Those that overstay their visa that fly in (majority)
or
Those that arrive by boat.......with the possibily of seeking asylum (unlikely) and sent back.
I generally keep up with what is going on and don't understand the governments fixation with boats when the numbers are the clear minority.
Tall said
I really think is time some took a deep breath and seriously considered the consequences of what they are proposing.
Australia like every other country has laws governing not only who can came and stay, but also how many, and when we are taking about the how many, this number is subdivided into specific groups (humanitarian, family reunion, skills etc.) with of course refugees falling within the humanitarian category.
Now worldwide there are millions who would currently qualify for the definition of refugee and therefore if they all could get here would qualify for asylum. If you now extend that definition to those living in poverty, or simply no longer want to live where they are, then, the numbers increases to the billions.
So I pose the following linked question to those who take issue with Australia’s performance when it comes to our humanitarian intake to date, noting that per capita we have one of the highest intakes in the category in the world:
What do you say should be the criteria when determining whether a person qualifies for immigration on humanitarian grounds?
Do your accept that the problem is so large that we are simply not in a position to take the lot?
If you agree we can’t take the lot, then how many do you say we could take?
If you accept that we need to restrict the numbers we can take, what do say should happen to those who arrive, fall within the definition you have set, but are excess to the humanitarian quota you have decided on?
then Tall said
@tall_bearded wrote:No Boris I didn’t run away. Nor have I conceded your point. It’s just a case of the tides were right, the boat was fuelled and the fishing’s been good.
Ah, I see. You’re saying we ought to scrap our current two tiered program (foreign aid coupled with resettlement) and simply concentrate on providing a safe haven, which is at the core of the refugee policies and practices of the countries that you cite.
That is from now on, to improve our ranking all we need to do is go to the camps already existing, select a few hundred thousand who are most in need, and relocate them into UN administered and funded camps here. Then, from that group, we can choose those who will get a place as part of our immigration intake; that is if we decide to maintain that program, because that program is in excess of our obligations under the charter. Finally what happens to those who arrive self-funded? They too are sent to the camps, but every one that comes means one less space for someone already housed in a camp somewhere else.
As for funding, I would assume that the conditions that exist in camps in the countries you mentioned would be unacceptable here. So if the UN is not able to provide them a standard of living we deem acceptable, then I guess it’s a case of we will need to reduce the amount we currently contribute as foreign aid to fund camps elsewhere, as we will need to redirect those funds to perons living the camps here.
The point, the countries you mention as performing better when it comes to refugees than we are provide them with little more than a safe place where they can camp. A place which they will never be able to call home, and a place which they must vacate immediately conditions in their home country improve.
So are you saying this is what you think we should also do?
Tall, didn't think you had run away and have just been checking on what I have posted, very little in this thread - I am not suggesting anything that you have assumed, just trying to dispel some myths in regards to australia's asylum seeker/refugee chatter. Its important to come from actual facts - not myths created by successive governments. From memory the second part of my post's was in answer to meep.
I don't consider those camps/detention centre's safe or humane - the only ones having a laugh over this kind of thing is Serco, who are making a motza over the whole sorry mess.
I have posted in other related threads that it's obvious that we won't all agree on these issues but at the very least we should be looking at the language used when talking about fellow humans (not aimed at you). I think that the way we treat/talk about other's say's a lot about us as a society.
I don't have all the answers, but cutting our foriegn aid certainly ain't one of them, nor is the threat that the govt will be cutting our resettlement programme.
Hope you caught some fish.
