the anger in this thread but I'm laughing my ass off at people suggesting UN sanctions.

Is there a party in Australia that's against this policy and is it getting any kind of attention?

Well we have the Greens and they are slowly building their base but they are nowhere near close to threatening the two major parties. This is what makes this situation so bloody hopeless. Both the major parties support these draconian immigration policies so it's extremely hard to bring about any change. It would have been more convenient if we could have thrown shit at the Liberal party but Labor are equally as accountable.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

The climate change thing is about future proofing - it's going to be a massive source of displacement and conflict in the next century. It's arguably already contributed to the Syrian conflict.

An interesting point. I'd agree climate and water resources will turn into future conflicts globally, eventually.

You are just playing dumb though, that's the problem. I replied to your post, specifically, and noted that Germany has accepted a million refugees (now over a million). Canada has accepted tens of thousands of refugees in the past few years, and we have accommodated them properly.

However, you speak of hundreds of refugees as if they will be a great burden to the tax payers.

Sheltering refugees coming through boats is not rocket science, it doesn't require some extra sophisticated solution, but only a little bit of humanity.

You say there are no excuses, and then claim there is no viable solution to the problem. At least have the courage to say that you are not willing to help the refugees.

Don't put words into my mouth thanks. I was saying no GAF posters were putting up viable solutions for discussion, not that they don't exist, perhaps you missed that nuance. Carte blanche for refugees isn't what I call a viable solution. I was also saying there are no excuses for the depraved acts listed in the OP (separate to refugee policies).

It's not like I'm personally or Australia as a whole is against taking refugees in, I/we just prefer some process other than they "jump on a boat and land on our shores". To date we have taken in over 30,000 refugees, for our small nation that places us 49th in the world. When you factor our GDP and remote location in the world we rise to 17th in the world. Sure, we can do better. Would I call that playing dumb? Hell no, I'm trying to gain insight to an issue I really haven't spent much time with TBH.

Source with some great facts

Some factual stats about refugees and Australia specifically are:

2014-15 fin. year, 13,750 refugees placed in the Humanitarian Program for permanent residence in Australia. I'm not able to find newer or temporary visas/residence to add to that number with any factual basis as yet (will update if I do) and that also doesn't account for resettlement, which we're more in favour of.

Also you state Germany as an example to follow, let us have a look at some differences I think are relevant:

• Germany has a larger population than Aus, 80mil vs 24mil and the relevant financial success post the GFC for example. Some would argue Australia has similar financial success post GFC era e.g. retaining triple AAA world bank ratings.
• Germany have a labour workforce gap they hope to fill with refugees/immigrants.
• Germany currently have/had refugees living in tents and slow processing of up to 250,000 refugees etc. So far a poor history of success, conditions and flow into their education system and equal opportunities e.g. breaking down communication barriers, getting employed, integration etc.
• Germany closed their borders to Austria as they got overwhelmed by the influx, workers on the ground have devised a decentralised policy to avoid segregation and complained of not coping.

Source for the above points from SEP 2015

It's also not without issues in Germany concerning what to do with refugees once they are allowed in:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/joshuahers...refugee-cris?utm_term=.esxVlxO5xn#.obMPygblgz
(have a read here and you'll see it's not all roses as your appear to make out)

Canada appears to literally turned about face on it's immigration in recent times since the Syrian child's body washed up on a beach:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/refugees/

It's a raw nerve ending for now and I'd like to understand how the proposed 25,000 Syrian refugees are doing in Canada, I'm not sure if this target has been achieved or not as yet but it highlights what you post about as a way forward. I'd like to understand the successes and failures more as this develops.

The refugees you're talking about are the ones with no process involved, side stepping our immigration policies. You're posting at me like I'm/Australia is flatly refusing only a few hundred refugees as if it's our whole immigration policy. You're posting like Germany was a 100% success story as well.

I'm looking for reasons why Australia has such policies, is that bad or good policy and what happens now and year after year e.g. the sustained immigration/refugee climate. It's a very complex issue I'm looking to take the time to understand better, but hey go ahead and act like I want to play dumb if that lets you pigeon hole me for whatever reason mate. I'd prefer if you posted some well resourced facts about how to improve the situation. I don't want to see foul inhumane acts carried out under our country's watch in any way shape or form but I'm not ready to switch my view for a few hundred refugees outside our normal immigration policies.

Perhaps further education and research change my point of view. It's not like I'm holding on to it hard and fast or unwilling to discuss elements and be enlightened for the greater good.

Australia also takes in tens of thousands of refugees, just not if they come by boat. Because reasons.

Perhaps it's our border size. We're as large as North America in terms of borders, all exposed to the sea and no way to effectively police it due to a lack of population. At least the other forms we have checks and balances about the who, what, where, why, when etc.

Believe it or not, New Zealand offered to take (from memory) a few hundred asylum seekers.

Our government turned them down, I shit you not.

Fake edit: 150



This was less than six fucking months ago.

That is messed up, WTF. Bad govt decision.

 

[Yagharek]

I'm totally open to other solutions.

You weren't open to them when I proposed them in the auspoligaf thread.

 

[thegoosen]

That is what an ex-gaffer called a good system a few months back.

 

[Dead Man]

I knew Dutton was a piece of shit but saying people self immolate to get to Australia is unfuckingreal.

 

[wachie]

Believe it or not, New Zealand offered to take (from memory) a few hundred asylum seekers.

Our government turned them down, I shit you not.

Fake edit: 150


This was less than six fucking months ago.

You have to question the motive for the rejection. Basically someone else wanted to take the "problem" away but no how can those scummy NZers get all the credit? These people need to suffer more! At least I can't come up with a same reason to reject the offer.

 

[Dead Man]

You have to question the motive for the rejection. Basically someone else wanted to take the "problem" away but no how can those scummy NZers get all the credit? These people need to suffer more! At least I can't come up with a same reason to reject the offer.

The reason is that it would be a good outcome for the asylum seekers. So Australia will be desirable and a flood of refugees will crash into our delicate shores in hopes that NZ would offer to take them. It doesn't matter that it makes no fucking sense. That's the way these sociopaths think.

 

[wachie]

The reason is that it would be a good outcome for the asylum seekers. So Australia will be desirable and a flood of refugees will crash into our delicate shores in hopes that NZ would offer to take them. It doesn't matter that it makes no fucking sense. That's the way these sociopaths think.

Sociopaths, right word.

Are there any local parties or groups that can even battle or stand against xenophobia? Even if its in nascent stages, it should be there otherwise its a very worrying sign.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Just saying figures before the refugee crisis went into full gear are pretty much worthless.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I just want to note the drowning at sea argument is completely specious on its face. You're stopping people drowning at sea by making Australia a worse destination than staying somewhere that is worse than a reasonable chance of death at sea. Your argument is that it is morally acceptable to do something worse than drowning people at sea because it saves them drowning at sea. That argument is transparently moronic on every level other than providing a thin veneer of moral coverage for abuses of human rights to people, who are really quite happy to abuse human rights but would like to avoid the moral burden of doing so.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I just want to note the drowning at sea argument is completely specious on its face. You're stopping people drowning at sea by making Australia a worse destination than staying somewhere that is worse than a reasonable chance of death at sea. Your argument is that it is morally acceptable to do something worse than drowning people at sea because it saves them drowning at sea. That argument is transparently moronic on every level other than providing a thin veneer of moral coverage for abuses of human rights to people, who are really quite happy to abuse human rights but would like to avoid the moral burden of doing so.

Basically, yeah. Like, refugees aren't stupid. Regardless of where you come from or your life to date, the idea that a small boat stacked with forty-odd people travelling an enormous distance might capsize is something most people understand. Nevertheless, they actively chose to risk, say, a 70% chance of making it to Australia vs. a 30% chance of death, compared to staying where they are. Think about how shitty wherever you are must be if you're willing to take a 30% gamble on death. That place must be real damn shitty. Now, Australia is trying to make themselves so terrible that a 70% chance of Australia vs. 30% chance of death is actually worse than this really shitty place. It's pretty morally abhorrent.

 

[thegoosen]

I just want to note the drowning at sea argument is completely specious on its face. You're stopping people drowning at sea by making Australia a worse destination than staying somewhere that is worse than a reasonable chance of death at sea. Your argument is that it is morally acceptable to do something worse than drowning people at sea because it saves them drowning at sea. That argument is transparently moronic on every level other than providing a thin veneer of moral coverage for abuses of human rights to people, who are really quite happy to abuse human rights but would like to avoid the moral burden of doing so.

Hypocrites like to downplay rape and torture to people they don't see as humans but only as "problems and burdens to the western society".

 

[LordOfChaos]

Fuck, Australia. You're halfway to North Korean Gulags with the treatment of these people. Combined with the rising tide of xenophobia I just can't think of the country the same way again.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Reutton I don't know how this guy keeps ministerial positions, he's a one man gaffe factory with no judgement and his only use is tossing out politically appalling dog whistles (which he could do from the backbench along with Eric Abetz and Cory Bernadi). I swear he's got blackmail material that would bring the entire party down, it's the only thing that makes sense.

Sociopaths, right word.

Are there any local parties or groups that can even battle or stand against xenophobia? Even if its in nascent stages, it should be there otherwise its a very worrying sign.

As has been mentioned the Greens are the only "major" political party (they pull ~10% of the vote which gives them 7-10 Seats in the Senate (which is a proportional house and makes the 3rd largest political force by approximately 100%)) opposes this as policy.

To be fair to Labor there support for this is weaker than it appears about ~40% of their party / voters don't actually support it, but party position is majority rules and Australian political discipline is incredible (rebellion rates of 2% are sky high).

There are also much smaller numbers of Coalition voters who are less than impressed too (just ask Arksy).

"Other" voters are ferociously in support of this stuff , which makes sense, a lot of them are people to the right of the Coalition , and theres no single political party to vacuum them up the way the Greens do to people on the left of Labor, so as a group it skews heavily right (and nationalist).

 

[Yrael]

I feel...hopeless. This horrific abuse has been ongoing for years. Australia has been internationally condemned in strong terms, more than once. I still remember the government-commissioned comic that proudly showcased the awful conditions in offshore detention centres.

I just want to note the drowning at sea argument is completely specious on its face. You're stopping people drowning at sea by making Australia a worse destination than staying somewhere that is worse than a reasonable chance of death at sea. Your argument is that it is morally acceptable to do something worse than drowning people at sea because it saves them drowning at sea. That argument is transparently moronic on every level other than providing a thin veneer of moral coverage for abuses of human rights to people, who are really quite happy to abuse human rights but would like to avoid the moral burden of doing so.

Absolutely.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

NPR interviewed one of the ex-aid workers whose anonymous report detailing abuse is now part of the Guardian leak

http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...buse-of-refugee-children-on-nauru-was-ignored

Australia's immigration minister, Peter Dutton, has played down these allegations, claiming most are about small issues, and reiterating that the asylum seekers will not be allowed to come to Australia.
...
"And see there was a complete lack of privacy in this detention facility, so here is a boy having to report a sexual assault and he is doing it in the open air, in front of guards, while the abuser is standing there mocking him."