he's not even trying to hide it now
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Hearing about racism on buses in Oz is like hearing about Christian revivals in the American south.
The Australian mindset towards immigration is pretty messed up. There's this misconception that Australia is flooded with asylum seekers who are all nasty queue-jumpers trying to get around the effective systems the UN has in place when dealing with refugees. The same arguments seem to come up.
If they're fleeing persecution why don't they go to the first place they're safe rather than to Australia?
Well they do. Developing nations, mostly those near war zones host around 80% of the world's refugee population. Only 17% of refugees under the UNHCR mandate live outside their region of origin. A fraction of these come to Australia.
They're jumping the queue and taking the place of refugees who are legitimately working through the system!
There is no queue. How the Hell do people think the global refugee situation works? They all gather in a lobby, sign up to a list and wait for a space to be opened up? There are around 15 million refuges and 18,000 resettlement places, even if there was a queue it would take 187 years to reach the front of it.
With all these boats arriving Australia simply can't cope. We do our fair share through legitimate channels!
Australia takes around half of one percent of the world's refugee population - well down the list. When GDP is considered Australia's even further down the list. Per head of population even New Zealand takes more and we don't have boats arriving every other day. Australia's refugee problem comes from an unwillingness to deal with refugees more than anything else.
Most boat people are economic migrants, not refugees!
Boat people are far more likely of being legitimately recognised as refugees than people arriving in Australia through alternate means and claiming asylum - at least in the past. Thing is Australia hasn't bothered assessing whether asylum seekers arriving by boat qualify for refugee status since 2012. Why? Because if they are determined to be legitimate refugees Australia has certain obligations which it would really rather avoid.
I'm not arguing that Australia should take more asylum seekers, I just think Australia should deal with what it has instead of sending people to PNG, (because if a large rich country can't deal with the issue a small poor country can,) or leave them on Nauru for half a decade or more until someone has the moral fortitude to do something.
If they're fleeing persecution why don't they go to the first place they're safe rather than to Australia?
Well they do. Developing nations, mostly those near war zones host around 80% of the world's refugee population. Only 17% of refugees under the UNHCR mandate live outside their region of origin. A fraction of these come to Australia.
They're jumping the queue and taking the place of refugees who are legitimately working through the system!
There is no queue. How the Hell do people think the global refugee situation works? They all gather in a lobby, sign up to a list and wait for a space to be opened up? There are around 15 million refuges and 18,000 resettlement places, even if there was a queue it would take 187 years to reach the front of it.
With all these boats arriving Australia simply can't cope. We do our fair share through legitimate channels!
Australia takes around half of one percent of the world's refugee population - well down the list. When GDP is considered Australia's even further down the list. Per head of population even New Zealand takes more and we don't have boats arriving every other day. Australia's refugee problem comes from an unwillingness to deal with refugees more than anything else.
Most boat people are economic migrants, not refugees!
Boat people are far more likely of being legitimately recognised as refugees than people arriving in Australia through alternate means and claiming asylum - at least in the past. Thing is Australia hasn't bothered assessing whether asylum seekers arriving by boat qualify for refugee status since 2012. Why? Because if they are determined to be legitimate refugees Australia has certain obligations which it would really rather avoid.
I'm not arguing that Australia should take more asylum seekers, I just think Australia should deal with what it has instead of sending people to PNG, (because if a large rich country can't deal with the issue a small poor country can,) or leave them on Nauru for half a decade or more until someone has the moral fortitude to do something.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
She should have just shut the fuck up as soon as he sat down.
best lines ever from bogans: my (insert distant relative) fought in world war 2! lol so fuckingwat.
Ty wrote:
They're jumping the queue and taking the place of refugees who are legitimately working through the system!
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#queueThe UN resettlement system does not work like a queue. The term "queue" implies that resettlement is an orderly process and, if you join the end, you are guaranteed to reach the front within a certain amount of time. In reality, the UN resettlement system works more like a lottery than a queue. Many refugees lack access to UNHCR's resettlement processes altogether and therefore simply do not have resettlement available to them as an option. Furthermore, refugees are prioritised for resettlement according to need, not according to how long they have been waiting. These needs fluctuate and are continuously reassessed. For example, conditions in a refugee-producing country may improve, allowing refugees from that country to return home if they wish; or conditions in a refugee-hosting country may deteriorate, placing the refugees in that country in greater need of resettlement. A person who has been waiting for resettlement for one year may be prioritised ahead of a person who has been waiting for 10 years, if the former's need for resettlement is assessed as being greater.
They're jumping ahead of people who may have greater need, more deserving case, etc. They don't give a fuck about the people they're jumping ahead of.
Thats exactly how it works.How the Hell do people think the global refugee situation works? They all gather in a lobby, sign up to a list and wait for a space to be opened up?
If they're fleeing persecution why not stay in Indonesia? Its a muslim country, most people travelling that route are muslims, where is the problem?Most boat people are economic migrants, not refugees!
They can then apply for immigration like everyone else.
Arrival rate is currently 20k/year, if Australia didn't have a robust system the rate would be 10x that, swamping legitimate immigration.With all these boats arriving Australia simply can't cope. We do our fair share through legitimate channels!
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-31 03:03:30)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The UN's refugee resettlement process is ridiculously flawed, if you dismiss people who find alternate ways as being selfish queue jumpers I can only hope you're one day left in a similar situation so you can gain a little perspective.
I don't think you realise how idiotic this suggestion is anyway. You're essentially saying that the world's refugee situation should be dealt with solely by refugee transit countries. Where's the problem? How about placing an unfair burden on poor, developing and densely populated countries while countries like Australia gets to continue ignoring its responsibility as a global citizen. How about robbing the rights of asylum seekers to get to choose their own destiny.
Australia is trying everything it can to avoid responsibility. Idiotic policies like the asylum seeker plans put forward by both the ALP and LNP. Excising the Australian mainland from the migration zone. Refusing to determine whether asylum seekers are refugees of not. In 2001 Australia basically took away most of its migration rights from New Zealand, (which are still in place here for Australian citizens because we're not dicks,) under the argument that asylum seekers attaining New Zealand citizenship, (which is easier to do in NZ than Australia because again, we're not dicks,) would only use it as a back door to get into Australia.
The result of that last one is that New Zealand citizens may get to live and work in Australia but are denied any form of assistance despite being charged for it as well as being denied any realistic road to gaining Australian citizenship. DisabilityCare? Great initiative. If I lived in Australia I'd pay for it but if my leg got bitten off I'd be told to fuck off. Centrelink, student loans, you name it - all things available for Australians in NZ by the way. Russell Crowe - who co-owns a Sydney NRL team, has been featured on an Australian stamp, is a named Australian Living Treasure, is married to an Australian, has two Australian kids, who himself considers himself to be Australian, and who is considered by most as an Australian citizen - is not an Australian citizen. Not because he's an immigrant but because he's a New Zealand immigrant. All due to a stupid fucking policy to deal with a non-issue of refugees finding a 'back door'. How xenophobic can you get?
Of course all this demonstrates another flaw in your argument. If Australia was willing to fuck its relationship with New Zealand over the fear that there was this "back door" do you honestly think they wouldn't do the same thing to Indonesia? Har. Fucking. Har. Any asylum seeker staying in Indonesia with the belief that attaining Indonesian citizenship or residency would give them the right to one day immigrate to Australia is in for a severe disappointment.
Australia is pissing off the entire region and all because it doesn't give enough of a fuck to deal with the manageable amount of asylum seekers it does get.
Also Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Asylum Seeker Convention, its actions weaken that for everyone and the victims are people displaced from their countries. Australians should be fucking ashamed, instead you see political parties competing on just how cruel they can be. Rudd sending asylum seekers to what is essentially a concentration camp in an impoverished country, (a former manager of the Manus Island facility stated "In Australia, the facility couldn't serve as a dog kennel. Its owners would be jailed.") or Abbott sending them to a 'tent city' in Nauru, saying "it's a nice place", (I'm sure Abbott would love living in a tent on some island surrounded by desperation in poverty for five plus years.)
Unbelievable.
Australia's refugee intake is manageable. It's the refusal to deal with it that resulted in the position it is in now with overflowing detention centres as well as ridiculous policies and 'disincentives'. If Australia wanted to be proactive it would actively work on that much touted regional solution. But as Australia would have to take a leading role and accept a significant amount of responsibility that clearly isn't going to happen.
And 'legitimate immigration'? I've already talked about how Australia treats New Zealand immigrants. Basically Australia's immigration policy is to accept only the people it has an immediate use for, can treat like shit, and hopefully dispose of later. This obviously doesn't include desperate people forced from their own country - but look how governments were willing to bend over backwards for Gina Rinehart's Roy Hill project. Believe me, the White Australia policy may be dead but its legacy is alive and well and you, Dilbert, just don't realise it because you fit into it all as a desirable European migrant.
Such a shame that it would be political suicide for any politician to put voice to this messed up situation. Or you'd have to become a Greens MP but no-one listens to the Greens.
Wow, this kind of shows your true colours here Dilbert. Settle them in a muslim country 'cause they're muslims. I'm sure you're saying this purely out of concern for the poor asylum seekers who would be most comfortable in a culture more similar to their own - at least in terms of religion, (and pretty much nothing else.) It's not like you can be Muslim in Australia without facing persecution - which is unfortunately true with the sort of attitude you're displaying here.Dilbert_X wrote:
If they're fleeing persecution why not stay in Indonesia? Its a muslim country, most people travelling that route are muslims, where is the problem?Most boat people are economic migrants, not refugees!
They can then apply for immigration like everyone else.
I don't think you realise how idiotic this suggestion is anyway. You're essentially saying that the world's refugee situation should be dealt with solely by refugee transit countries. Where's the problem? How about placing an unfair burden on poor, developing and densely populated countries while countries like Australia gets to continue ignoring its responsibility as a global citizen. How about robbing the rights of asylum seekers to get to choose their own destiny.
Australia is trying everything it can to avoid responsibility. Idiotic policies like the asylum seeker plans put forward by both the ALP and LNP. Excising the Australian mainland from the migration zone. Refusing to determine whether asylum seekers are refugees of not. In 2001 Australia basically took away most of its migration rights from New Zealand, (which are still in place here for Australian citizens because we're not dicks,) under the argument that asylum seekers attaining New Zealand citizenship, (which is easier to do in NZ than Australia because again, we're not dicks,) would only use it as a back door to get into Australia.
The result of that last one is that New Zealand citizens may get to live and work in Australia but are denied any form of assistance despite being charged for it as well as being denied any realistic road to gaining Australian citizenship. DisabilityCare? Great initiative. If I lived in Australia I'd pay for it but if my leg got bitten off I'd be told to fuck off. Centrelink, student loans, you name it - all things available for Australians in NZ by the way. Russell Crowe - who co-owns a Sydney NRL team, has been featured on an Australian stamp, is a named Australian Living Treasure, is married to an Australian, has two Australian kids, who himself considers himself to be Australian, and who is considered by most as an Australian citizen - is not an Australian citizen. Not because he's an immigrant but because he's a New Zealand immigrant. All due to a stupid fucking policy to deal with a non-issue of refugees finding a 'back door'. How xenophobic can you get?
Of course all this demonstrates another flaw in your argument. If Australia was willing to fuck its relationship with New Zealand over the fear that there was this "back door" do you honestly think they wouldn't do the same thing to Indonesia? Har. Fucking. Har. Any asylum seeker staying in Indonesia with the belief that attaining Indonesian citizenship or residency would give them the right to one day immigrate to Australia is in for a severe disappointment.
Australia is pissing off the entire region and all because it doesn't give enough of a fuck to deal with the manageable amount of asylum seekers it does get.
Also Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Asylum Seeker Convention, its actions weaken that for everyone and the victims are people displaced from their countries. Australians should be fucking ashamed, instead you see political parties competing on just how cruel they can be. Rudd sending asylum seekers to what is essentially a concentration camp in an impoverished country, (a former manager of the Manus Island facility stated "In Australia, the facility couldn't serve as a dog kennel. Its owners would be jailed.") or Abbott sending them to a 'tent city' in Nauru, saying "it's a nice place", (I'm sure Abbott would love living in a tent on some island surrounded by desperation in poverty for five plus years.)
Unbelievable.
Why do I get the feeling that this 10x figure is pulled from your arse?Dilbert_X wrote:
Arrival rate is currently 20k/year, if Australia didn't have a robust system the rate would be 10x that, swamping legitimate immigration.With all these boats arriving Australia simply can't cope. We do our fair share through legitimate channels!
Australia's refugee intake is manageable. It's the refusal to deal with it that resulted in the position it is in now with overflowing detention centres as well as ridiculous policies and 'disincentives'. If Australia wanted to be proactive it would actively work on that much touted regional solution. But as Australia would have to take a leading role and accept a significant amount of responsibility that clearly isn't going to happen.
And 'legitimate immigration'? I've already talked about how Australia treats New Zealand immigrants. Basically Australia's immigration policy is to accept only the people it has an immediate use for, can treat like shit, and hopefully dispose of later. This obviously doesn't include desperate people forced from their own country - but look how governments were willing to bend over backwards for Gina Rinehart's Roy Hill project. Believe me, the White Australia policy may be dead but its legacy is alive and well and you, Dilbert, just don't realise it because you fit into it all as a desirable European migrant.
Such a shame that it would be political suicide for any politician to put voice to this messed up situation. Or you'd have to become a Greens MP but no-one listens to the Greens.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
the asylum issue just shows our country's inability to deal with something small. all to win a few bogan votes. er mah gerd swamped by refos! what will we ever do!
The question was why not stay in Indonesia?Ty wrote:
Wow, this kind of shows your true colours here Dilbert. Settle them in a muslim country 'cause they're muslims. I'm sure you're saying this purely out of concern for the poor asylum seekers who would be most comfortable in a culture more similar to their own - at least in terms of religion, (and pretty much nothing else.) It's not like you can be Muslim in Australia without facing persecution - which is unfortunately true with the sort of attitude you're displaying here.
Still, its interesting they prefer to live amongst infidels, in a country run according to capitalist principles which conflict somewhat with Islam.
Nope, the world's refugee situation should be dealt with as every nation who signed the deal agreed - by the UN according to need, not by how deep the 'asylum seekers' pockets are and where they feel like living.I don't think you realise how idiotic this suggestion is anyway. You're essentially saying that the world's refugee situation should be dealt with solely by refugee transit countries. Where's the problem? How about placing an unfair burden on poor, developing and densely populated countries while countries like Australia gets to continue ignoring its responsibility as a global citizen. How about robbing the rights of asylum seekers to get to choose their own destiny.
Asylum seekers don't have 'rights' to pick where they'd like to be, thats not how it works.
Yes, if you don't apply for immigration and take citizenship you have no rights to speak of, bad luck, many temporary residents are shocked when they find this out for some reason.Australia is trying everything it can to avoid responsibility. Idiotic policies like the asylum seeker plans put forward by both the ALP and LNP. Excising the Australian mainland from the migration zone. Refusing to determine whether asylum seekers are refugees of not. In 2001 Australia basically took away most of its migration rights from New Zealand, (which are still in place here for Australian citizens because we're not dicks,) under the argument that asylum seekers attaining New Zealand citizenship, (which is easier to do in NZ than Australia because again, we're not dicks,) would only use it as a back door to get into Australia.
The result of that last one is that New Zealand citizens may get to live and work in Australia but are denied any form of assistance despite being charged for it as well as being denied any realistic road to gaining Australian citizenship. DisabilityCare? Great initiative. If I lived in Australia I'd pay for it but if my leg got bitten off I'd be told to fuck off. Centrelink, student loans, you name it - all things available for Australians in NZ by the way. Russell Crowe - who co-owns a Sydney NRL team, has been featured on an Australian stamp, is a named Australian Living Treasure, is married to an Australian, has two Australian kids, who himself considers himself to be Australian, and who is considered by most as an Australian citizen - is not an Australian citizen. Not because he's an immigrant but because he's a New Zealand immigrant. All due to a stupid fucking policy to deal with a non-issue of refugees finding a 'back door'. How xenophobic can you get?
And yes, if NZ gives away citizenship easily then immgration will look harder at applicants from NZ. I know a few people who looked seriously at NZ as a stepping stone to Aus.
No citizen of any country has the right to immigrate to any other country - where do you get this stuff from?Any asylum seeker staying in Indonesia with the belief that attaining Indonesian citizenship or residency would give them the right to one day immigrate to Australia is in for a severe disappointment.
Illegal immigration, via the tortuous and dangerous route of Indonesia and fishing boats stands at 20k/yr, or peaking at an annualised 50k/yr right now.Why do I get the feeling that this 10x figure is pulled from your arse?
Australia's refugee intake is manageable. It's the refusal to deal with it that resulted in the position it is in now with overflowing detention centres as well as ridiculous policies and 'disincentives'. If Australia wanted to be proactive it would actively work on that much touted regional solution. But as Australia would have to take a leading role and accept a significant amount of responsibility that clearly isn't going to happen.Such a shame that it would be political suicide for any politician to put voice to this messed up situation. Or you'd have to become a Greens MP but no-one listens to the Greens.
Legal immigration, with all the hoops, hurdles, waits, fees, stands at 200k/yr. Do you think if Aus threw open the doors it would be less than 400k/yr?
Half of bloody New Zealand would head here for a start.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-08-01 02:53:40)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
when will people get through their thick heads that the asylum seeker issue has nothing to do with immigration.
That's the thing, they're too thick to understand.
sigh even when i talked to some pro-asylum seeker kids in my lecture today they kept going on about student visas and what not. fucking morons, refugee status =/= immigration.
Surely ^ is a giveaway, they clearly see 'asylum seeking' as one of several routes to immigration, which is how it is being used.Cybargs wrote:
sigh even when i talked to some pro-asylum seeker kids in my lecture today they kept going on about student visas and what not. fucking morons, refugee status =/= immigration.
For people who have no hope of migrating legally its a no-brainer, for others it can be cheaper and quicker than the legal route.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yes, I'm sure escaping persecution by risking your life travelling in a cramped and leaky boat to then be put in a camp for a few years whilst you're assessed for your eligibility to even enter the country is a 'no brainer'
Seriously, the only no brainer is coming from you.
Seriously, the only no brainer is coming from you.
Will they be persecuted in Indonesia?
No?
Why make the trip in the leaky boat then?
No?
Why make the trip in the leaky boat then?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Why didn't you move to Indonesia when you left the UK?
If you're travelling you're going to choose the best place you possibly can.
I can't believe I have to explain the obvious, but there you go showing your density once more.
If you're travelling you're going to choose the best place you possibly can.
I can't believe I have to explain the obvious, but there you go showing your density once more.
And you guys diss America for the Mexican border.............
Err I don't recall many Europeans or Australians dissing America over the Mexican border. Especially since it is mostly unprotected and thousands of migrants cross it every year.
I can't recall ANY Europeans or Aussies on here even bringing it up.Macbeth wrote:
Err I don't recall many Europeans or Australians dissing America over the Mexican border. Especially since it is mostly unprotected and thousands of migrants cross it every year.
The only person who ever made an issue about it was ATG. The rest of the forum couldn't care less. QED the immigration thread having 3 pages most of which are my post.
top.Dilbert_X wrote:
Will they be persecuted in Indonesia?
No?
Why make the trip in the leaky boat then?
l
e
l
Why do you think Indonesia is any more thrilled with receiving asylum seekers than Australia is?Dilbert_X wrote:
Will they be persecuted in Indonesia?
No?
Why make the trip in the leaky boat then?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Because I wasn't fleeing persecution and was able to be picky about where I went?Jaekus wrote:
Why didn't you move to Indonesia when you left the UK?
Right, so they're not fleeing they're travelling, and they're not looking for somewhere safe, they're looking to get to the best place they possibly can.If you're travelling you're going to choose the best place you possibly can.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yeah, you're stupid. Thanks for clearing that up.
Last edited by Jaekus (2013-08-02 02:55:51)