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*]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@the*f*word wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@the*f*word wrote:

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.

---

Syria has generated a million refugees in about a month. There are about 12 million refugees across the world.

They're not just living in nice little camps somewhere waiting patiently while their children grow up without homes.

---

so we take some from Syria too if we can accommodate them.

Freaky, you may have missed this, but I support allowing the "boat people" into Australia. (just not the appeal system) However, our governments both now and in the past seem to think this needs to be restricted and someone back there asked for suggestions. Just throwing ideas around, that's all.

But the bottom line is, we cannot help everybody, but we can help some.

---

Some who are refused have been proved to have good reason to appeal.

I don't ahve the answers and it doesn't sound as if you do either.

we can't just go and sort out the areas they come from.

---

yes,, some will no doubt receive an incorrect decision, but hopefully some wont. It's no bigger lottery than jumping into a leaky boat to get here in the first place.

and freaky, I have already said I don't have any answers, we are all just throwing around ideas, ok? Shooting the breeze, talking things through... ok?

Maybe if we learn why our ideas are bad,, then we may gather a deeper understanding of why this topic is such a concern and why it is so hard to solve!

For some reason, some Australians don't want the "boat people" and the government are listening.

[acacia_pycnantha]

I see shades of "If you build it, they will come" in all of this.

We signed the Convention on refugees so we must expect some to apply directly. The reality is that some who call themselves refugees are really "economic migrants" seeking a better life in a more comfortable country. And it is improtant to weed these out as they are not genuine refugees or asylum seekers under the Convention.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

How about we just let Afgahnistan have a Taliban govt and then offer refuge only for Afghani women?

---

you have lost me a little bit (ok a lot), because there are men in danger as well. You will have to join the dots for me?

[acacia_pycnantha]

Sorry, I meant that under a Taliban govt that every woman from Afghanistan could legitimately claim refuge as their status as persecuted individuals would be  recognised as self evident.

[acacia_pycnantha]

Men are not so oppressed under strict islamic laws and therefore could have little or no claim to persecution. Unless they were of another religion.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

I see shades of "If you build it, they will come" in all of this.

We signed the Convention on refugees so we must expect some to apply directly. The reality is that some who call themselves refugees are really "economic migrants" seeking a better life in a more comfortable country. And it is improtant to weed these out as they are not genuine refugees or asylum seekers under the Convention.

---

I agree with that. It's the weeding out that is the problem, eh?

In my little world, I'm happy to let anyone who wants to come here do so. After all even I am only here because I got lucky and happened to be born here. The mystical forces of conception coulda sent me to afghanistan LOL

That's why I think that if we are going to "deter" (is that the right word?) them, that it is feasible to say, we will take you somewhere safe until it is your turn to be processed. Because my understanding is that that is the requirement of assylum, to be safe. and I do believe that we ccan provide that safety to some (definitely not all) it doesn't have to be here though, not until it is "their turn" iykwim.

I think it will deter some of the economic migrants fro  coming if they are safe but just seeking a better life. But those who really are seeking safety, they won't care where they are, as long as they are safe.

[acacia_pycnantha]

I think it will deter some of the economic migrants fro  coming if they are safe but just seeking a better life. But those who really are seeking safety, they won't care where they are, as long as they are safe.

Strongly agree. 😉

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

Sorry, I meant that under a Taliban govt that every woman from Afghanistan could legitimately claim refuge as their status as persecuted individuals would be  recognised as self evident.

---

I guess so, if they saw themselves as being persecuted I guess. Do all of the women feel persecuted? I don't suggest that we go and select at whim. just take those who want help, and then only in the numbers we can accommodate. So unfortunately, that may not be very many, but it might be some.

Oscar Schindler only saved 1000, not too many in the grand scheme of things, but he did save some.

[acacia_pycnantha]

I'm sure we save some as well. We have a refugee quota which I think is about 20,000 per year now.

Out of all of those, I'm certain that at least some of them are genuine.

[acacia_pycnantha]

It's difficult for me to believe that any woman living under a strict Islamic law would not feel persecuted, unless they just accepted it as part of the natural order because they didn't know any different.

Maybe that's one reason for the Taliban's disapproval of radio or tv for the people, cos it might show them what life is like in other countries.