There was a family in Indonesia from Afghanistan in series two of go back to where you came from. They had been there for years, in hiding, from memory and scared. After years and years of no progress with UNHCR, they had decided to get on a boat and try their luck.
Since Rudd has already broken the first rule of diplomacy with Indonesia, being don't p*ss them off, trying to get them to do anything while he is at the helm will be near impossible.
So what would you actually do? Talk? How long have we been taking refugees for? Do you think that we don't know already?
ETA: It sounds like a normal Kevin Rudd policy. "I promise that I will get people together and we will discuss why people are getting on boats". What do you aim to achieve by that? What results would you see, and how long would it take?
Last edited by Father; 25-07-2013 at 09:14.
But. The question is then, when they made the decision to FLY to Indonesia, did they do so with the prior intent to jump on a boat to Australia? Why did they choose the option that costs an extra $10,000 a head (the boat journey) rather than using that money to set themselves up in any other country that was on offer at the airport? The point is - they are buying their way here with money that others (the less fortunate) simply don't have.
If they didn't want to stay in Indonesia, then they shouldn't have flown there in the first place. The world is a big place with hundreds of countries. Australia is not the only option to them.
Well. VP and I have thrown our 2 cents in the water. Apparently we are the ignorant ones. I would love to hear a suggestion from those enlightened ones that have watched 'Go back to where you came from', or those that have studied this for over 3 years.
Ok, both VP and Father have suggested that we should increase the total number of refugees that we take in. I didn't realise that this was how you both felt on the matter. Well, I wholeheartedly agree with you both on that.
ETA. I really think that increasing our quota is probably key to the solution, regardless of the details of how that is done. If we took more people overall, then more people would be taken out of the camps. This would mean the camps were less crowded, there would be less of a wait there and therefore they wouldn't be such a hopeless place to end up. That could then reduce the incentive for people to embark on the dangerous boat journeys. So, make going through the camps a more reasonable proposition for refugees, rather than punishing people for not wanting to end up camps in their current appalling condition.
Last edited by Meg2; 25-07-2013 at 10:02.
I simply don't feel all their situations are as black and white as you do.
ETA: I posted a map earlier of the countries an Iranian can enter without prior authorization. Here's a quote regarding Afghanistan, will try and find a map:
'According to the "Henley Visa Restrictions Index 2012", holders of an Afghan passport can visit only 26 countries visa-free or with visa on arrival. This is the lowest number of all passports worldwide as of 2012.'
Countries an Afghan can enter without prior authorization: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_...fghan_citizens
Last edited by Kirst33; 25-07-2013 at 10:21.
And Father and VP, I completely agree that Australia should up their intake, I also don't believe the number of authorized and unauthorized arrivals should be linked, my understanding is that other signatories do not do this. I would love to stop the boats, but I just don't think it is such a black and white issue as to why people take the route they take. One of the speakers on q & a the other night spoke of going straight to the source to slow the boats. Humanitarian efforts in these countries and officials explaining the law. He spoke of Australia doing this in Sri Lanka a few years ago and the boats stopping/slowing from there.
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!