+ Reply to Thread
Page 54 of 63 FirstFirst ... 4445253545556 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 628
  1. #531
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,041
    Thanks
    2,298
    Thanked
    1,387
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by witherwings View Post
    Yes, living in limbo would be awful. How many people had TPVs during the 7 years that the Pacific Solution was implemented? According to the Australian Human Rights Commission report that I referenced before, there were 586 refugees resettled in Australia, and I assume they all had been granted TPVs, and therefore living in limbo.

    Since 2008, there were about 52,000 boat arrivals according to the graph I posted before - I wonder how it is living in limbo in a detention centre...?

    I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if we are talking about absolute human suffering, under which policy was there more suffering?

    ETA - I dont think that figure above includes those people who actually died at sea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    I'm lost sorry. I don't think it's you, I think it's me haha.

    So the 21,000 people who arrived here in 2013 were given TPV? I thought they went to onshore detention centres for processing? I could be totally wrong though. I'd like to know

    Also do you know of people are still being sent to Naru and Manus? I understand that they are still very much operational but wasn't sure if any new people were going there.

  2. #532
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked
    1,181
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts

    Default Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by babyno1onboard View Post
    I'm lost sorry. I don't think it's you, I think it's me haha.

    So the 21,000 people who arrived here in 2013 were given TPV? I thought they went to onshore detention centres for processing? I could be totally wrong though. I'd like to know

    Also do you know of people are still being sent to Naru and Manus? I understand that they are still very much operational but wasn't sure if any new people were going there.
    No, TPVs were only granted to those people who arrived to Australia after being processed in Nauru and deemed genuine refugees.

    Since they were abolished in 2008, together with "offshore" processing, all the people who arrived by boat were crammed into detention centres in Christmas Island (technically a territory of Australia) from 2008 onwards, and then on Manus Island and Nauru since 2012. There are a bunch of other processing centres in the Australian mainland but Im not sure how many asylum seekers who arrive by boat were sent there - I assume not many, since we don't hear anything about the terrible conditions of those centres.

    I have a good friend who was a political refugee in the early 90s who went to one of those centres for processing for about 6 months and has been living in Sydney ever since.

    ETA - sorry correction - villawood detention centre is on the mainland and is horrible as far as detention centres go..

    anyway, I think it's safe to say we are all in agreement here that Australia's immigration policy is really bad.
    Last edited by witherwings; 08-07-2016 at 16:46.

  3. #533
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,696
    Thanks
    1,391
    Thanked
    7,285
    Reviews
    0
    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 witherwings View Post
    The problem with abolishing TPVs was that it sent a message to people who want to exploit our immigration laws, that they can profit from vulnerable people who are genuine refugees, and also open up channels that had previously been closed, to people who just want to immigrate to this country, but pose as refugees when they actually aren't.

    As I have stated above more than once - I haven't got an issue with refugees or immigration - I just think that there should be a policy in place that allows people to enter this country safely. And if that means increasing refugee quotas, and granting permanent visas to genuine refugees that have been here for a period of time and have established themselves here and do not want to return home, then that is a policy I would 100% support.



    FYI:

    The number of asylum seekers assessed as genuine refugees via the Pacific Solution process was lower than for onshore processing.[citation needed] 68 per cent of the asylum seekers were deemed genuine refugees and less than 40 per cent of asylum seekers sent to Nauru received resettlement in Australia.[citation needed] A 2006 report by the Australian Human Rights Commission showed that of the 1509 asylum seekers sent to Nauru by that time, 586 were granted Australian resettlement (39%), 360 resettled in New Zealand (24%), 19 resettled in Sweden (1.2%), 10 in Canada (<1%) and 4 in Norway (<1%). A total of 482 asylum seekers (32%) were deemed not genuine refugees and sent home.[23]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution

    ETA: This graph:

    Attachment 82389
    I wouldn't be trusting wiki as a reliable source, lol

    Even at the peak of boat arrivals, almost as many asylum seekers arrived by plane on visas and sought asylum that way, yet it has been found that far greater proportion of people who arrived by boat were genuine refugees compared to those who arrived with valid visas on a plane. Over 90% of boat people are genuine refugees.

    Here's a source that's a bit more credible than Wikipedia
    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliame...15/AsylumFacts

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    JustJaq  (08-07-2016)

  5. #534
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,696
    Thanks
    1,391
    Thanked
    7,285
    Reviews
    0
    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 witherwings View Post
    Of course not - but people smuggling is illegal in case you were not aware. If you are a refugee, there are channels to getting asylum, that don't involve spending your life savings and risking your life booking passage on a rickety boat from a country that isn't even your country of origin. Not to mention tossing your passport and other ID documents overboard, after using them to get to Indonesia in the first place.

    If you're a political refugee from Hungary, and you make your way to Serbia, then get on a plane to Australia, how are you fleeing persecution and applying for asylum when you could have stayed in Serbia and done that there? If you're escaping a war zone in Afghanistan and you manage to make your way to Indonesia, how can the boat journey to Australia be justified? You would have had to cross an entire continent before reaching Indonesia, and then spend thousands of dollars to get on a boat to Australia with the expectation of automatic asylum and resettlement.

    I think Australia should take in a lot more refugees. The quota we have in this country is morally criminal. If we had a higher quota, we might not have such a big issue of people smuggling, because I get that refugees wanting resettlement don't want to spend 2 years in a refugee camp living in unbearable conditions without knowing where they will end up. This happened to the Syrians and resulted in a mass exodus from the camps into Europe, with so many tragic deaths at sea. It honestly breaks my heart to think of it.

    I just don't think labor executed their policy correctly. Instead of dismantling the TPV and offshore processing (which was practically deserted at the time anyway), they could have tried passing legislation to allow a higher quota of refugees to enter and created specific bridging visas for people who arrive here by the official channels and have been determined as genuine refugees.

    Like I said before, their ideals were good, their hearts were in the right place, but like a lot of their policies, they were executed badly.
    Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. Asylum seekers and refugees have no rights in Indonesia because they are not recognised. They are there but in limbo. They can't work or study. And whilst we have inhumanely turned back the boats, it doesn't mean people have stopped going to Indonesia as asylum seekers or refugees.

  6. #535
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,041
    Thanks
    2,298
    Thanked
    1,387
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention.
    Yup and Indonesia creates refugees!! There are 10,000 Indonesian (West Papuan) refugees in PNG.

  7. #536
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked
    1,181
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. Asylum seekers and refugees have no rights in Indonesia because they are not recognised. They are there but in limbo. They can't work or study. And whilst we have inhumanely turned back the boats, it doesn't mean people have stopped going to Indonesia as asylum seekers or refugees.
    You're completely missing my point. A refugee from Afghanistan doesn't need to be in Indonesia - there is an entire continent between their home country and Indonesia- they can seek asylum in a number of different countries on their way.

  8. #537
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    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 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by witherwings View Post
    You're completely missing my point. A refugee from Afghanistan doesn't need to be in Indonesia - there is an entire continent between their home country and Indonesia- they can seek asylum in a number of different countries on their way.
    Life isn't that straightforward. Often they have relatives already in Australia, and the promise of a job.

    I asked you earlier. Have you watched go back to where you came from? I honestly think anyone who is interested in answers to these questions should watch it. It's fascinating.

  9. #538
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked
    1,181
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    I wouldn't be trusting wiki as a reliable source, lol

    Even at the peak of boat arrivals, almost as many asylum seekers arrived by plane on visas and sought asylum that way, yet it has been found that far greater proportion of people who arrived by boat were genuine refugees compared to those who arrived with valid visas on a plane. Over 90% of boat people are genuine refugees.

    Here's a source that's a bit more credible than Wikipedia
    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliame...15/AsylumFacts
    I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose or if you're just not reading my responses in context, or you just like making comments and inserting "lol" after them to make yourself seem smug. It's really unpleasant and unnecessary.

    The difference between arriving by boat and arriving by plane is that plane arrivals are not going to result in deaths at sea.

    What difference does it make if I quote an excerpt or post a graph from Wikipedia if the data from Wikipedia is consistent with the "more reliable" sources you have provided? The article you referenced doesn't negate anything i have stated. It's just additional information which isn't relevant to my argument that dismantling the pacific solution resulted in an increase in boat arrivals, which had horrific consequences.

    Are you arguing that most of these people are genuine refugees? I have already stated that. Are you trying to say that regardless of the method of arrival, the processing of asylum seekers is inhuman? I've already stated that too. What are you trying to argue?

  10. #539
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    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 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Isn't it true that more illegal immigration occurs in Australia from New Zealand than any other country in the world?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonja For This Useful Post:

    TheGooch  (08-07-2016)

  12. #540
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked
    1,181
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonja View Post
    Life isn't that straightforward. Often they have relatives already in Australia, and the promise of a job.

    I asked you earlier. Have you watched go back to where you came from? I honestly think anyone who is interested in answers to these questions should watch it. It's fascinating.
    So why don't they get on a plane and come here, and then seek asylum when they get to the airport?

    I haven't watched that documentary. I will look into it. I'm always keen to learn new things and get a different perspective on important issues. However, as I have stated before, I don't oppose immigration or taking in refugees. I think we need to take in more, we have the capacity, and I believe that a lot of genuine refugees can be resettled here and make a huge contribution to growing our economy. Every well educated and entrepreneurial person who gets resettled in this country means more jobs and more tax revenue for the government.


 

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Election thread
    By atomicmama in forum General Election Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-05-2016, 10:44
  2. May 2016 TTC 💕
    By Catrb092 in forum Conception & Fertility General Chat
    Replies: 409
    Last Post: 14-05-2016, 07:31
  3. IVF/FET Jan Feb 2016 #2
    By Kookii in forum IVF
    Replies: 545
    Last Post: 27-04-2016, 10:24

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
BAE The Label
Versatile, premium maternity wear that you will love throughout pregnancy and long after. Cleverly designed for for all stages of motherhood so that you can 'Just be you (+1)'.
sales & new stuffsee all
The Health Hub
Give a new mum a fitness boost for Christmas & New Year. Studio-based, small group training sessions - cardio, strength, core, Pilates & boxing. Choice of 16 hrs per week, flexible-arrival feature - bubs & kids welcome! Gift vouchers available.
featured supporter
Wendys Music School
Wendy’s Music School. Experience, Quality and great service! For qualifying students we will get you playing or singing your favourite music in 90 days GUARANTEED! Book a free assessment online now!
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!