turn back boats policy doomed to failure

[not_an_eloi]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/barrie-on-asylum-seeker-boat-policy-dound-to-fail/4965582

anybody watch border security - australia's front line    7 network @ 7.30 last evenin'

reality   -  far from wot abbrot and cohorts would 'ave australians believe.

why's AMSA's site been gagged from givin' australians current incident reports.   hmmm ..

[*crikey*mate*]

another thought - are there enough refugee camps to acommodate all those in need of assylum? I'm thinking maybe not, well not safe ones, so maybe there's a solution there somewhere, establish more safe camps that are accessible to people in need.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

There is already a "list" of people waiting in refugee camps around the world. We could go out and bring our quota back and then just send all new arrivals overseas to said camps to wait their turn.

I'm also quite happy to accept refugees, .... if they are genuine.

I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that the new policy is to deny an appeal only to those who have been categorised  as a security risk by ASIO.

---

is there a reason why your first suggestion isn't feasible? Presumedly the ccamps are safe, then that sounds fair to me, cos afterall, the idea of assylum seeking is for those in fear of their lives or suffering from persecution etc, so that seems fair. But we would have to staff those camps though.

assylum seekers and refugees are two different entities.

[acacia_pycnantha]

Asylum seekers are seeking asylum and refugees are seeking refuge. Seems like a matter of semantics to me.

The important thing is that we distinguish between those in genuine fear of persecution at home (which I think is the definition of refugee under the Convention) and those who are merely seeking a betterment of their economic conditions.

[freakiness]

---

@the*f*word wrote:

---

@**meep** wrote:

Both Julia Gillard and Toby Abbott agree that we need to ensure the people smugglers have no product to sell.  How?

---

I don't know.

How do you ensure that there are no people in need of seeking assylum? The answer to that is world peace I guess. But when military forces are sent into placces such as Afghanistan to try and stabilize the government,,, the gov is condemned and people cry "bring our people home"

So, I guess if we can't stop the wars and the hostile gov's etc, we're just gonna have to keep accepting that people smugglers will always have something to sell.

A way out suggestion is for us to send our people over there periodically and collect them ourselves a la Schindler's List style, bring them here to safety and processing etc, return those that don't pass. Say we decide we can accept 1200 a year,,, then each month, we go over and esccort back the first 100 on the list????

---

Go over where?

[acacia_pycnantha]

Why my suggestion isn't feasible is that it would require lots of expense negotiating with other countries the transfer of refugees.

And we would need to have confidence in their vetting procedure of the refugees bona fides.

[*crikey*mate*]

to the placces from where our assylum seekers are originating. I suggested Afghanistan as one place to start as we already have a presence there and a chance of establishing some kind of authenticity of those in danger.

[acacia_pycnantha]

I reckon we'd fill our quota pretty quickly if we did that.

And still there remains the question about what we would do with new arrivals.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

Why my suggestion isn't feasible is that it would require lots of expense negotiating with other countries the transfer of refugees.

And we would need to have confidence in their vetting procedure of the refugees bona fides.

---

That's one of the reasons why we need our people there. We need to establish and staff the camps. We need to be doing the vvetting, to do otherwise is opening ourselves up for infiltration. It's already being done. But the people in those camps can't get here atm as they have no papers. (catch 22). Go to those places, where they are trapped with no papers, bring some of those people over? They're in camps atm, attending schools and receiving an education by the Australian curriculum.

Even if we can just help in a few countries, it's something, it's some way that may stop the boats if that is what we have decided must be done.

[fourandsixpants]

No-one in this country Govt or civilians can actually 'stop overseas boats' I suggest you all read up on the Treaties in place. A

lso read the UN papers on this issue and perhaps get properly informed.

Boy, have you all been scammed by an election compaign or what?!!

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

I reckon we'd fill our quota pretty quickly if we did that.

And still there remains the question about what we would do with new arrivals.

---

I'm lost now, I have too many different strands going through my head - which post/suggestion were you referring to?

I thought this was about stopping new arrivals, or do you mean the ones that we bring? If that's the case, do what we do now. Process them here, and if we say yes, they get in, if not, they go back.

That in itself should deter some. We are still meeting our obligations we do only have to help some - not all. Plus in this way we will know from what area they come (so that's where they get returned to) and people will know that the boats won't be accepted under any circumstances, so ....... why would they come rather than go to one of the camps where they will end up anyway until we are ready to process them anyway?

and I do think that it's ok to say - we have taken 1200 this year, the doors are now closed, as long as they are aware of the rules. We just have to get them safe, that's our obligation. I think turning them away without a safe alternative is wrong.

In saying all that,, I don't have a problem coming here in the first place, but I do have a probblem with the appeal process. That needs to be stopped.