"NO WAY! You will not make Australia home..."

[Jordy]

Wow ! This is a tough message from the Australian government to assylum seekers and undocumented migrants. One wonders what has happened to the Australian spirit of "Fair Go". My opinion is that there are two voices at the moment: those that find the hardline approach despicable and are making their voices heard; and those that support the hardline approach but keep silent because it is just so inhumane. It almost seems un-pc to support it but there must be enough supporters for the government to feel they can go this route.

For those who've come across the seas We've boundless plains to share; With courage let us all combine To Advance Australia Fair........NOT

[SurferMan]

I have a good guy in our little church who is the REAL DEAL as a muslim converted to Christian. No chance he has, he has Manus Island or Iran where he is already lined up for torture and death. I hear you Jordy, this is a strong stance, but correct if you see it from Gov's eyes/point of view. There is no easy answer to this. So much emotion tied up into this one, almost impossible to work an amenable route forward.

[Sunnyskies]

Jordy, I'm with you on this one. My read on it is:

- the government is sending hard messages overseas to deter people smuggling

- the government's political stance is to win votes in marginal areas where people are worried about loosing their low skill jobs and has very little to do with real courage of their convictions.

Most people I know think that it is red herring issue - just enough to deflect attention away from real issues - when in doubt talk about the boats! Unfortunately, I think ISIS is going to cause more people to support government policy out of fear of letting muslims in.

[Gya]

I personally have mixed feelings about this. I was talking to a Zimbabwean and told me their national passport costs R500 (pls correct me if am wrong) and it can be got in about a months' time. Instead of going the easy route, they pay the smuggler R3000 on average and cross into SA illegally!

Now who benefits in this case? the smuggler isn't it? and the looser is the "refugee" who risks being raped on the way, eaten by crocs and lions etc

Edited October 20, 2014 by Gya

[Jordy]

Gya, you raise an interesting point about South African's lack of border control with Zimbabwe. I have often wondered how different South Africa would be without the estimated 5-8 million (some say 10 million) illegals immigrants in it. My uneducated opinion/guess is that it would have less squatter camps (to the tune of perhaps 10 miilion poeple less), more work for locals, less crime, etc etc. Basically South Africa would be a very very different place if South Africa could control its borders.

But back to Australia: To me there is a vast difference between someone who is a genuine asylum seeker, and someone who just wants a better life because Australia is a great country and seeks to be part of that life illegally. My problem is the way in which we are treating the genuine cases of those determined to be asylum seekers. The current policy is that even they will not be allowed in but will be sent to Cambodia to live. I also have a problem with the time it takes to process the claims. We all know that immi takes years to process visas but then we are not sitting in locked up in a concentration camp on an island for those years. Surely they can speed up the process. Children are spending up to two years in a 'prison' while they await classification. Then if succesful they are shipped off to Cambodia.

My point is that the spirit of the government's policy seems so at odds with the spirit of Australia that I signed at my visa application to be a part of.

[Tiermelk]

I was talking to a Zimbabwean and told me their national passport costs R500 (pls correct me if am wrong) and it can be got in about a months' time. Instead of going the easy route, they pay the smuggler R3000 on average and cross into SA illegally!

Now who benefits in this case? the smuggler isn't it? and the looser is the "refugee" who risks being raped on the way, eaten by crocs and lions etc

No logic in that...? O yes, TIA.

Wow ! This is a tough message from the Australian government to assylum seekers and undocumented migrants. One wonders what has happened to the Australian spirit of "Fair Go". My opinion is that there are two voices at the moment: those that find the hardline approach despicable and are making their voices heard; and those that support the hardline approach but keep silent because it is just so inhumane. It almost seems un-pc to support it but there must be enough supporters for the government to feel they can go this route.

For those who've come across the seas We've boundless plains to share; With courage let us all combine To Advance Australia Fair........NOT

Surely the "Fair Go" spirit can not apply to illegal activities? ie. "undocumented migrants" are illegal migrants. The same way Zimbabweans are putting strain on the South African system illegal migrants puts strain on the Australian system. I would rather my tax dollars go to free medical and tertiary education for "Australians" ( ) than supporting illegal migrants.

[Fish]

As an Australian I find it disgusting.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Fish

[Sunnyskies]

As an Australian I find it disgusting.

As a new Australian I totally agree, double like Fish.

[Jordy]

Surely the "Fair Go" spirit can not apply to illegal activities? ie. "undocumented migrants" are illegal migrants.

This is a misconception, ...applying for asylum is not illegal even if you have no documentation and arrive by boat, hence they are not illegal migrants. An illegal migrant is someone holds a visa, and enters the country legally on that visa but overstays in the country after the expiration of that visa. Conversely a person who travels to Australia without a visa and applies for asyllum at the border is not illegal.

Source: http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ASRC_10_Myths.pdf

However my fair go comment was aimed at those who have legally been granted Asyllum status and are determined to be genuine refugees after arrival through due legal process but are still denied entry. Instead they are shipped off to Nauru or Cambodia! the problem is that government has used the term "illegal" to describe everyone. This is not correct.

[PTLF]

Ok, I'm working out what Jordy is saying compared to what the video portrays. The video is saying coming to Australia without a visa is illegal, and works up the anxiety of people by saying crime will increase and you will be robbed. Jordy has provided facts that it is legal to arrive with no visa if they apply for asylum. There is an angle of humanity and empathy here.

I am going back to the topic of mass immigration of Zimbabweans to SA (whether legal or illegal). It is inhumane to deny Zimbabweans into SA because they have nowhere to go and suffer in their country. It is not their fault they are treated harshly, they are the victims here. Their children are starving and they cant survive there. Zimbabweans are genuinely very friendly and hard working people. However, there is a side effect to the rest of SA. Less jobs for South Africans, increased poverty and informal settlements, increased strain on the government to support them, crime...

Going back to Australia. What would happen if everyone was let in? There is so much suffering in the world, everywhere. I know helping one man would change his life completely and forever, but what about helping all the rest? I'm going against the grain here and voting for the hardline approach. Sorry. By all means allow asylum for a few (they should contribute to Australia and not worsen crime).

This is a misconception, ...applying for asylum is not illegal even if you have no documentation and arrive by boat, hence they are not illegal migrants. An illegal migrant is someone holds a visa, and enters the country legally on that visa but overstays in the country after the expiration of that visa. Conversely a person who travels to Australia without a visa and applies for asyllum at the border is not illegal.

Source: http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ASRC_10_Myths.pdf

However my fair go comment was aimed at those who have legally been granted Asyllum status and are determined to be genuine refugees after arrival through due legal process but are still denied entry. Instead they are shipped off to Nauru or Cambodia! the problem is that government has used the term "illegal" to describe everyone. This is not correct.

Side note: I agree with Jordy here. If they are legally granted asylum then why are they being shipped off?

Disclaimer: I am young and ignorant and apologise if I have offended some forumites.

Edited October 21, 2014 by PTLF

[Jordy]

Going back to Australia. What would happen if everyone was let in? There is so much suffering in the world, everywhere. I know helping one man would change his life completely and forever, but what about helping all the rest? I'm going against the grain here and voting for the hardline approach. Sorry. By all means allow asylum for a few (they should contribute to Australia and not worsen crime).

This thought also crossed my mind, but the fact is Australia has averaged 30000 refugees a year for each of the past 8 years. Because of the location of Australia and the difficulty in getting to Australia (surrounded by sea) there isnt a floodgate to open. So we talking about 30000 people here, not millions like the Zimbabwe case.

In 2012 poor countries received over 80% of the world’s refugees (2.4million). Pakistan was host to the largest number of refugees worldwide (1.6 million), followed Iran (868,200). Australia has 30,000, or 0.3% of the global total.

Source: http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ASRCMythBusterShortJul30th2013-Summary-FINAL.pdf

From the above source:

FACT Asylum seekers are neither illegal nor are they immigrants. Immigrants leave by choice and can return at any time. Asylum seekers are forced to leave and cannot return for fear of persecution—such as torture, imprisonment and execution.

FACT As a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Australia must provide protection to people fleeing persecution, regardless of whether they arrive by air or by sea.

FACT There is no Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia without a valid visa for the purposes of seeking asylum.

[Tiermelk]

This thought also crossed my mind, but the fact is Australia has averaged 30000 refugees a year for each of the past 8 years. Because of the location of Australia and the difficulty in getting to Australia (surrounded by sea) there isnt a floodgate to open. So we talking about 30000 people here, not millions like the Zimbabwe case.

So they are also not running to the closest safe harbor, they are choosing to come to Australia. Maybe because Australia gives everyone a fair go.

I wonder how many of them will see the video....

[Donovan83]

I think that the government should rather adopt a different approach - allow people to come by boat/plane/whatever form of transport they want to (most refugees/asylum seekers arrive by plane anyway).

However, include a proviso on their visa - if they do anything that is significantly at odds with the way of life in this country, they should have their visas cancelled and they should be sent back to where they came from.

For example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EontaTJIYzs. These people were allowed in and given a chance at a better life, and this is how they behaved. Send them home. This country is not completely void of problems that come with the locals (what human population is?) but we don't need to import other country's problems to deal with too.

I know the typical bleeding heart response to this will be ag shame, give them some counselling and help them assimilate - sorry, but being given a chance to settle here is enough. The onus is on the migrants to assimilate and adapt, regardless of what visa you came in on. It's not because they have no money that they do this (they receive centrelink and often free housing, including a $2000 crisis payment upon arrival) so that isn't an excuse.

On top of that - I'd like to ask the immigration minister - why is it that my parents, who have been attacked, are subject to discrimination based on their race, are gradually being excluded from being able to earn a living, cannot successfully be granted refugee/asylum seeker status in Australia? Sure, RSA isn't an official war zone, but all the elements are there. Instead, they're faced with a R1m bill for a visa. Just doesn't seem very fair?

[Jordy]

For example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EontaTJIYzs. These people were allowed in and given a chance at a better life, and this is how they behaved. Send them home. This country is not completely void of problems that come with the locals (what human population is?) but we don't need to import other country's problems to deal with too.

Two sides to every story: Even the Police sergant admits the Perth kids used "racial slurs" against the Africans. Let's imagine for a monent a pretend scenario: a group of blacks teenagers are out for an innocent night of fun. The black kids are minding their own business enjoying their new country's freedom. "What a wonderful country" Sipho says to Thabo. "Eish, it is just amazing! The people are so nice to us for letting us escape our wartorn country!" Philemon says, "Ya, bru, if these wonderful people had not let us come, we would certainly be dead in that ethnic cleansing." Precious comments, "I can't wait to become a doctor, so I can serve my new country." All of a sudden, their visions of utopia are shattered when an arragant bunch of drunk teenagers start taunting them. One shouts, "Go back to Africa you black $#%^". Another shouts shouts something equally offensive. The black kids ignore them and try to move in the opposite direction, but the white kids follow them taunting them with racial slurs. One white kids shoves a black girl as she is walking away. she trips and grazes her knes. Pushed beyond their limits of patience, the black kids respond with the only means they have learnt their whole lives, violence. They stand up for themselves for the first time in their lives and give the racists a beating. The racist white kids run with their tails between their legs. They see a police officer and tell the police a complete pack of lies, making themselves out to be innocent victims of black savages from Africa.

The black kids flee and are too scared to go the police. The police will never believe their side of the story, they think. They fear that their visas will be cancelled if they come out with the turth. Surely the police won't believe their story, they surmise. And if the police wont beleive their story then maybe someone in the public will say something like, "These people were allowed in and given a chance at a better life, and this is how they behaved. Send them home."

[Mara]

I do not think there is either a right or wrong answer to any of these deeds, you will find racists in every country in the world, regardless of where you go. What should the government do? Who knows, they have tried just about everything, from one extreme to the next, but nothing really stops the flow.

Sometimes a person's heart says one thing but your head says another.

I am just relieved that I am not the person who needs to make this decision!

[Gya]

No logic in that...? O yes, TIA.

Surely the "Fair Go" spirit can not apply to illegal activities? ie. "undocumented migrants" are illegal migrants. The same way Zimbabweans are putting strain on the South African system illegal migrants puts strain on the Australian system. I would rather my tax dollars go to free medical and tertiary education for "Australians" ( ) than supporting illegal migrants

@Tiermelk what is this rant about?

[Donovan83]

(Words)

Sure... that may have happened. But all we can see here is what is presented. Based on what's been presented, they were in the wrong. If the decision was up to me, and they were found to be guilty of an unprovoked or unjustifiable act of violence beyond any reasonable doubt, they'd be sent back.

Even if your story was the reality, no amount of racial slurs would justify 10+ people of any race ganging up and savagely beating another person (whether of the same or other race). The issue is not the race, the issue is the behaviour.

Edited to add - if it was locals that attacked another local, it would be impossible to send them "home" as they are there already - thus prison time would be the answer. The "send them home" only applies if it's a migrant - why should they be imprisoned here at the Australian taxpayer foot the bill?

Edited October 22, 2014 by Donovan83

[Kurkprop]

Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not conducting 'illegal activities'.

Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, which recognises that refugees have a right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. This Convention provides that what would usually be considered as illegal (eg entering without a visa) shall not be considered as such where a person is seeking asylum. Boat people are not 'illegals'. This is all part of the horrible propoganda that this (and previous governments) are feeding the public. Remeber the Tampa?

Surely the "Fair Go" spirit can not apply to illegal activities? ie. "undocumented migrants" are illegal migrants. The same way Zimbabweans are putting strain on the South African system illegal migrants puts strain on the Australian system. I would rather my tax dollars go to free medical and tertiary education for "Australians" ( ) than supporting illegal migrants.

[RYLC]

The problem with the argument of looking for asylum in Australia is that many pass through other countries that are also part of the UN Refugee Convention. They have chosen Australia as their ideal country for asylum. We are an island miles from anywhere. The nearest asylum country is not their number one choice. It's the country shopping that annoys people (together with the fact that Australia sends a lot of money overseas to fund aid). It's interesting that some RSA migrants who have jumped through mega hoops to get here think that we should just open the doors because people knock. What about the refugees stuck in camps in Africa who are land locked and can't get on a boat. Notwithstanding the war torn countries boat people come from, they all have the means to pay for their passage. These are not poor people. It's the refugees stuck in camps for 20 years or more who I feel sorry for. Rather let them come.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Crisplet

[Tiermelk]

I was not going to respond to this any further, but since Crisplet revived it.

Pushed beyond their limits of patience, the black kids respond with the only means they have learnt their whole lives, violence.

Jordy that is a problem, African violence is probably what most people of this forum ran away from.

And that will take generations to change, even when living in Australia.

[Donovan83]

I think it's also the unfairness of this refugee/asylum seeker programme.

My parents have been attacked, are gradually being excluded from the workforce or from generating an income because their business isn't black enough. Surely that would be grounds to successfully claim refugee/asylum seeker status?

Of course not. They're white South Africans. They must pay R1m for a contributory parent visa, thanks. Oh, and unlike the refugees, they won't get any welfare for the first 10 years you're here.

[Nev]

So this is something i'm pretty passionate about, so excuse the soap box.....

(Really hope i don't ruffle anyone feathers but this is an important topic to me)

My issue with this all is purely financial, i vehemently dislike any kind of racial profiling, racial slurs...etc but that is a separate problem to the below so i'm not going into any of that.

When i got my tax return this year the provided numbers showed somewhere around 30% or 40% of my taxes went to welfare (I can find the paper tonight if anyone needs me to),

Additional refugees will add significantly to this, as is mentioned above, why do they come to Australia, why don't the boats stop in Indonesia to ask for refugee status, it will cost the refugees a lot less?

I get it, who wouldn't want to have the kind of life offered by Australia,

Until the new policy changes the number of refugees was increasing significantly every year, since the change the numbers have dropped to almost nothing as the refugees for the most part don't want just a different country, they want Australia.

The problem is, it is not sustainable for Australia, they were talking about $200k-$500k in costs per refugee,

If they are granted refugee status the country could end up supporting the family for the rest of their lives, our dollars could be better spent i think if they just added a tax for a feeding program in Ethiopia rather than paying for a refugee that could have landed at a closer country to their source, what im trying to say is that the philanthropic money from the country could be way better spent stopping people from starving rather than on giving families a new life in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/boat-people-warning-on-rising-cost-of-refugees--up-to-500000-each-20131222-2ztax.html

Now i want you to multiply 30 000 refugees by $250 000 (Lets be really conservative), then add lifetime welfare, then make that 30 000 per year and tell me how much more tax you are willing to pay to make the government books balance, the drama on the petrol tax increase currently is the perfect example, we are talking 40c on 50 liters of fuel, that is an increase of zero point 8 cents per liter and people are throwing their toys over it.

Would Australians be willing to give up their Public schooling, childcare benefits, look at what is happening when the government tries to remove the university subsidy

As much as people want the government to do things sometimes it is just not financially possible, the money has to come from somewhere and it was REALLY expensive

Edited October 31, 2014 by Nev

[Tiermelk]

a tax for a feeding program in Ethiopia

As hard as it may be I agree with this view...

"If we feed the hungry today, then those we save will survive and reproduce, and the next generations will be larger.

The underlying causes of their starvation will remain (crop failures, civil wars, etc.)

Therefore, there will be another wave of starvation in the future.

The next wave of starvation will be larger (because there are more starving people, see 1).

Eventually, we will not be able to save the starving people (because there are too many of them).

Therefore, we cause more starvation (and hence, more misery) by feeding the hungry than by not feeding them.

So, we shouldn’t feed the hungry."

[SurferMan]

Matthew 26

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

[Nev]

Tiermelk, I understand your view but mine is that we cannot watch another person starve to death, that is a separate discussion though,

My point was simply that there are more meaningful things to do with the billions of dollars than provide a new home for people who have closer options, and the first will be to pay the bills that Australia has, secondly get out of debt, then perhaps look for places to spend the excess if the politicians ever leave any behind......