I don’t know… I am not very keen on refugees either. If you wanna come to the country and stay, fine. If you do so under duress such that you are fleeing a bad situation, fine.
Is this the case with these folks, or are they just looking to hang out in Australia until better days?
And a little more clarification.
Yes an Australian team made the request. They were the only people in the region with the means to organise the rescue. They knew the nearest vessel was the “Tampa” and requested that they pick them up in the knowledge that lives could be lost if this wasn’t done. That doesn’t place any onus on australia. Think about it like this. The Titanic is sinking and has no radio. The Tampa is in the area and a Bolivian navy vessel, 300 kilometres away, who has the only long range communications equipment in the region, makes a request that the Tampa pick up any survivors. Does that make Bolivia responsible for the survivors? Does it justify the survivors being taken to Bolivia? No, of course it doesn’t. Australian officials made a request for the Tampa to collect those in distress in an effort to save lives. It was a request, not an order. Australia has no right to order any vessel about in international waters. Having saved their lives as a result of this act doesn’t mean that those officials are then responsible for these people forevermore. That’s just bizarre to me. Can I ask you, vorford, if a US naval vessel operating in the area had requested the pickup, would the refugees now somehow be an American responsibility?
mhendo,
Oh spare me the implied racism crap will you? Anyone who knows my history on these boards isn’t going to buy it for a second.
It is not an unnecesary reference since my entire post was providing background as to why the Australian public and politicians have grounds for being less than tolerant of middle-eastern asylum seekers and less than willing to give te benefit of the doubt. The post was intended solely to provide a context for what at first appears to be a less than compassionate view by Australian citizens towards a group of people who so neatly fit the bill of bogus middle eastern asylum seekers, a group of peolpe who in the past have performed actions including deliberately delaying there exportation from Australia as long as possible, and rioting. No other group have been responsible for such riots. That strawman about middle easterners being a threat to the safety of australia is so obvious it’s laughable. I never said any such thing, I never implied any such thing. Stop crying witch already, we’ve run out ducks to weigh them all against.
I failed to point out the reasons for the breakout because the reasons are irrelevant. A crime was commited, people have been charged, several have been convicted. reasons can never be knbown and this board deals in fact, not speculation.
Ok mhendo, what part of "We can charitably assume that they are genuine asylum sekers, but that would run counter to the known facts and probabilities. " don’t you understand?
2)Australia is wealthy, it should probably take more refugees, but our funds are ultimately limited and are much better spent helping people fleeing genuine oppression than catering for people who want a better chance to make money. I’d rather my tax dollars were spent on 400 Rwandan refugees in genuine fear for their lives than 400 money hungry Afghanistanis. It’s that simple. Yes Australia is a wealthy nation but we don’t have unlimited resources. Lets use those limited resurces to do the most good, not squander it. The majority of Australians agree with this position according to every poll I’ve seen so far and thankfully we live in a democracy and our politicians are representing the will of the people. The only moral problem I can see here is the perverted morality that says that because you have the money to afford a plane ticket to Indonesia and ten thousand bucks for a peolpe smuggling racket you should be allowed to jump the queue ahead of far more deserving cases and at the expense of people who are genuinely being tortured and killed. If we allow these peolpe in then that’s 400 genuine cases who will be beaten, raped tortured, imprisoned or killed. That to my way of thinking is truly immoral.
Erislover,
If, as we can assume to be the case based on past history, these peolpe are wealthy Afghanistanis simply seeking greater economic opportunities then it’s a safe bet they will never return if granted resident status. Now I don’t see a problem with taking refugees either short or long term. If the Jewish population of Germany chose to return after WWII, or chose to move on to Isreal, or decided to settle in the countries they fled to I can’t see that’s a problem. My philosophy is that you help people in times of need without expecting them to live their lives as you dictate forever. What I do have a probelm with is peolpe in no danger whatsoever taking precious resources away from people who are going to die as a result. Australian immigration has a limited budget. Every day we keep frauds in custody at great expense is another day a genuine case has to languish under fear for their lives, and another day closer to their deaths. It really is that simple to me.
Gaspode - I agree with everything you’ve said, which you’ve said well.
However I’m very much in favour of a revamping of the current system of refugee assessment. Rights of appeal to the AAT and the Federal Court are all well and good, but as you say its too expensive, and its too slow. I’d rather give a lot of people who get here the benefit of the doubt and let them in, than take potentially years or send them back potentially to their deaths. Those years of sitting around refugee detention camps in the north-west deprives the community of people who can make a contribution to it, and more importantly diminishes those people.
I saw a guy who appeared before Justice French in the Federal Court, who was a refugee appealing a decison to be sent back to Iran. French J is an excellent judge and a good man - he said he would personally ask barristers he knew to act for this refugee for no fee. But, bloody hell, I felt sorry for this guy: he was surrounded by immigration officers and stuck in a well-furbished courtroom dealing with a judge in a language he didn’t understand. Its a credit to the Australian system of government and justice that he had a right of appeal, and that he was provided with an interpretator. That makes it easier, but it doesn’t stop that guy from lingering in a camp for years wondering if he will be sent back to Iran for a bullet in the head because he doesn’t meet criteria he might not fully understand.
Dave my man I know exactly where you’re coming from. I see the problems, I’m just stuffed if I know the answer. Your solution seems a little to simplistic to be workable. The problem is that without a thorough investigation we can’t determine if someone is a genuine refugee or even a criminal, and investigations take time. We can’t let people with no Visa and no verifiiable history wander around the country willy-nilly, it’s too dangerous. We can’t keep them in concentraion camps because it’s too expensive. We can’t send every illegal back without investigation because that also expels the genuine refugees who may be killed if returned. We can’t allow every load of illegals brought in by the people smugglers clear access because that only rewards the people smugglers and encourages more people to make the attempt. We can’t afford to spend time and money on non-deserving cases because in the real world Australia doesn’t have the budget to accept all comers, and every fraud we’re forced to feed, house, educate and provide medical care for strips money from deserving cases, leading to prevenatble death and suffering. We can’t simply let refugees loose without ensuring the provision of food, housing, education and medical care.
Aaarrgh, my brain’s starting to hurt.
Whatever the solution is it’s not going to be simple. But I’m bloody certain that saying that Australia needs ‘redemption’ for being less than completely compassionate in all cases is a display of the grossest ignorance of the complexity of the situation and a display of the worst naivity of the workings of the real world.
Just a few days ago, the TV news showed the American Coast Guard trying to keep a boatload of Cubans from making landfall at the US in Florida, which would have allowed them to use the one foot on the dirt policy to become refugees and stay. The boat was in no danger of sinking and was under power and fended off Zodiacs of guardsmen trying to board and stop it. I found this process repugnant as the guard doused the boat with fire hoses and used their big ships to interfere with the boats progress plus pestered it with the Zodiacs, forcing the Cubans to brandish knives and throw things. In the end, they lost, which means the guard took them aboard and would return them to Cuba.
People are all concerned over a bad element among illegals, but it seems to me that we get just as many criminals legally through immigration as we do illegally. Around here, we have a lot of Middle Eastern physicians, who came here legally, having the money and the good education credentials and who promptly set up offices and treat people like lower class, have been hauled into court for malpractice, tend to shove people in hospitals for longer stays than necessary because they can charge $100 each day they drop in to see them for 5 minutes, prey mainly on the minorities and have been known to practice second rate medicine and several have been charged with illegally dispensing controlled medication to addicts.
So, the criminal element excuse wears mighty thin with me. In Florida, in Miami, among the heavy Cuban population, they are arresting and closing down doctors and dentists and plastic surgeons by the ton, most of which operate out of their own houses, have suspended or no legal licenses at all, who often have not even sterilized their equipment properly and several deaths have been recorded from these guys. These guys came in legally and promptly set up to prey on their own people.
I still remember the programs on Americans and other nations turning away the Jewish ship full of Jews trying to flee Hitler, who were eventually returned and by wars end, 99% of them were dead. Since my ancestors came here as immigrants fleeing conscription in WW1, I have a soft spot for illegals trying to get here and other lands when trying to flee oppression in their own.
First of all, i don’t believe you are racist; you are right that your posts give no indication that this is the case. But you might have made it clearer in the other post that what you were discussing was the reasons behind a more general antipathy to refugess in Australia rather than your own feelings on the subject. And in either case, whether you claim such feelings for yourself or just attribute them to others, the idea that because other middle easterners have proven to be less-than-exemplary refugees we should not judge this case on its own merits is not exactly the principles by which the Australian legal system was set up.
You lay down credentials as a sympathetic observer by saying, quite rightly:
but then you add the caveat:
So, should one infer from this that the presumption of innocence should not attach to groups whose regional affiliations are the same as those who have broken out of detention centres? The middle east is a big place with quite a few nations and cultural groups, some of which are represented in Australian camps and on that boat. Surely this diversity of possible motives and means for coming to Australia indicates that each case should be examined on its merits? Your reference to middle easterners was not racist, but i believe it was simplistic.
You also say:
I wonder where you got these figures, or were they just picked out of the air to strengthen your case? You can check out this article from back in April, well before this whole issue of the ship at Christmas Island, which points out that:
Not only does this show that the majority of Afghanis were found to be genuine refugess, but that it is simplistic to use the term “middle easterners” to refer to them; as the record shows, Iraqis and Afghanis tend to be found to be genuine, whereas Iranians are often rejected, along with many Chinese (who i realise are not from the middle east). I can’t claim to know the reasons behind every acceptance or rejection, but surely this indicates the need to look at every case individually. And i have yet to find any evidence that this particular set of asylum-seekers (on Christmas Island) are wealthy.
Also. as this article points out, the majority of the more than 50,000 people in Australia illegally are from Britain and the US. The fact that they arrived by plane for a holiday or work does not make their overstaying any less illegal than the presence of the boatpeople. And if you think it costs Australian taxpayers nothing to deal with these visa overstayers, then you’re dreaming.
The same piece also points out that, although Australia has historically been very welcoming of refugees (something i would never deny), there are plenty of other places in the world whose resources are being strained far more than Australia’s right now.
And recently, Australia’s attitude has hardened, as this article points out.
You also said:
Given your unsupported comments about “90%” of these refugees being bogus, your statement about “fact, not speculation” here is rather amusing. But more importantly, do you really believe that the treatment received by these people was irrelevant to their actions? Do you really believe that there are no circumstances under which people might reasonably protest against their jailers?
An area where we find ourselves in general agreement is the notion that the best thing would be if Australia can take in refugees who have a genuine need to be removed their homeland. I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that it’s genuine refugees we should be aiming for. But again, i find your reasoning about how we might determine this to be somewhat simplistic. Do you really think that people’s economic circumstances can be separated from their need for humanitarian aid? Of course, you dismiss this issue by referring to such people as “money hungry”, but can you separate a person’s ability to earn a living from his or her ability to eat? By such criteria we would look over refugees and say, “OK, yes, this one’s been attacked by a machete, he can come in. But this one is only on the verge of starvation due to lack of economic opportunities in her own country. Back on the boat.”
I agree that taking refugees from Rwanda would be great, but Australia can only deal with the people who make it to the door (unless you want to start sending out the navy to pick people up?). Do you adopt some philosophical high ground which says that we can’t take one group of people because there may be people elsewhere in the world who are not quite as repressed, downtrodden, and miserable?
Then spare me comments like "i’m trying to work out whether this unnecessary reference is meant to imply that all middle easterners are somehow untrustworthy or a threat to the safety of Australia. " The implication is rather too obvious for anyone with half a brain to ignore.
OK, you’ve been out of Australia for a few years, but they still predominantly speak English in North Am don’t they? What part of “I’ll try and introduce some background.” and "I hope this puts a little context on why the Australian public and the Australian government are more than a little sceptical about the refugee status of this group. " don’t you understand? How could I make that any f***ing clearer? Next time please read and comprehend before making a post whose sole purpose appears to be to demonstrate how much more comapssionate you are than I, mkay?
Nor is the principal that anyone dressed in Bikie club colours is a criminal. Nevertheless people raect to people of clearly defineable groups in this way. It is unfortuantely the way our brains evolved. I never at any stage made any reference to the Australian legal system, so why the hell bring it up. Agaian I have to ask, what part of “how many times and how often you have to be beaten over the head with a begging bowl before you can be forgiven for avoiding beggars” didn’t you understand? I made it quite clear no less than three times the post is intended to provide context. Read and comprehend. You’re a smart man from what I’ve seen so far. I know you can do it.
Oh spare me the freaken strawmen will you. They don’t wash around here. It’s that simple.
I never said that, I never implied that. It’s a strawman out and out. I never mentioned regional affiliation in relation to that sentence so stop the implied racism crap will you. If every single person who enters a 7-11 wearing a balaclava robs the place at what stage can we claim that an assumption of good intention on the part of such people “runs counter to the known facts and probabilities?”. Again I urge you to read and comprehend before posting.
The balaclave is a diverse peice of clothing with quite a few potential uses and fashion possibilities, some of which are represented in convenience store customers. Surely this diversity of possible motives and means for coming into a convenience store wearing a balaclave indicates that each case should be examined on its merits?
Yeah sure thing mhendo. That’s how people think in the real world. :rolleyes:
Which one, the one that reads “In recent years there has been a trend for people from a range of countries, but notably the middle easetrn region to pay peolpe smugglers to get them to Australia” or the one that reads “in the past couple of years we’ve had instances of mass breakouts from detention centres and two riots where guards were seriously injured, all perpetuated by middle easter ‘asylum seekers’”. Those are the only two references I made to middle easterners. How are they ignoring complexities exactly? Or do you mean the references to middle easterners you implied that I made?
No I got them from a 4-Corners episide screened some months back that I unfortunately can’t find on thier website. However from this site we see that "Of the 10,254 people who arrived since November 1989, 12.3% (1,265 people) were permitted to stay in Australia on refugee or other humanitarian grounds. 31.0% (3,179 people) were allowed into Australia on temporary protection visas. 31.7% (3,252 people) were removed and the remainder are awaiting decisions on their status or awaiting repatriation to their source country.
So at best 45% of all people illegally entering Australia by boat are found to be refugess. Rest assured those who can afford to catch commercial flights and hire professional people smugglers is far lower, about the 10% I quoted above. Or do you honestly believe that the majority of genuine refugees can afford airline tickets and $10000 boat trips?
This is another strawman. I can only exhort you to read and comprehend before posting. Yor above post in no way contradicts my statement that 90% of people who enterd the country via people smuggling rackets are deported. You do understand that not every person brought to Australia by people smugglers is Iraqi or Afghan don’t you.? I suspect you do and are attempting to argue against a statement I never made. This figure doesn’t even begin to agree with the figures for all boat people quoted above.
Another strawman.
OK, I see now. You obviously don’t comprehend the difference between people being brought in by people smugglers and Afghans and Iraqis. The above quote by itself demonstrates they are not synonomous groups. Can you please show me excatly where I made a statement that the majority of Afghans and Iraqis were rejected?
Please stop the strawmen.
Yet another strawman. You do know what a strawman is don’t you Michael? It’s where you argue against a parody of my argument, rather than the argument presented. Saying that “this shows that the majority of Afghanis were found to be genuine refugess” is a blatant strawman because at no stage have I ever said otherwise. You’re arguing against something that was never proposed.
And perhaps you would be good enough to show me where I did use the term middle easterners to refer to Afghanis? Of course you can’t because this is another strawman.
What a surprise. A strawman. Where exactly did I say or even imply that Iraqis and Afghanis tend not to be found to be genuine? Hell where did I even mention Iraqis?
Another strawman. I never at any stage said otherwise.
Another strawman. I never at any stage said these asylum seekers were wealthy.
Gee, there’s something I haven’t seen for a while. Astrawman. For crying out loud mhendo, where the f*** did I even mention Britain or the US? For that matter what relevance does it have to the current debate? More psychological damage is caused by rape than assault, so we shouldn’t proseecute people guilty of assault? That’s the worst peice of ‘reasoning’ I’ve seen on these boards all week.
Well I didn’t see that coming, a strawman.
mhendo is English your first language? How could you possibly misread a statement like “Australia is wealthy, it should probably take more refugees”? There is no way on God’s green Earth that you could misinterpret that surely. Your strawman here is obviously intentional.
Which means what? That Australia should take all people regardless of there acttual staus, even if doing so means we can’t take deserving cases? What an irresponsible, morally reprehensible and naive attitude.
What’s that supposed to be, an argument from authority? The figures are tangentially of interest to this debate, but the extraneous opinion, what’s that all about?
Well since you’ve said it, can you at least present the evidence that it’s bogus. Or is this just unsubstantiated tripe?
This is another strawman mhendo. Whether their circumstances were relevant to their action is in itself irrelevant becasue it in no way alters the background information, which is factual. If you want to debate this issue start another thread. It has no place in this one. None at all.
Well I must say I’m astounded. Mostly on account of having never at any stage given any reasoning at all as to how this might be accomplished. None, nowhere. I not only didn’t present any reasoning, I couldn’t have presented any reasoning because I haven’t done any. My God mhendo please ,for amusement value, quote where exactly I presented any reasoning on how we should attempt to determine whether refugees are genuine. I’d be most interested to see it.
Well yeah I do. It’s quite simple. If you’re dirt poor but your life and health is at no risk then you don’t need humanitarian aid obviously.
And where did I dismiss the issue by stating such exactly? Your entire post has been one straw man after another. I stated quite simply that “I’d rather my tax dollars were spent on 400 Rwandan refugees in genuine fear for their lives than 400 money hungry Afghanistanis.” Read it carefully mhendo and you will eventually comprehend that it is opinion, a prefernce for one situation over another. Don’t even attempt to suggets I was dismissing a situation. Read, comprehend, post. In that order.
Ahh how refreshing, a strawman.
What criteria Michael? The criteria where in a hypotheitical situation one group is preferred over another completely unrelated group in a black and white scenario? Or the criteria you’re trying to draw from what is clearly stated as an opinion and a hypothetical. Perhaps you could point out where I even implied such a thing mhendo?
Please give the beeding heart a rest OK? These eludicrous attacks on a position I don’t hold don’t do anything to fight ignorance. They’re just annoying.
Which is an out and out lie. Your own post above quite clearely states that the UN has referred refugees in Pakistan for resettlement in Australia. Please at least try to keep you assertions in agreement in the one post.
Gee, just to round things out a final strawman. I’ve never made any statement to that effect, or even implied such a thing. If I have I’m sure Michael will be good enough to quote it for us, won’t you Michael? My position is as stated: “What I do have a probelm with is peolpe in no danger whatsoever taking precious resources away from people who are going to die as a result. Australian immigration has a limited budget. Every day we keep frauds in custody at great expense is another day a genuine case has to languish under fear for their lives, and another day closer to their deaths”.
I really can’t make it any clearer. If you can read that and get the strawman you posted above then I can’t help you mate. I never at any stage mentioned relative degrees of being “repressed, downtrodden, and miserable”. That’s something you attributed to me with no justification, I assume in attempt to make your own position look stronger. Buddy that doesn’t work on the SDMB so please don’t try it again OK.
In future argue against my stated position, not the one you assume that I have.
Well, New Zealand let some refugees in and some are being sent to what looks from the air like some kind of island purgatory. They’ll come here then but they won’t stay here for long. Ninety-five percent of immigrants to NZ leave within a few years because no-one will give them jobs. They are possibly the wrong colour or their arithmetic skills are superior to those of the employer caste. (You have considered I hope, that if that ship load of refugees had blond hair they would be in hotels having hot showers and reading travel brochures by now). I’ve been unemployed for some time time now. I’m not coloured but a female. I’ve registered with about six employment agencies in my city. I’ve had a hot shower or bath every day of my life and a change of clothes. I use cosmetics and skincare products. Half of my life savings are gone accumulating stuff like M.O.U.S. certificates and buying software. Yesterday the local newspaper ran an article on what the problem is with people like me. Why the unemployment? The employment agency heads said it was because the unemployed were, basically, unhygienic - both physically and morally it seemed. Apparently the “good” agencies would not dream of touching a smelly long-term unemployed person - they are just not nice. NZ is no place for decent people. The inmates rule the asylum. On a certain level, the bigoted, the narrow-minded and the uneducated are in control. Although I’m not saying that’s true at the parliamentary level.
Cite please?
Cite please.
G. Nome the type of stuff you just posted belongs in IMHO or the pit. Not GD. There were no facts at all that I could see beyond your inability to find a job. And that is completely unrelated to the current debate. Please stick to the matter at hand, no matter how depressed you may be feeling about your current situation. Personal judgemnts about all New Zealander not being a place for decent people and narrow minded, lunatic bigots running the system is ignorant at best, and the last thing we want around here is more ignorance.
IMHO New Zealand is one of, if not the, most progressive, tolerant, open minded societies on the planet. Please don’t blame the economic or personal circumstances that have led to your current situation on all New Zealanders having a mental problem and class prejudice. That is obviously not true.
cite please.
A cite for what?
You want me to produce a cite for my having an opinion of New Zealand being a progressive country?
Or a cite that says that every single person in a position of authority in New Zealand, outside parliament, isn’t suffering from mental illness?
Or a cite that says that the majority of people in a position of authority in New Zealand, outside parliament have an education?
I’ll happily provide anynof the above, just let me know which one you want.
G. Nome merely responded to your confrontational manner in a previous post where you asked for cites that you really didn’t want, or to suggest that she was full of shit.
It is clear however that there should be no confusion on your part with regard to which statement she was referring to. The statement I just quoted is the only line in the post not dedicated to putting her down.
By the way, that was an excellent reply to my question regarding evolution of about a week ago. It was definitely enlightening for me.
greinsace if you wnat to post crap like that please take it to the Pit where it is appropriate.
I genuinely would like to se sites to back up G Nome’s assertions. I find them very hard to believe. If they can’t be backed up by citations then I will then disregard them as being utter shit. Until then I will simply label them as highly suspect and running counter to all my knowledge of New Zealand and its inhabitants.
And I’m afraid I am still confused as to which statement she is referring to and you still haven’t clarified it. I’m more than happy to provide cites if she will tell me what she wants.
In short this board is about fighting ignorance, not contributing to it by making blanket assertions based purely on the experiences of one marginalised and victimised member of a society.
And don’t forget: one who seems to be playing for the other side.
I haven’t got a credit card Gaspode otherwise I could search the archives at http://www.stuff.co.nz and draw your attention to articles in the NZ press regarding immigrant unemployment rates and the poor standard of literacy within the NZ population. I once revealed some of my life experiences in a thread which I believe was called “What have been your lowest moments?” The account was truthful but not particulary comprehensive at all because the details are too personal. I believe people as individuals can exist largely outside any definition of what a state or society is or isn’t. You call this one progressive and tolerant and yet when I come into contact with representatives of that state I meet suspect personalities not servants of any political ideal.
What exactly do you club Gaspode? Put it away - it’s just not nice.
And how exactly does this prove eitehr that “Ninety-five percent of immigrants to NZ leave within a few years because no-one will give them jobs” or that “if that ship load of refugees had blond hair they would be in hotels having hot showers and reading travel brochures by now”? These are completely unrealted subjects G.nome. Poor literacy and high unemployment does not equal 95% of immirants leaving NZ. Nor does it prove that the NZ bureaucracy is racist. Simply posting what appear to be incredibly ignorant statemnets doesn’t make them true. Please provide some cites.
Well that’s truly poetic, and I believe that the moon is made of green cheese. So what? What’s it got to do with NZ officials all being racist, uneducated and lunatic? Please confine this to MPSIMS, OK?
Ahh I love this. An assertion that NZ officials are racist, judgemental, uneducated lunatics is supported with… more assertions that NZ officials are racist, judgemental, uneducated lunatics. Get off your soapbox and please tell us what leads you to believe this is so. If it’s no more than ‘that’s what I see when I come into contact with them’ then it’s about as valid as saying taht all Maori are drunken, violent, stupid scum, cause that’s I see when I come into contact with them. Baseless, ignorant bigoted statements are still baseless, ignorant bigoted statements no matter who is on the recieving end of the hatred.
You’re a little bit fright’ning aren’t you Gaspode? I hereby CLOSE THIS THREAD in the name of immigrants with doctorates who can’t get jobs in NZ and women everywhere who just aren’t into the Francis Farmer trip.
First i should apologize for not responding earlier. My ISP stuffed up my internet connection for a few days.
Second, i will concede a few of the inconsistencies that you pointed out in your post.
But, it seems to me that you have still failed to address many of the issues i brought up, and have delibarately misread me (as you accuse me of doing to you) on others. If you’re going to make accusations about so-called “strawmen”, you should perhaps get yourself out of the hayshed first.
I refer you to your first post, where you remind us about the fact that asylum seekers are processed by “the Australian court system”, and the fact that Christmas Island is “subject to Australian law” and “as much a part of Australia as Manhattan Island is a part of the US” (your words). So surely the principles of the Australian legal system are those by which any refugees, legal or otherwise, should be treated once on our soil? Even if, as you suggest, many Australians have become jaded by the process, the legal system is still the framework within which the issues will be determined.
Well, who’s lining up the straw men now? You’re right that we make judgements based on past experiences, especially in circumstances where there is little or no time to ascertain the particulars of the current situation. But does this mean that we should abandon principles? The real straw man here, however, is the implicaton that the situations are congruent, and this is where the issue of time comes in. You may not have much time to determine whether the guy with the balaclava is a danger, but there is plenty of time (comparatively) to determine the legality of the asylum-seekers. Surely, in this case, the circumstances of these people should take precedence over what we might suspect will be the case based on past experience?
And while you may be right that people aren’t always quite so deliberative and rational in the real world, what about consequences? If a guy in a balaclava came into my store and i shot him out of suspicion, and it then turned out that he had no bad intentions, people might say that my shooting was justified in the heat of the moment (i wouldn’t say that, but i can see how the argument might be justified). But would people also say that he deserved to die for wearing a balaclava? In the same way, Australians (govt and individuals) might be suspicious of this group, but should that group suffer the consequences of the suspicion caused by those who have gone before?
No? What about this?
Do you think that putting the “if” and the “appear to be” disguises this? Especially when basically every argument you make from then on takes this as a given rather than as something still in question.
You are perfectly correct that i do recognize that there is a difference between wealthy refugees who are smuggled and those who get here by other means, and i also recognize that you did not make direct reference to Iraqis, Chinese, or even Americans and British. What i was trying to point out by providing more of the context that you seem to love so much is that your whole argument was proceeding from a set of narrow suppositions about who these people were, how they had come to be there, and what should be done with them as a result.
The reference to the US and the UK was directly aimed at addressing your argument about Australians being (justifiably, in your view) a bit sick of being “beaten over the head with the begging bowl” and having to go through the hassle of processing so many illegals. All i was pointing out was that, for whatever reason (media, perhaps) such anger is always aimed at people from non-English speaking backgrounds.
As a statement of opinion your sentence is fine - i agree with it. But which Afghanistanis are you talking about? 400 hypothetical ones? Or the ones at Christmas Island? If you believe that you can separate your reference to “money hungry Afghanistanis” from the tenor of the rest of your argument, then you need to wake up. This reinforces your tendency to pre-judge the case rather than looking at its particulars.
First of all, how many dirt poor people, especially in third world countries, do you think have no health or life risks? Those who fall into the category of “dirt poor” in many of these countries need humanitarian aid by definition.
Second, and more important in the context of this issue, is that you have deliberately ignored the very argument you have been making. Your main line has been that we want genuine refugees rather than people who can afford to pay $10,000 to get to Australia. Yet the evidence on Afghanistan suggests that the repression carried out by the Taliban is based not just on poverty but revolves around religious issues such as gender relations, cultural observances etc. So it is entirely possible that wealthier Afghanistanis could fall into the category of needing humanitarian aid. There were also considerable numbers of Jews who could have bought a ticket out of Germany during Hitler’s reign, had they been allowed to, and the fact that many were wealthy did not save them.
Now, given a choice between a starving or diseased person and a rich one, seeking asylum under the same circumstances, i would go along with your argument that the former should receive priority. I would also, as a more general proposition, probably take “400 Rwandan refugees in genuine fear for their lives” over “400 money-hungry Afghanistanis”. But much of your argument rests on the idea that anyone who can get hold of $10,000 can’t possibly be a genuine candidate for humanitarian aid. Given the preponderance of “known facts and probabilities” (another of your phrases) about ruthless regimes like the Taliban, is that really an assumption we should be making?
On a related issue, you criticized one of my statements about criteria for admission of refugees, and your criticism was on the mark, in its way.
Well, this quote, while it is an accurate description of my statement, is also a perfect description of your comparison of the Rwandans and Afghanistanis. And if you’re so worried about hypothetical situations, why bring up:
True, i did say that, and apologize if that made my point a bit ambiguous, but really, if you can’t see the difference between replying to a specific UN request to take a certain amount of refugees, and going out to get refugees ourselves, then there’s no point arguing further. Australia, like many nations, responds to such requests from time to time (as it did with some refugees from the Balkans conflict), but this doesn’t change the fact that, for the vast majority of the time, the refugees it deals with are the ones that make it to the front door. Again i’ll ask, would you send the navy out to pick up people?
Well, while i admit to some inconsistencies in my previous post, your inability to concede any of your own (considerable) indiscretions indicates that such things indeed do “work on the SDMB”, at least for you.
As what’s with all the aggro testostrone on your posts to me and to others? Missing your kung-fu lately and short of people to beat up on?
I hate to break up the party, but I just wanted to address this:
I was discussing this with a colleague yesterday, who asked what is the nature of the investigations anyway? With no data available (one assumes) from the home state of the refugee, is it only an interview process with a cross-check of fellow refugees?
If so, the process could be vastly sped up, through greater application of manpower.
Yeah that’s true, but its also potentially true of anyone who comes into any country on a tourist visa, and subsequently disappears.
The expense in maintaining those people is apparently enormous.
Absolutely no disagreement there.
Rewarding the poele smugglers I’m not too bothered about. Offering asylum to those who need it is somethig else again. If people are encouraged to flee to Australia because they know it is a safe and fair place, then the only thing that would bother me is their safety in their flight. A dangerous trip though is probably a better alternative to being tortured or shot.
“Fraudulent” refugees are a tough call. My wife is from Sweden, and she points to the rising resentment amongst Swedes in respect of taking on refugees who are then paid by the Swedish government ot learn Swedish (and purposefully fail their tests in order to further secure their income). This is a fault of the system, not the refugees: people across the world are notorious for taking advatange of altruism.
[/quote]
I refer you to your first post, where you remind us about the fact that asylum seekers are processed by “the Australian court system”, and the fact that Christmas Island is “subject to Australian law” and “as much a part of Australia as Manhattan Island is a part of the US” (your words). So surely the principles of the Australian legal system are those by which any refugees, legal or otherwise, should be treated once on our soil? Even if, as you suggest, many Australians have become jaded by the process, the legal system is still the framework within which the issues will be determined.
[/quote]
Which is yet another strawman. Those comments are taken totally out of context. I never at any stage mentioned the Australian legal system with respect to the paassage you quoted. It’s that simple. The background on the legal status Christmas Island was a comletely separate subject, and for you to use quotes from it in this context is disingenuous, as you well know. You took offence to a post intended to provide background and suggested that that background itself was rewuired to meet a legal standard. Background facts are background facts, however distasteful you may find them. They require no legal backing, they simply are. simple as that,.
And what is it you find so hard to comprehend about the concept of background information. Principals or otherwise are irrelevant. You implied I was a racist because of the facts that I presented. Now you are implying that presentation of thiose facts is an bandonment of principal. I hate to tell you this mate, but presentaion of facts requires neitehr racist tendencies, nor principals. This is completely irrelevant to my post.
And again I have to ask, what the F*** are you not understanding in the sentences “I’ll try and introduce some background.” and "I hope this puts a little context on why the Australian public and the Australian government are more than a little sceptical about the refugee status of this group. "?
I have never in this thread expressed any opinion about whether circumstances allow x, y or z. I have provided background concerning the reasons behind the attitudes of the majority of Australians. If you wish to suggest that such reasons cannot be held because “the idea that because other middle easterners have proven to be less-than-exemplary refugees” would imply we were not attempting to “judge this case on its own merits” then I’ll demonstrate how quite clearly people’s attitudes are frequently not based on judging every case on its own merit, and hence why we can’t suppose they have done so in this case. If you wish to argue the morality or logic of said attitudes have at it if you can find an opponent, or if you like the sound of your own voice. I’m not interested. Just don’t make comments that imply that I am racist for posting background facts. mmkay? This goes for the rst of this paragraph. i’m not interested. I’ve been through all this in another thread, I have no intention of repeating it here. Just don’t make comments like “I’m trying to work out whether this unnecessary reference is meant to imply that all middle easterners are somehow untrustworthy or a threat to the safety of Australia.”
[quote]
Another strawman. I never at any stage said these asylum seekers were wealthy.
No, I’m not attempting to disguise anything and I find it mildly offensive that you would imply that I am attemrping to do so. Read the post. Read carefully the sections that state quite clearly that “I’ll try and introduce some background.” and "I hope this puts a little context on why the Australian public and the Australian government are more than a little sceptical about the refugee status of this group. ". Comprehend. The post is clearly intnded to provide background. We don’t know facts, we can only extrapolate from past experience. If past experince has led us to believe something that is our background. I can’t quite see why you can’t accept that background fact is background fact, not a judgement.
If I made the stament “If the moon was made of green cheese” you would presumably accuse me of trying to disguise the fact it is made of rock. :rolleyes:
But I had no argument. I was providing background facts to “put a little context on why the Australian public and the Australian government are more than a little sceptical about the refugee status of this group.” Posting information about other groups is allowed, even encouraged, but to suggest that it conflicted with what I said is a strawman, pure and simple. I never made any assertions concerning Chinese or Iraqis. You posted information pertaining to these groups and directed it at me as though it had some relevance to what i said. It didin’t and so is a strawman.
Yet you directed this specifically at me and what you percieved as my argument. Since I never had any such argument and had never adressed the US or UK illegals it was a strawman. In future if you wish to point out something like this, don’t do it in such a way as to imply that I dispute those facts. The post was directed specifically at me. It was posted beneath a quote from me. In short it was directed at me with the clear implication that the facts were somehow eitehr disputed by me, unknown by me or in contradiction to my argument. since this wasn’t the case it was a clear attempt at a straw man. And that I don’t let go without showing it for what it is.
Oh for Petes sake another bloody strawman.
I state an opinion that I’d rather see money spent on the worthy rather than the unworthy and you stated that this meant I was somehow dismissing the situation. I explain too you in little words that it was clearly an opinion and now you say that I can’t separate and opinion form a specific case under discussion. You’re right, I can’t. Of course this is a strawman because I didn’t attempt to. The whole point of posting that opinion was specifically to apply it to the people being discussed. If these people are wealthy then I would rather not have my money spent on them if this is going to lead to the deaths of genuine refugees. I stated that quite clearly right at the beginning. There’s no need to judge the case on it’s merit because the opinion is predicated on a judgement of wealth. If that isn’t so then the opinion is invalid.
I can only re-iterate Michael. Read, Comprehend then Post. Not the other way around.
And agin you appear to be arguing about nothing. Of course this is so. And? How does this invalidate the fact that myself and the majority of Australians would rather not see our money spent on those who don’t need it to preserve life and health. This is as bizarre as saying that since it’s very difficult to separate the guilty from the innocent we should either jail everybody or free everybody. I never at any stage said that making the distinctions wasn’t difficult, or imlied that I had a foolproof way of making such distinctions. I said simply that such distinctions could and should be made. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?
And perhaps, Michael, you would be good enough to quote where I said anything that ever implies that evryone who can afford $10,000 dollars wasn’t a genuine refugee. Your strawmen continue to fly thick and fast.
And I will repeat my request for you to provide a quote of where I ever said such a thing. This is a blatant strawman.
Another strawman. I’m not worried about hypotheticals. I never said I was worried about hypotheticals. Can you please quote anything that ever implied I was worried about hypotheticals? What I do object to is you implication that I had at some stage in those hypotheticals suggested criteria that would allow the separation of economic and and genuine refugees. That was simply a strawman on your part, as is this.
Now as to your question, I came up with those illustrations because Michael:
1)I was demonstrating that in many cases the fact that a case can not not judged entirely on its merits does not mean that a judgement is not being made. This was in direct response to your imlication that my background was invalid because the case wasnt being judged on it’s merits.
2).I was again demonstrating that in many cases the fact that a case can not not judged entirely on its merits does not mean that a judgement is not being made. This was in direct response to your imlication that my background was invalid because the case wasnt being judged on it’s merits.
3)Such individuals are clearly not genuine refugees.
Michael, Michael, Michael. Being disingenuous really is very unbecoming on these boards.
What are you on about. You said that Australia can only deal with the people that make it to our door. That clearly isn’t true. Now you imply that I don’t understand the diffrence between taking UN sponsored refugees and collecting them ourselves. I never suggested that we collect refugees ourselves. This is your idea. Wher did it come from?? What is its relevance?
No, I wouldn’t send out the navy, I never implied that I would. I can see no reason why the navy would need to if all refugees are being referred from refugee camps and transported to Australia via arrangemnets made by the UN. Why would you believe that I would send out the navy? Is this another strawman, or are just being vague? What are you getting at here.
No sorry mate. Strawmen don’t work. For me or anyone else. Argue what I have written, not what you assume I believe. It’s that simple. My considerable indescretions have so far been rather less than forthcoming.
No, I take an objection to would-be bleeding hearts implying that I am racist, and then twisting my words to do so.
In G. Nomes case the reason for my aggravation is stated quite clearly. Baseless, ignorant bigoted statements are still baseless, ignorant bigoted statements no matter who is on the recieving end of the hatred.GD isn’t meant to be a platform for spewing baseless personal opinions and hatred of authority, that can be saced fro IMHO or The Pit. Anything posted here is supposed to be supportable with either fact or logic. Nothing G. Nome posted met those criteria. I tend to get very aggravated by both ignorance and irrational hatred. Most people on these boards do.
Dave,
Well for those refugees who have documentation I gather it’s rather rapid. For those who don’'t hten it gets far more comlictaed apparently. MAny of these refugees arrive with no documentation and no reason for not having such, so the process is delayed considerably.
Simply having more manpower is probably not the solution since manpower costs money, and money, like all resources is ultimately limited.
No, it’s not. Criminal history checks of some sort are required before a visa will be issued. Also the home adress, relatives, physical description etc. of passport holders is known, so thy’re not simply complete strangers with no past wandering around the country. They’re wanted people with a history and description.
While i agree with this, it assumes that all the peolpe brought in in this way are legally entitled to be here and not sucking resources and places from genuine refugees. this isn’t the case, and as such encouraging smugglers and allowing them to exapnd their businesses is a threat to genuine refugees as well.
well i’m not sure what this is getting at, but I agree. How this adresses the issue of how to ensure fraudulent cases don’t siphon funds from genuine cases is beyond me. It seems the Swedish cases you discuss are genuine refugees, once that is determined then everything else is simply more rorting, and is done by immigrant and indigenous alike.
You’ve enlightened me now, genius. I know that all i need to do in future is yell “strawman” at everything and that will erase all inconsistencies. A rhetorical tour de force!