+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 80 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 791
  1. #161
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I consider myself quite liberal in terms of Asylum seekers, but of course there is no way we could throw open our borders and just let anyone in. I am sure that isn't what PP's meant.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    babyla  (20-07-2013)

  3. #162
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I find this utterly horrifying - words can't express how I feel about this. Surely the best place, for an unaccompanied minor is with family? I hate to think of the mental state of these children. When they are put in PNG and resettled there without their families.

    This is one of the reason I am against long term detention - the statistics speak for themselves, suicide attempts are not uncommon, mental illness is rife, and then we let them out into our society and expect them just to assimilate and fit in. I don't think so, the mental state of refugees needs to be address and taken seriously. No good will come of dumping children in PNG.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ana Gram View Post
    From the documentation:

    'It will not make a difference if unaccompanied minor has family in Australia. Everyone who arrives after the announcement will be transferred once health checks are complete and appropriate accommodation is available.'

    http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanit...boatnovisa.pdf

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    dancingchipmunk  (20-07-2013),twotrunks  (21-07-2013)

  5. #163
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    7,878
    Thanks
    3,397
    Thanked
    5,160
    Reviews
    8
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Blossompossum View Post
    Fast foward 20 years and I can see the government apologising just as they have done for forced indigenous stolen generation adoptions.

    :thumbdown:

    Sent from my GT-N7000 using The Bub Hub mobile app
    We have a terrible history with this kind of stuff, stolen generation, white australia policy etc...

  6. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Melbourne's outer north
    Posts
    5,535
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked
    207
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    Pretty impressed this threads still going, what with all the sniping a while back. Surely there's enough issue here to debate without playing the person?

    (Though I was pretty chuffed to be described as 'naive'. That's certainly the first time anyone has said that )

    No, I am not advocating "opening the borders", or "abandoning border control" or any such thing.

    Let me reiterate: border control is important to keep criminals out of our waters. Some refugees, quite likely, will be criminals. Most will not. Many more drug runners, illegal fishermen, pirates, gun runners etc will be trying to infiltrate our very porous northern borders. Adding legal, humanitarian services (by boat, by plane, whatever) that bring refugees to our shore in a controlled manner would in fact improve the operation of border control. When you are not chasing sinking ships, you can actually focus on the criminals you are meant to be catching.

    And let's be real here. Do I believe for a moment Australia is going to go into the business of safely transporting refugees? No, sadly. I simply want people to realise that if this move was purely about the SAFETY of refugees, rather than despicable vote grabbing, then they would be investing in something other than detention centres in what is the single most dangerous country in the entire region. (Especially if you happen to be female, or young.)

    And if we actually HELP refugees get here safely, won't we be inundated with these poor people. Uh, no. I do think we could afford to take and appropriately integrate five times, ten times, even 100 times more refugees than we currently take. Yes, taxation is finite, yes, economic growth is currently stalled. Let's redistribute the wealth a little. It's still LOTS of fun to be a corporate tax payer in Australia. Let's tighten up enforcement a little so tax is actually paid by the wealthy, and not avoided. All those little shell companies off in the Maldives etc ... big mining is doing it's best to pay as little tax as possible in this country, while literally stripping us bare. And where are the jobs in that?

    I don't give a stuff about where people come from or what strain they might place on our society - I have confidence that we can rise to the challenge and make the best of it like every generation has since we BECAME Australia. Remember - unless you are have 100% indigenous ancestry - you are the child or grandchild or great grandchild of an immigrant. Lucky you if they came easily, with some money in their pocket. How can it possibly be fair to deny someone who doesn't HAVE that opportunity at orderly, resourced migration? THAT is privilege.

    For me, what it all boils down to is that we have an obligation - a legal responsibility - to accept asylum seekers, and a humanitarian duty to offer them safety, and a life free of persecution. This action is both illegal and immoral.

  7. #165
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    1,914
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked
    23
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    As a Iranian refugee arriving here under UNHCR resettlement program, I whole heatedly support Kevin and Labour's policy.

    There are legal ways of arriving here, arriving by boat is not one of them.
    I am not saying that the mere act of asylum seeking is illegal, however I do not support their arrival by boats.

    Iranian refugees have the option to use "country of first asylum" Both UN and Australian Embassy process these applications in Pakistan, and more predominately in Turkey, the first safe country where they can seek and obtain effective protection outside their home country.

    I am not saying asylum seekers arriving with boat are illegal,cause they have the right, under international laws. However I do call them queue jumpers, just because the queue is not in your back yard, does not mean it doesn't exist.
    Ask those in refugees in Pakistan and Turkey (who have been either locked up or release to community with no support and left to defend for themselves) waiting years and years to be processed.

    I remember clearly, being referred to Australia was one of the worst outcomes specially if you were poor (like most were), and definitely not everyone's choice. Wonder why? cause after being referred USA and Canada , it would take less than 6 months to get them processed and moved, since the majority of referrals were in spring, you knew you are not going to be in Turkey for the harsh winter that awaited.

    on contrast if one was referred to Australia, there was no telling when things would happen, until your welcome pack had arrived. I spent majority of my teenage years and young adult in Turkey waiting to be processed, despite having been assigned to Australian Embassy by UN (AKA my status as refugee been approved). Even though it was a desirable country, being referred to Australia was almost like saying Yay you are safe, as long as you can survive till they get around to your file.
    Each year their "quota" was full almost after a handful of people were processed. Each year, you would hang in there by a thread, only to be told the annual capacity has already been filled by other people arriving by boat, cause they get processed first. To me the only word to describe them is queue jumpers.

    Australia is the only country to link its onshore and offshore refugee intakes. This means that every boat, or (over stay visa) plane arrival, results in one less spot for a refugee from overseas. Our current position not only fuels rhetoric about “queue jumping” but justifiably lessens the hope of those asylum seekers still in country of first asylum like Turkey, Indonesia or Malaysia that they will be resettled from there.

    May be I am biased, maybe as a refugee being forced to collect cardboard from streets to burn for heat, day after day; and having to out run dog owners to local butchers in a hope of a bone so mum could make us a broth, rather than having just stale bread (cause it was cheaper to get); Grabbing rotten fruit and veggies at the end of the market, before cleaners move in, cause we couldn't afford to have them fresh. the memory of young people who died with a common cold, cause they didn't have money to buy medicine; may be deep down I am resentful of those queue jumper, but I will tell you what upsets me.

    People arriving by boat are choosing which country they want to go to, like they choose their holiday destination. That is why they refuse to go through UNHCR, cause UN will send them to ANY safe country that has vacancy, not necessarily the country you like. Their biggest problem in detention becomes not enough cigarettes, and their excuse for running riots, not having smart phones.
    By Arriving here, they try to force our hand to accept them. cause they only want to be a refugee in Australia. If they are truly running for safety then it should not matter which country they get accepted in, and would go through UNHCR, and get a quicker result. Not to mention the fact that they have a passport to start with, means, they probably weren't on Iranian governments radar, cause your passport is one of the first thing you lose in Iran.

    It upsets me that media is refusing this aspect, just so they can bash Kevin Rudd. He is doing the best he can to deal with the situation he is forced to faced.

  8. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Fairyfloss For This Useful Post:

    Amiedoll  (21-07-2013),kalgirl  (21-07-2013),Liddybugs  (22-07-2013),lovesushi  (21-07-2013),Meld85  (21-07-2013),Mod-pegasus  (20-07-2013),moongazer  (24-07-2013),Tambelina  (24-07-2013),threechooks  (22-07-2013),twotrunks  (21-07-2013),VicPark  (20-07-2013),~ElectricPink~  (22-07-2013)

  9. #166
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,557
    Thanked
    12,689
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Fairyfloss View Post
    As a Iranian refugee arriving here under UNHCR resettlement program, I whole heatedly support Kevin and Labour's policy.

    There are legal ways of arriving here, arriving by boat is not one of them.
    I am not saying that the mere act of asylum seeking is illegal, however I do not support their arrival by boats.

    Iranian refugees have the option to use "country of first asylum" Both UN and Australian Embassy process these applications in Pakistan, and more predominately in Turkey, the first safe country where they can seek and obtain effective protection outside their home country.

    I am not saying asylum seekers arriving with boat are illegal,cause they have the right, under international laws. However I do call them queue jumpers, just because the queue is not in your back yard, does not mean it doesn't exist.
    Ask those in refugees in Pakistan and Turkey (who have been either locked up or release to community with no support and left to defend for themselves) waiting years and years to be processed.

    I remember clearly, being referred to Australia was one of the worst outcomes specially if you were poor (like most were), and definitely not everyone's choice. Wonder why? cause after being referred USA and Canada , it would take less than 6 months to get them processed and moved, since the majority of referrals were in spring, you knew you are not going to be in Turkey for the harsh winter that awaited.

    on contrast if one was referred to Australia, there was no telling when things would happen, until your welcome pack had arrived. I spent majority of my teenage years and young adult in Turkey waiting to be processed, despite having been assigned to Australian Embassy by UN (AKA my status as refugee been approved). Even though it was a desirable country, being referred to Australia was almost like saying Yay you are safe, as long as you can survive till they get around to your file.
    Each year their "quota" was full almost after a handful of people were processed. Each year, you would hang in there by a thread, only to be told the annual capacity has already been filled by other people arriving by boat, cause they get processed first. To me the only word to describe them is queue jumpers.

    Australia is the only country to link its onshore and offshore refugee intakes. This means that every boat, or (over stay visa) plane arrival, results in one less spot for a refugee from overseas. Our current position not only fuels rhetoric about “queue jumping” but justifiably lessens the hope of those asylum seekers still in country of first asylum like Turkey, Indonesia or Malaysia that they will be resettled from there.

    May be I am biased, maybe as a refugee being forced to collect cardboard from streets to burn for heat, day after day; and having to out run dog owners to local butchers in a hope of a bone so mum could make us a broth, rather than having just stale bread (cause it was cheaper to get); Grabbing rotten fruit and veggies at the end of the market, before cleaners move in, cause we couldn't afford to have them fresh. the memory of young people who died with a common cold, cause they didn't have money to buy medicine; may be deep down I am resentful of those queue jumper, but I will tell you what upsets me.

    People arriving by boat are choosing which country they want to go to, like they choose their holiday destination. That is why they refuse to go through UNHCR, cause UN will send them to ANY safe country that has vacancy, not necessarily the country you like. Their biggest problem in detention becomes not enough cigarettes, and their excuse for running riots, not having smart phones.
    By Arriving here, they try to force our hand to accept them. cause they only want to be a refugee in Australia. If they are truly running for safety then it should not matter which country they get accepted in, and would go through UNHCR, and get a quicker result. Not to mention the fact that they have a passport to start with, means, they probably weren't on Iranian governments radar, cause your passport is one of the first thing you lose in Iran.

    It upsets me that media is refusing this aspect, just so they can bash Kevin Rudd. He is doing the best he can to deal with the situation he is forced to faced.
    I have come a long way in the various asylum seeker threads on Bub Hub. However you have hit the nail on the head with why I continue to feel a sense of unease about boat arrivals. Besides the unacceptable risk to kids lives, they are literally taking places from poorer refugees who are waiting for resettlement under the UNHCR. And why? Because they cant wait and they want their country of first pick.

    I think we need to do a better job of accepting refugees under the UNHCR process. Hopefully that is the direction the government is headed in if the manage to 'stop the boats.'

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    Amiedoll  (21-07-2013),Blossompossumxxxx  (21-07-2013),Liddybugs  (22-07-2013),Meld85  (21-07-2013),Mod-pegasus  (20-07-2013)

  11. #167
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    19,776
    Thanks
    5,212
    Thanked
    7,063
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Bec~ View Post
    As for KRudd's PNG policy, I dislike it because:
    - it will give Australian revenue to corrupt PNG - thus funding ongoing corruption.
    This is what sickens me the most. Funding a country with known, ongoing human rights abuses.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Benji For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (20-07-2013)

  13. #168
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/f...-queue-jumpers

    Do asylum seekers take places away from refugees in overseas camps?

    The myth that asylum seekers take places away from refugees who are resettled from overseas does have some basis in truth. However, this is not because asylum seekers are trying to rort the system or “jump the queue” – they have a right to seek asylum and Australia has a legal and moral obligation to process their claims. Rather, it is the direct result of Australian Government policy.

    Australia’s refugee program has two components – the onshore component, for people who apply for refugee status after arriving in Australia; and the offshore component, under which Australia resettles recognised refugees and other people in need of protection and assistance. The onshore and offshore components are numerically linked, which means that every time an onshore applicant is granted a Protection Visa, a place is deducted from the offshore program.

    The linking policy blurs the distinction between Australia’s legal obligations as a signatory to the Refugee Convention (addressed through the onshore component) and our voluntary contribution to the sharing of international responsibility for refugees for whom no other durable solution is available (addressed through the offshore component). The perception that there is a “queue” which onshore applicants are trying to evade is actually created by a policy choice which could easily be changed. No other country in the world links its onshore and offshore programs in this way.

    All human beings have a right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, which makes refugee protection a universal and global responsibility. As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and as a member of the international community, Australia shares in this responsibility. There is no reason why Australia should be exempt from receiving and processing onshore asylum claims while expecting other nations to fulfil this responsibility. As a developed nation with well-established systems for refugee status determination and strong settlement support infrastructure, Australia is well-placed to play a leading role in refugee protection, both within our region and at a global level.

    A common misconception about refugee protection is that applying for resettlement from overseas is the “proper channel” for seeking protection. In fact, resettlement of refugees in third countries is the exception rather than the rule. In general, resettlement is only used as a solution for refugees in cases where it’s not possible for them to return home or settle permanently in the country where they first sought asylum.

    Out of the world’s 15.2 million refugees, UNHCR has identified around 800,000 (approximately five per cent) as being in need of resettlement in coming years. In 2011, 79,800 refugees were resettled through UNHCR with the USA receiving the highest number (51,500).

    Over the past 10 years, an average of around 81,000 refugees have been resettled annually. At this rate, it would take 188 years for all of the world’s refugees to be resettled. While there remains a significant gap between resettlement needs and available places, it is not necessary, feasible or even desirable for all of the world’s refugees to be resettled in third countries.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    babyla  (21-07-2013),Busy-Bee  (21-07-2013),HollyGolightly81  (21-07-2013),NancyBlackett  (21-07-2013),orlyon  (20-07-2013)

  15. #169
    Ana Gram's Avatar
    Ana Gram is offline 2008 WINNER - straight shooter award
    Winner 2008 & 2009 - Community Minded thread
    Winner 2009 - Mod Award - most passionate member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18,597
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked
    3,125
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    If anyone is able to get the full document, the article 'Sending them home: refugees and the new politics of indifference' By Robert Manne in Quarterly Essay Issue 13 2004 explains the reality of mandatory detention.

  16. #170
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    The UNHCR Camps are doing the best the can in a lousy situation. But fairyfloss, as much as it might not seem like it you - were one of the lucky ones. 50% of people in refugee camps will never get out.

    Nothing will ever convince me that sending children without family and resettling them in PNG with absolutely nobody is the right thing to do.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Caviar  (20-07-2013),HollyGolightly81  (21-07-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. 4 corners - asylum seekers...
    By babyla in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 30-04-2013, 09:47
  2. Asylum seekers (frustration)
    By Witwicky in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 19-08-2012, 14:38
  3. Zoo weekly exploiting asylum seekers. Sign the petition!
    By Ffrenchknickers in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 23-07-2012, 15:40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Springfree Trampoline
Give the Ultimate Christmas Gift Springfree Trampoline
The World's Safest Trampoline™ is now also the world's first Smart Trampoline™. Sensors on the mat detect your every move and your jumps control fun, educational and active games on tablet. Secure the Ultimate Christmas Gift today!
sales & new stuffsee all
Wendys Music School Melbourne
Wondering about Music Lessons? FREE 30 minute ASSESSMENT. Find out if your child is ready! Piano from age 3 years & Guitar, Singing, Drums, Violin from age 5. Lessons available for all ages. 35+ years experience. Structured program.
Use referral 'bubhub' when booking
featured supporter
Philips AVENT Australia
Pregnancy and early parenthood is an exciting and challenging time, but it’s good to know there is expert advice on hand to ensure that your baby gets the best start in life.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!